Mylene Doublet O’Kane, April 7 2017
In the light of the last developments, why did the use of chemical weapons on Syria’s population of Khan Shaykhun – a city in the rebel-held Syrian province of Idlib – immediately claim Bashar Al Assad’s responsibility? Why was no technical inquiry required to corroborate such powerful condemnation? Was there a foreknowledge of the attack and if yes, cui bono?
The day before the event, Reporter Feras Karam announced it. On his FB page, he wrote: « tomorrow, starting a media campaign to cover the density of air raids on #hama and use #chlorine_ poison against civilians ».
Therefore, several obvious questions emerge.
- How did he know about it in advance?
- Was the operation carried out by the terrorists with a view to destroying the ongoing diplomatic peace process?
- Why have no chemical weapons be taken away from the massacre’s theater to further scientific investigations?
- Let us get logical. Does the Assad’s government benefit from a chemical attack on his own population, when he is winning the war? Obvious answer is NO
- Do terrorist groups and coalition-backed Rebels take a strong advantage in demonizing Assad in the eyes of the so called free world? Yes indeed.
Experts are able to determine the type of gas that killed nearly 80 lives and left 200 injured in Khan Shaykhun. In seven years, they have collected samples of weapons retrieved from Assad. They could have therefore been able to compare them with the arsenal and type of gas occasionally used by the so called moderate opposition rebels against civilians and Damascus led-forces.
Had international inspectors received access to the area, they could have provided a drastic insight on who really conducted the operation. No experts were sent.
- Then, on which solid ground is based the swift condemnation of Assad?
Several other observations can be made
Over the past years, every time the SAA (The Syrian Arab Army) severely struggled to maintain its hold on territories – or as soon as the western coalition would suffer a fierce defeat- such disastrous occurrences happened.
In August 2013, only weeks after Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian population would be considered as « crossing the red line »; a chlorine attack took place in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. At that time, U.N. inspectors were urgently expedited with the hope that the ‘regime change’ policy would force the U.S. Congress to vote a military operation.
- First question is: Why not this time?
- Second question is: When will the Anglozionist-held America admit facts rather than fabricated evidence to push false credibility and hysteria?
In the face of converging objective facts and rational logics (cui bono), little doubt is left that the CIA and the Mossad orchestrated the Syrian uprising “color revolution/Arab spring” that occurred in various Syrian cities (Aleppo, Damascus and the City of Daraa on March 2011, in the very same way that the Libyan “regime change coup” was fomented earlier the same year or that the Ukrainian Kiev’s coup in 2014. Same irresponsible aim. Same murdering strategy. The Latinized Anglozionist hegemon and Saudi Arabia are accountable for the creation and the financial support to Islamic terrorism . Why can’t the truth be admitted, once for all? Syria’s refusal to allow the Qatari-Saudi pipeline cross its territory combined with the Anglozionist “Path to Persia”(IRAN) are the core reasons for a long-planned U.S.-NATO/GCC/IL joint strategy that has destroyed a sovereign nation on illegal bases.
Furthermore, what is also quite suspicious is the nature of the gas itself.
We have all heard that it was a sarin gas attack. However, the expeditious conclusion appears utterly questionable, because footage of the alleged victims contradict symptoms which would normally be associated with sarin gas exposure. In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer, made the following remarks:
« When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was, the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims’ symptoms appeared to be the result of a ‘choking agent’, not a military grade agent ».
At the end of the day, facts are stubborn.
Syria had its chemical weapons’ stock piles destroyed under close scrutiny
In 2014, most American taxpayers were unaware that they were actually paying fortunes to ensure the U.S.-supervised destruction’s process of Syrian chemical weapon armaments and that this operation was being carried out using Russian technologies.
U.N. expert inspectors were present during the whole length of the elimination process. President Obama personally reported on and took all the credit for this, while the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) received the Nobel Peace prize for this precise reason. .The U.N. Commission on Biological and Chemical Weapons even stated that Damascus destroyed its chemical weaponry in 2014.
A United Nations independent commission of inquiry confirmed as early as May 2013 that the rebels- rather than the Syrian government- had chemical weapons in their possession and were using sarin nerve gas against the civilian population.
While the Syrian Army has logically denied the recent charges, stating that the SAA army « has not and does not use [chemical weapons], not in the past and not in the future, because it does not have them in the first place » – a reference to the 2013 agreement whereby the Syrian government dismantled its chemical weapon stores as part of the accord that avoided U.S.-led military intervention, then why do mainstream media reports along with Western nations already adopt the accusations against the Syrian government as solid fact ?
- Similarly to what occurred in 2013, why do these nations seem unwilling to comply with the strict terms of international Law which demand a OPCW-led independent inquiry in such cases before any action is taken? What are they afraid of?
- Why do they easily take the words of two rebel groups as ‘the truth’, despite significant evidence pointing to their disrepute? The truth is that both of the groups have repeatedly come under fire for their ties to pro-intervention institutions, NATO-allied governments and even al-Qaeda – all of whom have a stake and interest in a change regime in Syria.
