The White Helmets have offered the world a series of reports showing the horrific aftermath of the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Douma and previously elsewhere. These have been used as ‘evidence’ by the U.S. led coalition, the MSM and the U.N to accuse the Syrian Government of ‘war crimes.’
In April 2015 the White Helmets reported that a chlorine gas attack had occurred in Sarmin in Idlib province. They released a video, uploaded to YouTube, showing the unresponsive bodies of three child victims of the gas attack. They were seen to be rushed into a makeshift medical centre where White Helmets and doctors attempted to resuscitate them. It was extremely harrowing footage and its emotional impact upon its Western audience was entirely understandable. However, emotion has no place in objective inquiry and should certainly not form the basis for allegations of crimes against humanity.
The footage immediately raised suspicions among the medical community. In particular, the ‘Swedish Doctors for Human Rights’ (SWEDHR) were sufficiently concerned to take the brave step of standing up against the global attribution of guilt.
Dr Leif Elinder, a Swedish paediatric specialist, said:
“After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children.”
One scene provided by the White Helmets showed a child receiving a supposed adrenaline injection to the heart. The SWEDHR board endorsed the comments of one of its members Dr Lena Oske who stated:
“Intracutaneous injection with adrenalin may be used if any other resuscitation measure does not succeed. Especially under precarious circumstances – such as in field emergency settings– where safer ways for the administration of medication (i.e. endotracheal, intravenous, or intraosseus) might be difficult or unavailable. But not in the way shown in the video…..If not already dead, this injection could have killed him!”
However, it wasn’t just medical evidence that raised doubts about the authenticity of the narrative we were given. Just prior to the 2017 Oscars, which appear to be an important part of the White Helmet’s propaganda campaign, Human Rights Watch released a report which referenced the alleged 2015 Sarmin gas attack. The report stated that a couple of unnamed witnesses heard the helicopters that allegedly dropped the cannisters. Neither of the quoted witnesses heard explosions and no evidence was offered of anyone ‘seeing’ any helicopters. So there was no evidence that any helicopters dropped chlorine gas, regardless of whose helicopters they may have been.
One named, alleged witness was a White Helmet called Leith Fares. The HRW report states:
“Leith Fares, a rescue worker with Syrian Civil Defence, told Human Rights Watch, ‘A helicopter always drops two barrels. You know, we were at first actually happy,’ Fares said. ‘It is usually good news when there is no explosion.’
This raised questions which should have been answered before making any allegation. If witnesses heard helicopters why didn’t they hear explosions? No matter what they contain, ‘barrel bombs’ burst with a loud detonation and chemical weapons have a distinctive ‘pop’. This is an evidential anomaly that neither HRW nor the U.N bothered to account for. Furthermore, none of the White Helmet’s footage was filmed in any identifiable location. There was no footage shot in the streets of Sarmin. All that was shown were the inside of an apparent field hospital which could have been anywhere. There was no contextual filming which evidenced the footage was even taken in Syria, let alone Idlib.
This does not ‘prove’ that the alleged gas attack didn’t occur. However, the medical evidence did not suggest the victims filmed were treated with any genuine medical expertise; there was no evidence these poor children were victims of a gas attack; there was no evidence that any such attack had taken place in Sarmin and nothing was offered to corroborate the claim that Syrian military helicopters had dropped chlorine filled barrel bombs. Considerable further investigation would have been required in order to substantiate any such allegations. Yet all of this was completely ignored by the Western political establishment and its MSM propaganda machine. Their only apparent interest being to use the allegations as justification for continued attempts at ‘regime change.’
The Western MSM have widely reported that Russia have blocked those investigations. For example, the Guardian reported the Russians had used their veto nine times to block investigations of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria. What it omits to tell you is why the Russian’s used their veto.
In 2013 Russia brokered a deal between the U.N and the Syrian Government to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) started their advanced preparations in October 2013 in Syria. They secured the sites to be inspected in readiness for the arrival of the U.N inspections team. On the day after the U.N chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Syria an alleged Syrian Arab Army (SAA) chemical weapons attack took place in the East Ghouta suburbs of Damascus.
