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 a 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 were no chemical weapons 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.
If international inspectors had 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 they would suffer a fierce defeat- such disastrous occurrences happened.
Ne ratez aucun des articles de Dreuz, inscrivez-vous gratuitement à notre Newsletter.
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 ‘Change regime’ policy would force the U.S. Congress to vote a military operation.
First question is: Why not this time?
Second question is: When will Obama admit facts?
Under his authority, the CIA orchestrated the Syrian uprising in the City of Daraa on March 2011, in the very same way that he ordered the CIA to foment Kiev’s coup in 2014.
Same irresponsible aim. Same murdering strategy. Instead of weakening Iran, Barack Obama rushed to conclude the worst deal ever with Tehran, while urging the EU leaders to vote undeserved economic sanctions against and Russia.
As a calamitous result, the ‘Change regime’ policy and its consequences have left both the Middle East and Europe as the biggest slaughtering spots for uncontrolled terrorists.
The European leaders are helpless muppets in the hands of the CIA, and nobody seems to care about what the next plan is.
The CIA and Saudi Arabia are accountable for the creation and financing support of ISIS, as well as of most Sunni rebel groups. Why can’t the truth be told, once for all?
In September 2016, another chemical attack was conducted, shortly before a major conference in London hosted Syrian opposition leaders meeting with their foreign Democrat, Liberal, RINO and Neocon donors.
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 videos 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.
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. inspectors were present during the all 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. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-05/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-unbre94409z-20130505_1_chemical-weapons-sarin-syria
Although the Syrian Army has denied the recent charges, stating that the 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, why do mainstream media reports along with Western nations already adopt the accusations against the Syrian government as fact ?
Similarly to what occurred in 2013, why do these nations seem unwilling to confirm such heavy accusations before taking action?
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 who have a stake in regime change.
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 has been pushing for Western intervention in Syria for years. http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-helmets-ngo-rescue-assist-operation-guise-human-rights/216324/
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 al-Nusra Front, a Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate, with whom they have collaborated with on a regular basis. They have been caught on camera facilitating public executions of civilians in Aleppo and other areas.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is also dubious, but on different grounds. Unlike the White Helmets, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights consists of one person only, an anti-Assad Syrian national known as Rami Abdul-Rahman resident of 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. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Soutenez Dreuz financièrement, cliquez sur : Paypal.Dreuz, et indiquez le montant de votre contribution.
Exactly like in Ghouta, Idlib is under al-Nusra’s domination. Last February, including the Washington Post admitted that Idlib’s ‘moderate’ rebels had been supplanted by al-Nusra and various other terrorist factions in Syria. Aron Lund of the Century Foundation told the WaPo that ‘Idlib is now basically being abandoned to the jihadis’. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-is-eating-us-syrian-rebels-are-losing-out-to-extremists/2017/02/23/f9c6d1d4-f885-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story.html?utm_term=.bca0ac326f3a.
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. Over the weeks prior to the alleged Assad’s chemical attack, several hundred U.S. ground forces were being deployed on the Syrian soil, while reinforcement units were being stationed in Kuwait.
What’s the big plan behind the scene?
On the domestic level
By pleasing the U.S. Democrats on the international level, is President Trump hoping for their support on the domestic level? We do believe that the military option in Syria was a huge mistake.
Firstly, the US Democrat Congressmen cherish a sole goal, which is to win the next year mid-term’s elections. Even if they want to hide their unwillingness to work with President Trump’s team, they will do all they possibly can to block Medicare, tax-cuts and infrastructures’ reforms. Their part is written in advance.
Secondly, as sad as it is to have to notice it, not only hasn’t this action against Syria killed the narrative of possible ties between President Trump’s team and Russia during the presidential campaign, but this sudden reverse position towards Syria tends to present the President and his team as horrifying amateurs. The war in Syria is not new. Wars kill civilians, including little babies. Wars generate bloodsheds. Therefore, to insist or over focus on this unproven Assad’s chemical attack killing dozens may appear quite suspicious, considering what is happening every day in Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere around the globe.
Furthermore, contradictions are never a wise guide. On last Thursday, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikky Haley, declared that policymakers in the United States still viewed Assad as ‘a hindrance’, though adding:
« our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out ».
Later on, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that:
« Assad’s status will be decided by the Syrian people ».
On last Friday, White House Spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed that
« there is a political reality that we have accepted in terms of where we are right now », blaming the Obama’s administration for its inability to force Assad to resign.
« I think that our statement that both U.N. Ambassador Haley gave yesterday and Secretary of State Tillerson reflects the reality that it’s now up to the Syrian people ».
With all the respect and the support we will continue to offer to President Trump, it is impossible to appear more unprepared or more unsteady.
Lastly, everybody is very much aware of who orchestrated the Syrian people’s uprising in the first place. To protect the CIA and the Obama’s Administration might not be a wise move, because we doubt that the CIA will protect Donald Trump any time soon. Or, is Donald Trump now somehow tempted to join with the Bushes, the Clintons, the McCain and the Soros in the so called ‘Deep State’?
Then, what about his consistuency and the fact he’s been elected on his ‘anti-system’ position?