US-NATO/IL/GCC so-called “trustful sources” : the American firehose of falsehood
- For Instance, the White Helmets were founded by a former British army officer who turned mercenary and frequently worked with Purpose, Inc. – a George Soros-funded PR firm that had been pushing for years a war gainst Syria in strict conformity to the Oded Yinon’s plan. They also receive millions in funding from Western governments, including 23 million dollars from the U.S., and operate almost exclusively in areas held by US-NATO- backed armed, trained al-Nusra Front; a Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate with which they have collaborated with on a regular basis. They have been caught on camera facilitating public executions of civilians in Aleppo and in other areas.
- Furthermore, another “trustful source” -The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights- (SOHR) is also dubious, however, on different grounds. Unlike the White Helmets, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights consists of a single activist ; an anti-Assad Syrian national known as Rami Abdul-Rahman who resides in the United Kingdom. The problem is that Abdul-Rahman’s ‘sources’ in Syria- from which he receives information regarding the war- are always anonymous and never recorded – conveniently making them hardly verifiable.
- In addition, these same two groups provided a lot of the ‘intelligence’ used to blame the Syrian government for the 2013 attack in Ghouta. Quite ironically, once the media hysteria and fabricated outrage in the West had vanished, it emerged that the Syrian army was not the likely culprit behind the attack, but that it had instead been carried out by al-Qaeda-linked rebels in the area.
A year later in 2014, Richard Lloyd, former UN weapons inspector and Professor Theodore Postol of MIT published a joint report revealing that the intelligence used to blame Assad’s forces for the attack was ‘grossly inaccurate’.
- A few months later, Pulitzer Prize award-winner journalist Seymour Hersch confirmed that ‘the al-Nusra rebels in Ghouta had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the attack themselves’. On several occasions, al-Nusra was confirmed to have used chemical weapons against civilians.
Exactly like in Ghouta, the Idlib region is under US-NATO-backed, trained, armed (including with chemical weapons) al-Nusra’s domination and other local terrorist groups with various political agendas.
So again, beyond the narrative, where is the solid evidence proving that Assad conducted the chemical attack?
Puzzling President Trump’s reaction?
It thus came very much as a surprise to many Academics that the United States launched a retaliation military strike on the Syrian government on Thursday 6, 2017. While President Trump was having an official dinner with his Chinese homologue Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago (FL), two US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian government airbase of Shayrat, « where the warplanes that carried out the chemical attacks were based », US officials said. During the weeks prior to the alleged Assad’s chemical attack, several hundred U.S. ground forces had been deployed on the Syrian soil in blatant violation of international law, while other reinforcement units had been stationed in Kuwait.
What’s the big plan behind the scene?
- Firstly, Anglozionist-held private army, namely U.S.-NATO/GCC/IL, plans to partition Syria and Iraq along religious and ethnic lines with a view to creating the world’s biggest energy market in the Middle East. This long-planned scenario totally fits in the theoretical level as envisioned by US-Polish strategist and NSA advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski as early as the mid 1970s. In a 1989 interview, he would boast paternity for the creation of “the mujahideen” as one of the finest weapons to partition sovereign nations into weak micro-nationalities. The next target shall necessarily include ‘a path to Persia’. Furthermore, Syria has 0.01% of energy reserves, but it is a crucial corridor to transiting pipelines to the Mediterranean sea. If the initial additional hope was to remove Russia from her Syrian maritime base of Latakia on the Mediterranean sea shore, I think this is the sign of the most unprofessional and childish military amateurism.
- Second, on the regional front, Israel’s distorted vision of zionism – which originally admitted the right for Israel to exist; not the one to reckless expansionism- aims to impose a military domination on the whole Middle East.
- Lastly, this scenario, as a whole, would allow Saudi Arabia to fulfill its obsessional tyrannical desire to expand its ideological control on the Ummah to the detriment of Iran but more critically, in essence, against the permanent threat of secular nationalism in Muslim sovereign nations.
The regrettable chain of events that went from unsubstantiated narrative to a calamitous and illegal military intervention seems to be a part written in advance which, however, neither resists solid evidence nor rational thinking. French, British and American military agents and technical experts have constantly been reported hiding in tunnels in Eastern Ghouta from where they advise and supervise terrorist groups that conduct gas attacks on sequestered civilian population. Other ground sources (military, humanitarian and civilian) have also reported “make-up” fabricated crime scenes with civilians paid like actors while activists film and send their footage to western media. This reality is actually very much concerning, though consistent with answering the question : Cui bono which directly point to the real instigators whose “Global war against terrorists” is a despicable excuse.
Furthermore, this US retaliatory crusade was the most absurd warning sent to China which supports the Syrian legal government in its fight for its national sovereignty, while president Xi Jinping was on his first official visit to the new President of the United States. Indeed, Hostility does not mean strength. Actually, all the contrary. This action was a sign of profound nervosity and weakness which shall change nothing to the crude reality. The epochal transition from unipolarity to multipolarity is irreversible.
Mylene Doublet O’Kane, April 7, 2017