It is important to understand the context of this alleged attack. After repeated allegations by opposition activists of chemical weapons attacks, the Syrian government had agreed to the OPCW and U.N chemical weapons inspections. They had also agreed to destroy their stockpiles of these weapons. They were fighting an insurgency within their own borders and were militarily winning that conflict. Yet, while the U.N inspectors were in their capital, they supposedly chose that moment to launch a chemical weapons attack against the Eastern suburbs of the city where the U.N inspectors were based.
Even without looking at the evidence of the attack it obviously made no sense whatsoever for the Syrian Government to use chemical weapons against its own people, particularly while U.N inspectors were there. They had absolutely nothing to gain from it. It gave them no military advantage and could only possibly benefit their enemies. Anyone with an iota of common sense, while remaining open-minded, would logically have to place the Syrian government at the bottom of any suspect list.
Immediately following the alleged attack the internet was flooded with hundreds of ‘activists’ videos and images coming out of East Ghouta, allegedly showing the victims of the chemical weapons attack. The response from the Western MSM and U.S. coalition immediately pointed the finger at the Syrian government. Russia suggested it was, on balance, more likely that the insurgents had carried out the attacks. Russia was accused of being an Assad apologists for even suggesting such an absurd notion. The U.S, British and French stated, if it was proven the Syrian government were behind the attacks, it would warrant a direct military response.
To be blunt, given what we have already discussed, it had ‘false flag‘ written all over it. However, while that was a reasonable suspicion only the evidence can reveal the facts and only the facts can lead us towards the truth. The inspections took place, and it was ‘confirmed’ by the U.N inspection team that Sarin gas had been used. They found that surface-to-surface rockets delivered the gas to the targeted areas. They were specifically ordered not to attempt to apportion blame. However, by examining impact craters in Muadhamiya and Ein Tarma the report stated the rockets trajectories could be calculated with a ‘high degree of accuracy.’ The U.S. coalition then used this report to ‘prove’ the rockets came from Syrian military positions.
Groups like Human Rights Watch and the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights provided further ‘evidence’ that the Syrian government had used M-14 rockets fired from 333mm Falaq-2 missile launchers. The U.S., British and French claimed they had intelligence and communication intercept ‘evidence’ which also proved the Syrian Government were behind the attack. Russia asked to see that evidence but none was produced. Russia offered evidence that the Syrian opposition groups had chemical weapons capability, but this was rejected by the U.N.
The Western coalition pushed for air strikes against the Syrian government but struggled to get either U.N or domestic approval. The media frenzy calling for war was rabid and included the BBC’s fake news report ‘Saving Syria’s Children‘ on the eve of the UK’s vote to bomb Syria. However, Israel, who lead the world in breaching U.N Security Council resolutions and have a symbiotic relationship with the U.S, attacked Syria anyway.
It soon emerged that all the ‘evidence’ claimed was nothing but a paper thin veneer to cover a predetermined narrative designed to promote U.S. coalition air strikes. Fervently supported by the MSM.
The Guardian wrote that scientist at Porton Down, Britain’s chemical weapons research facility, “will strengthen the consensus that the nerve agent Sarin was used in the deadly attack in eastern Damascus in August.” They went on to describe the lengthy scientific tests that ‘will’ be used to ‘strengthen the consensus.’ Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron led the charge to bomb Syria. He said that Porton Down had confirmed Sarin was used in the attack on East Ghouta, and he was ‘highly confident’ Assad was behind it. So Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov suggested the ‘evidence’ should be presented to the U.N Security Council. UK Prime Minister David Cameron didn’t present any. Why not?
Porton Down reported the gas used didn’t match the batches known to be held by the Assad government. Western Intelligence reports indicated that al Qaeda affiliated ‘rebels’ had seized a cache of chemical weapons in 2012 (prior to the OPCW inspections) when they captured Regiment 111, a large SAA base near the town of Darat Izza, in northern Syria. Scientists and engineers at the U.S. prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) analysed the munitions used, as shown in the ‘activists’ videos and the U.N reports. They proved the rockets used had only a limited 2km range making it impossible that they were fired from Syrian Government territory.