On the international scale
Yesterday’s military operation has obviously sent a calamitous signal that Putin could ever have trust in President Trump. To reassure U.S. allies wasn’t a priority. It was a redundancy. All U.S. allies depend on the United States when it comes to their respective defenses. This dependency has precisely shaped the geostrategical alliances over the past decades, both in the Pacific and in Europe.
In the Pacific, the U.S. has circled China.
As for Europe, the tremendous dependency at all levels isn’t even to be commented.
Therefore, it would have been much smarter to accept a proposed meeting with Putin to deal with the religious internal conflict between Sunni/Shia Islam which has gangrened the whole world with militant terrorist groups.
Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested a meeting with President Trump in the side event of last week’s summit of Arctic countries held in Finland. It didn’t happen, which is utterly regrettable.
You cannot hope for better relationships in forcing a country that it’s been demonized for decades on vicious grounds, and then put the blame on it for refusing its support in discontinuous failing strategies (Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Syria)
Again, the rhetoric question here is: Who created Sunni terrorist groups in the first place (Al-Qaeda IS)?
So what’s the plan in the Middle East?
Various scenarios can be listed. However, the two most expected ones would lead to another disaster.
Iraq and Syria are a mess. A well prepared Russia-U.S. plan would have been very useful if the goal was ever to defeat terrorist groups that somehow regrettably managed to escape from their genitors and western sponsors’ control. The reality shows a much different factuality.
Over the past year, many among terrorist factions have relocated in Europe, Africa, Asia and the United States.
Indeed, what’s left in Iraq and Syria will be ‘defeated’ in the coming months. It will serve as best example of the U.S.’s efficiency.
Meanwhile, if the ‘new’ plan is to remove Assad even before any diplomatic efforts are seriously conducted, does that mean that U.S. backed unreliable rebels would be part of transitory Shia/Sunni governments in each country?
If so, one should learn the lesson from Afghanistan, after the war ended. At some point, Taliban Hamid Karzai was ‘democratically’ sworn in office, meanwhile closely surrounded by an assembly of ex U.S. backed ‘Lords of war’. The Afghans were promised that an international financial support would help them reconstruct their devastated land. They were promised that a local workforce would be hired. At this end of the day, foreign companies returned 70 to 80% of global aid to their own head offices, to be later transferred on various tax heavens’ banking accounts.
Furthermore, the risk is to reach what has been U.S. fomented in Eastern Europe after the USSR’s collapse. The phenomenon is known as ‘Balkanization’. Indeed, the fragmentation of Syria and Iraq between Sunni and Shia small ‘republics’ would hurt the Iranian Mullahs’ regime. However, a restructuration of internal alliances would soon jeopardize the security of the State of Israel. The dogma of divide and rule may not apply in the Islamic world, where hardly any feeling is stronger and more everlasting that the hatred against the Jews on their historic land. A common enemy would strengthen a militant Muslim coalition against the only true democracy in the Middle East. In medium to long term, this option is no option.
The other solution could propose a U.S. protection for both countries in exchange of oil resources’ supervision. Yet, the legitimate local frustration would lead to the development of a nasty feeling against a western imperialistic oppression. More than likely, this would multiply Islamic terror attacks against the Jewish-Christian civilization.
As for Putin, which has repeatedly been vilified, demonized and pushed away from the so-called ‘international decent community’, he’s said on various occasions that he was not opposed to Assad’s removal. He was opposed to reckless conducts. Russia’s main concerns are to protect its own access to the Mediterranean Sea as well as avoid radical Islam to penetrate its territory via the southern borders.
Moscow may very well favor the U.S. project in the end. Nevertheless, different manners and methods could have helped develop deeper ties with the United States. Whether we are ready to face it or not, the present situation has turned absolutely obsolete the old Yalta’s partition of the world. Our time hasn’t entered into the laughable narrative of a post-truth era. The truth is as old as humanity. As an obvious causality, so are lies. Meanwhile, the challenges of our new century demand a global reconfiguration of alliances. The survival of the Jewish-Christian civilization and values are at stake.
Yesterday’s enemy is no longer the ‘worst threat ever’. Militant Islam is. Globalism is. Liberalism is. Liberalism drives an individual to hate himself, hate G’d and hate the truth, while Globalism – which is abundantly financed by Islamic funds- is Militant Islam’s best ally. President Erdogan is very much aware of the western world’s weaknesses and contradictions. So how can we deal with such an ambiguous personality? What about his personal hatred against the Kurdish allies? What about his personal temptation to recreate the Sunni Ottoman Empire? What about the dozens of Mosques he finances each year in Kosovo and other Balkan countries ? What about the Kurdish people and their aim to fight in Mosul with a view to make it the capital of a future Kurdish state? How can it match with a peaceful regional agenda?
I was not born but partly educated on the old continent. Indeed, it is old. Indeed, it is struggling. Indeed, Patriots are determined to fight against its islamisation. They have faith in G’d. They are also fighting for their right to preserve one ultimate human’s privilege: the Cartesian ability to doubt every news event, until solid evidence is produced, not fabricated.
Reproduction autorisée avec la mention suivante : © Mylene Doublet-O’Kane pour Dreuz.info.