Video analysis of the alleged attack that terrorists claimed killed more than 1400 people demonstrated that they had been staged and manipulated. They included repeated use of the same children’s bodies in different locations; the same children were shown both alive and deceased; there were eyewitness accounts of people smelling the gas despite the fact that Sarin is odourless; images of corpses taken from the Rabaa al Adawiya Square massacre in Egypt were shown as ‘evidence’ of the East Ghouta attack; a total of 8 corpses were seen to have been buried leaving an alleged 1458 corpses unaccounted for.
In most of the video the corpses shown were children, yet no women were seen. The only bodies shown to be buried were adult males but the burial site was not disclosed. East Ghouta had largely been abandoned by nearly all civilians apart from infirm, elderly people unable to travel. The men who remained were predominantly terrorists and ‘opposition activists.’ Less than a month before the alleged attack al Nusra had kidnapped women and children from Alawite villages in the Lattakiah mountains. No one knows what happened to the children.
There was absolutely no evidence to even suggest the Syrian Government had anything to do with the chemical attack on East Ghouta in August 2013. In 2015 Two Turkish MP’s provided evidence that showed the Sarin was smuggled from Turkey to ISIS, who then gave it to al Qaeda operatives in east Ghouta. The aim was to stage a false flag attack in order to compel the U.S. to use direct military force (instead of just their proxy terrorist army) to help the terrorists set up the ‘Salafist principality’ in Syria, as favoured by Ankara.
None of this stopped the U.S. led coalition of imperial powers insisting that the ‘Assad regime’ were responsible. They continued to do so even when all the actual evidence emerged which proved they weren’t. The Western MSM simply ignored all of this evidence or claimed, in a few articles hidden away between the latest celebrity gossip and the sports pages, that all the evidence was part of a Russian plot or the deranged machinations of ‘conspiracy theorists.’
History repeated itself in 2017 when Assad was once again accused of a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, in Idlib province, which killed 80 people. In response, the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, who had come into office promising to end foreign wars of intervention, authorised a missile strike on Al Shayrat airfield in an alleged attempt to damage Syrian air capability, to stop them launching chemical weapons attacks.
Coincidentally, al Shayrat airbase was the centre of Syrian operations against ISIS forces around Homs and Palmyra. Syrian forces had used it to gain a growing military advantage over ISIS. The missile strike greatly reduced the number of air strikes against the terrorists. Therefore, irrespective of whether it was used to deliver a chemical weapons attack, the missile strike on al Shayrat was yet another example of the U.S. effectively providing tactical air support for ISIS.
Once more the claimed Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack made no sense from a Syrian military or diplomatic perspective. The Syrian government were making significant progress in both Hama and Idlib then, for no conceivable military reason, supposedly launched a chemical weapons attack in Idlib, in full knowledge it would risk U.S. led coalition military reprisals against their forces. Again, they had nothing to gain. In addition, talks were due to restart in Brussels to try to resolve the situation and ‘automatic regime change’ was not a prerequisite for the discussions (as it had consistently been on previous occasions). If the allegations were to be believed then Assad was obviously determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
However, the evidence that Bashar al Assad, who had fought to maintain his nation for 6 years, wanted to continue to destroy it was overwhelming, or so we were led to believe. This ‘evidence’ largely came in the form of a shed load of White Helmet videos that showed ‘the reality’ in Khan Sheikhoun. These were the White Helmets led by Islamist extremist Mustafa al-Haj Yussef who advocated killing any and all Syrians who committed the heinous crime of voting.
The U.S. media released what they laughingly called a ‘Declassified U.S. Report on Chemical Weapons Attack.’ This anonymous, four page pamphlet had supposedly collated all the intelligence assessment evidence which proved Sarin gas had been used by Syrian forces. Remarkably, despite the fact that U.S. National Intelligence Assessments involve coordination between seventeen separate agencies and take at least two to three weeks to complete, the White House (presumably – no one knows because nobody signed it) managed it in less than a week.
The pamphlet stated the U.S. government were ‘confident’ that Sarin had been used. They were not willing to say they ‘knew’ or were ‘certain,’ merely ‘confident.’ They reported their confidence was based upon, satellite images and communications intercepts which proved the plane that dropped the alleged chemical weapon, flew out from al Shayrat airbase, but then added:
“we cannot publicly release all available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods.”
Were they really suggesting they thought no one knew the U.S. military industrial complex had satellites or surveillance technology? Apparently so. However, the point remains that they didn’t show anyone any of the ‘evidence’ they claimed to have. Again there was nothing which demonstrated a chemical weapon had been dropped by a Syrian government aircraft. They simply asserted it without offering any proof.
Another peculiarity, while they dedicated seven whole paragraphs to outlining their evidence, they dedicated eight to argumentative points. It is unusual for a document which purports to provide evidence to dedicate more than half of its content to irrelevant allegations. This rant against Russia was entirely superfluous to the issue in hand. What did a U.S. spat with Russia have to do with the evidence of a chemical weapons attack? Russia had suggested a number of alternative possibilities, such as use of chemical weapons by terrorists or chemicals released as a result of an air strike upon a terrorist chemical weapons storage facility. In reply the report alleged:
“The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks.”
Why did the Trump administration need to even mention ‘alternative’ theories? Surely the purpose of their document was to provide evidence which proved how the attack occurred and who was responsible? They either had a case or they didn’t. What did argumentative points have to do with it?
The truth was, without an investigation on the ground, nobody, other than the guilty, knew what happened with any certainty. The Suggestion that a chemical factory may have been hit came from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS,) an organisation of retired U.S. intelligence officers. It is entirely reasonable to consider all possibilities if no one knows, with any certainty, what happened. Both Syria and Russia admitted they had launched conventional bombing raids against terrorist targets that day. They even admitted that they may well have hit a chemical weapons storage facility. All possibilities should have been explored. Yet the U.S. document effectively alleged this was evidence of a Russian cover up. Which it wasn’t.
Apart from secret evidence, the report was also based upon ‘analysis’ of YouTube videos and social media posts put up by the White Helmets and other ‘activists.’ The report stated:
“We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and other reporting of chemical attacks. Doing so would have required a highly organised campaign to deceive multiple media outlets and human rights organisations….”
If you are struggling to come to terms with the implausible reality that the U.S. government were alleging war crimes, and threatening military action, based upon YouTube, Twitter and Facebook posts, you’re not alone. They presented not a single piece of evidence that the Syrian military were in any way responsible, and they never have. Yet they concluded:
“The Assad regime’s brutal use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and poses a clear threat to the national security interests of the United States……the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons will not be allowed to continue.”
Even a cursory examination of the ‘evidence’ revealed this was precisely the miserable crap it appeared to be. Prof. Theodor Postol from MIT, possibly having reviewed the ‘declassified report’ for nearly two minutes, stated:
“The report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun.”
So MIT again reviewed the ‘evidence’ presented by the U.S. government. Professor Postol (Emeritus of Science, Techology and National Security Policy) issued a 14-page report which meticulously and diligently destroyed the woeful dross offered up by the Trump administration. In particular Prof Postol questioned the authenticity of images showing alleged investigators at the scene, examining the Sarin cannister and crater damage.
Firstly the images showed people wearing paper masks, open necked shirts and rubber gloves handling the alleged Sarin cannister in the release crater. In which case, if it was Sarin, they would have all died. This suggested that they either didn’t have a clue what they were doing or they were confident there was no Sarin.
The wind direction on the day meant the victims would have been in a different location, 300 meters away from the one shown. Furthermore, the deformation of the Sarin cannister showed it had been crushed by an external force, as opposed to detonation from within in an explosion. This crushing suggested a charge, packed around the end of the cannister of alleged Sarin liquid, which would have been jettisoned like toothpaste, squeezed from a tube, following ground impact. Therefore, the cannister shown was entirely inconsistent with an airborne bomb, which explodes, splitting open the container. Rather, the crushed cannister was evidence of a ground based weapon such as a short range, improvised rocket.
Analysis of the White Helmets videos, reportedly showing the victims of the alleged Sarin gas attack, appeared to be another unconvincing medical nonsense. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the following about Sarin:
“Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents………..Following release of Sarin into the air, people can be exposed through skin contact or eye contact. They also can be exposed by breathing air that contains Sarin……..A person’s clothing can release Sarin after it has come in contact with Sarin vapor, which can lead to exposure of other people……..Because Sarin vapor is heavier than air, it will sink to low-lying areas and create a greater exposure hazard there………..Exposure to large doses of Sarin by any route may result in the following harmful health effects: loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure possibly leading to death”
Sarin (in its vapour state) is a colourless, odourless gas that lingers at ground level (denser than air), its particulates stick to exposed surfaces, such as human skin, and touching or inhaling it is usually fatal. This means that any emergency response in the immediate aftermath of a suspected Sarin attack must be undertaken by properly trained personnel, wearing the correct personal protective equipment (NBC suits.) Not doing so would simply result in adding first responders to the casualty list.
Therefore, the released footage showing White Helmets handling victims in the street, where they allegedly fell, without wearing gloves or protective clothing were ludicrous. Other videos of the rescue scene showed people standing around in the background in shorts and T-shirts. Then there were the eyewitnesses who reported the nasty smelling gas cloud, so not Sarin. Far from ‘proving’ a Sarin attack they appeared to categorically rule out the possibility. Yet it is this footage which the White House cited as its ‘evidence.’
In response to the allegations coming from the terrorists and the White Helmets the U.N ordered the OPCW to begin a fact finding mission. They stated, from the outset, their mission was to determine whether chemical weapons had been used, not to ascribe blame. However, rather than carry out their fact finding in Syria they planned a ‘rapid deployment’ to somewhere else. The OPCW stated:
“For security reasons, the FFM was unable to visit Khan Shaykhun. The rapid deployment to a neighbouring country, however, enabled the team to attend autopsies, collect bio-medical samples from casualties and fatalities, interview witnesses and receive environmental samples.”
Therefore, from the outset, the OPCW were reliant upon terrorist groups and U.S. coalition funded White Helmets, like Islamist extremist Mustafa al-Haj Yussef, for their ‘evidence.’ They had no way of knowing where the samples or bodies came from. They just believed whatever the terrorists told them.
In response Bashar al Assad formerly invited the OPCW investigators to Syria. Furthermore, both Russia and Iran proposed the U.N should send investigators to Syria to carry out investigations where the incident allegedly took place, rather than somewhere it didn’t; they suggested the investigation should also look at how the weapons were deployed and who used them; they also requested that investigators visit the al Shayrat airbase to assess if the U.S. led coalition’s claims were true.
However, these requests, which were not intended to stop the proposed U.N investigation but rather expand it, were blocked by the U.S. coalition countries. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said:
“Yesterday [April 20], our proposal that experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] visit the sites of the suspected chemical attack in Syria was blocked by Western delegations without any explanations.”
Regardless of what the Western MSM have told you about Russian vetoes, it appears the U.S. coalition only wanted the OPCW to base their investigation on ‘evidence’ supplied to them by Assad’s sworn enemies. Any suggestion that the OPCW should independently investigate the coalition’s claims were ignored and attempts to broaden the OPCW remit were stymied by the West.
Consequently, you could drive a truck through the holes in the evidence in the OPCW report. Firstly they claimed they couldn’t visit the attack site because it was unsafe in ‘rebel’ territory. Why? Weren’t these the ‘opposition forces’ fighting for freedom and democracy? Weren’t they the face of the revolution supported by the U.S. led coalition, touted as freedom fighters by the entire Western MSM? What were the U.N delegation so frightened of? Could it be because the so called freedom fighters were actually ISIS, Jabhat al Nusra, Nour al-Din al-Zenki and a range of other Islamist extremists?
The report stated:
“The high security risk of a site visit to Khan Shaykhun, which is currently in a situation of armed conflict and under the control of a listed terrorist organization (Nusrah Front), outweighed the benefits to the investigation.”
This all seemed very weird because these were the same people who had given them all the evidence with which to accuse Assad in the first place. These terrorists supported by the U.S. coalition were too dangerous for their own investigators to go anywhere near, yet entirely trustworthy when it came to claiming chemical weapons attacks. It also suggested that the White Helmets were equally under the control of al Qaeda. Consequently, the investigation had no proof of the evidential chain of custody (where the evidence came from.) Of course, by not going to the scene, it also ensured that any evidence which challenged the predetermined narrative wouldn’t be uncovered either.
The OPCW went to great lengths to prove there was a crater. This was a waste of time and paper. No one disputed the existence of the crater, the question was how did it get there. The only person who made any meaningful analysis of the crater (based upon the images supplied by al Qaeda) was Dr Postol from MIT, and he demonstrated that it was almost certainly not the result of an airborne attack. The OPCW made no reference to his extensive research.
However, it was the OPCW conclusions about the Sarin used that was perhaps most confusing. The report stated:
“…..the Fact Finding Mission had concluded that a large number of people, some of whom had died, had been exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance”
To make such a conclusion, as the OPCW never investigated the alleged site of the attack, it must have been based upon sample analysis either taken from the corpses or provided by the terrorists. Surely they can’t have reached such a definitive conclusion simply by watching a few terrorist propaganda videos? So which was it? Sarin or something like Sarin? Syria is a modern technological society perfectly capable of producing Sarin, not something like Sarin, but 100%, military grade Sarin. However, a bunch of terrorist working in a makeshift lab might struggle to get it bang on. Unfortunately the OPCW just confused the issue further. They insinuated, though it only remained ‘likely,’ that the Sarin had come from Syrian stockpiles:
“The Sarin identified in the samples taken from Khan Shaykhun was found to have most likely been made with a precursor (DF) from the original stockpile of the Syrian Arab Republic”
However, in 2014, following OPCW inspections of Syrian chemical weapons facilities, they declared they had destroyed all stockpiles, equipment and facilities related to chemical weapons production in Syria. Something which the OPCW alluded to in their report:
“During the removal of the stockpile belonging to the Syrian Arab Republic in 2014, OPCW collected samples from the Sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride (DF) before the rest of the stockpile was destroyed.”
Again confusion reigned. Did they destroy the stockpiles or not? If they did then where did this stuff come from? Could it have come from the Sarin they couldn’t destroy because it was in the not so friendly ‘rebel’ held territory? Could it have been the Sarin captured by al Nusra from Regiment 111 at Darat Izza? They just didn’t say. Not that it mattered much because they didn’t even clarify if it was Syrian, military grade Sarin or the ‘Sarin like substance’ they had identified.
The U.N knew there was some evidence the rebels had used chemical weapons, but ruled out this possibility in respect to Khan Sheikhoun. This was despite the fact that an MIT scientist had offered specific evidence that suggested that to be a strong possibility. In 2013 Carla Del Ponte, from the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria said:
“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof, of the use of Sarin gas. This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.”
Only four years later, the OPCW had completely forgotten that it was entirely feasible the terrorists had used chemical weapons at Khan Sheikhoun. They simply ignored their own evidence that strongly suggested this possibility. However, their refusal to consider anything that questioned their preferred narrative soon revealed itself as a preposterous absurdity.
In a startling coincidence, just as before the 2013 East Ghouta Sarin release, reports emerged that Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham and Jaysh Al-‘Izza had kidnapped people from Khattab in northern Hama shortly before the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attack. These reports remain unconfirmed. However, in Annex II of the OPCW report, in a statement that thoroughly rebuts their own conclusion, the U.N investigators reported:
“…….several hospitals appeared to have begun admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours……….Analysis of the records revealed that in 57 cases, patients had been admitted to five hospitals before the incident (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 of those cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours, while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours.”
Posing the glaringly obvious question, if these poor people didn’t come from Khan Sheikhoun, where were they from? Additionally, If they weren’t gassed in Khan Sheikhoun, where were they gassed, who gassed them and why were certain groups claiming they were murdered in Khan Skeikhoun if evidently they weren’t?
The OPCW described this scything evidential inconsistency as an ‘irregularity’ and decided this was probably due to bad record keeping. Rather than considering written hospital records to be reliable evidence they instead decided that White Helmet videos from within terrorist controlled territory was a more plausible source. It was beyond ridiculous that the OPCW then admit they didn’t even investigate these discrepancies.
Instead, the OPCW produced a report based exclusively on ‘evidence’ given to them by terrorists. They had no proof at all where that evidence had come from. They failed to clearly identify the substance used, couldn’t logically establish who had used it and ignored any and all evidence which didn’t fit with their clearly predetermined conclusion. Oblivious to all these evidential inconsistencies they still asserted Assad’s guilt.
The OPCW’s evidence free conclusion that the Syrian Arab Army and Bashar al Assad were responsible for the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was based upon nothing at all. It was fake news designed to support regime change at the behest of the U.S. military industrial intelligence complex. The West’s attribution of guilt lacked corroborating evidence and was not the result of rigorous, objective inquiry. The ‘evidence’ undermined their conclusion. There is no reason at all to think Assad ordered the alleged chemical attack.
Russia, Iran, Syria, China and all the other countries, who have objected to Anglo-U.S. prescribed investigations, have no reason to trust any U.N inquiries where the remit is set by the Western imperialist powers. The U.S. led coalition blocked the initiative to expand the investigation to verify their own claims about Syrian culpability but accused Russia of obstruction when they refused to go along with their carefully limited, nonsensical findings. It appears all the West wanted was the U.N to rubber stamp their air strike.
A year later the West, once again, alleged a chemical weapons attack. This time in Douma. It’s the same story replayed in exactly the same way by the same people. The ‘evidence’ came from the British funded terrorist, propaganda organisation the White Helmets, and the British government were the cheerleaders for a ‘military response.’ It is impossible to understand why the Syrian government would authorise the attack. Again, it provided them with no identifiable advantage. Notably U.S. President Donald Trump had recently indicated his intention to withdraw U.S. Forces from the region. Which obviously explains why Assad would choose that moment to use chemical weapons. Presumably because he was desperate to encourage the U.S. bombardment of his country to continue.
Douma was the last occupied town in Syria (other than the northern Kurdish held territory.) The area was being cleared, and the survivors of the Jaish al Islam terrorist occupation were finally being freed. On the verge of total victory, the Western MSM want you to believe that this was the moment Bashar al Assad decided to gas his own people. I don’t know if he did or not but there isn’t any evidence to support the allegation. On balance, it seems extremely unlikely.
The only evidence offered thus far to substantiate these highly dubious claims are internet videos which, once again, do not show the filming location. There are claims from unnamed medical sources who say they treated people for Chlorine gas inhalation and uncorroborated reports of more than 500 deaths. The evidence that a chemical gas attack occurred as described is weak and there is none at all to indicate Syrian government responsibility.
Once more, we were shown appalling images of child suffering. It was soul-destroying and highly emotive. However, Western politicians are currently threatening a potential war with Russia based upon videos supplied to them by terrorists. This could lead to the deaths of millions of children. The BBC reported:
“Cabinet ministers have agreed ‘on the need to take action’ in Syria to ‘deter the further use of chemical weapons’, Downing Street has said.
Ministers at a cabinet meeting said it was ‘highly likely’ the Assad regime was responsible for a suspected chemical attack. They agreed that the use of chemical weapons must not ‘go unchallenged.’………..President Trump spoke to the prime minister on Thursday evening, and the pair agreed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had ‘established a pattern of dangerous behaviour in relation to the use of chemical weapons.”
A statement from Downing Street added: “They agreed to keep working closely together on the international response.”
An international (military) response to what? Terrorist videos!? The British and U.S. government claims were based upon nothing other than speculation. Yet the BBC uncritically reported whatever the government told them. They offered a pronouncement by the Prime Minister:
“Mrs May has said ‘all the indications’ are that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad, which denies mounting a chemical attack, was responsible for the alleged attack in the formerly rebel-held town of Douma.”
‘All the indications’ were given to Prime Minister Theresa May by Jaish al Islam (who throw gay people off buildings.) Similarly, Bashar al Assad’s denials mean nothing. The only thing that matters are the facts, and those claimed by Islamist extremists should be vigorously questioned. Next the BBC blithely passed on this little tit-bit.
“Sources say the PM is prepared to take action against the Assad regime without first seeking parliamentary consent.”
Under the British constitution the Prime Minister is empowered to exercise ‘Royal perogative’ which means Theresa May does have the power to start a war if she likes. This is the ‘democracy’ we live in. However, that does not mean her decision would be legal under international law. With the U.S. ‘Truman carrier strike group’ heading towards the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, at the time there was genuine reason for alarm. Sadly most people are either misinformed or indifferent. This MSM’s role is to keep it that way.
Following the alleged attack in Douma the Russian and Syrian authorities gave firsthand witness accounts to the OPCW in the Hague from Hospital staff and children videoed by the White Helmets who stated that their was no chemical weapons attack. This included the testimony of 11 year old Hassan Diab, highlighted in the White Helmets video and used as evidence to justify the U.S led coalition missile strike. Hassan stated that he had no idea why a bunch of White Helmets suddenly grabbed him and started filming themselves pouring water all over him. Hospital doctors confirmed their were no gas attack victims brought to them for treatment.
In response the Western MSM reported allegations that these witness statements were an ‘obscene masquerade‘ and strongly insinuated the witnesses had been coerced into giving false eyewitness accounts. If they had presented any evidence to back up this claim this would have been excellent journalism. Witness testimony, especially their motivations for providing it, should be questioned. This is the proper function of a free and critical media. Unfortunately the Western MSM offered no evidence. The claim that these witnesses were lying was unsubstantiated. As were the claims that the alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma occurred. All we have are allegations made by terrorist groups like Jaish al Islam, backed up by inconclusive video evidence offered by the Western funded White Helmets, and counter claims by Douma Dr’s and eyewitnesses, which were at least backed up by medical records and other firsthand testimony.
Ostensibly there is no more reason to believe the denials of the Douma eyewitnesses than there is to believe the allegations which the British, French and U.S government used to launch missile strikes. If the denials can be described as an ‘obscene masquerade’ so to can the the allegations. The only thing that matters is the evidence. Based upon previous false allegations of chemical weapons attacks, for which the evidence is quite clear, we may have good reason to find one position more plausible than the other but, without a proper investigation of the evidence, in regard to the alleged Douma attack, this remains no more than a suspicion.
Again Russia, China, Syria and Iran and others attempted to broaden the OPCW investigation. In fact it was Russia, not any U.S led coalition member state, who requested the OPCW investigate the Douma site. Of course you wouldn’t know this if you simply rely upon the Western MSM for your ‘news.’ The Syrian government gave full, unfettered access to the alleged site of the attack in Douma with Russia guaranteeing the inspectors safety. The advanced OPCW team were in Syria waiting for the inspectors to arrive when the U.S, UK and France, without a U.N Security Council sanction, in contravention of international law, unilaterally decided to attack Syria anyway. By doing so they destroyed the sites, which the OPCW had declared to be clear only months prior, where the chlorine gas was supposedly manufactured before the OPCW had any opportunity to investigate the evidence.
Why would they do that?
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Be the first to comment on "Douma Chemical Weapons Attack – Another Absurdity"