Source: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/
The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch
missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of
chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.
After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump,
which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical
weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using
grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening
before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and
allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included
103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were
intercepted.
For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the
UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied
on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the
Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates
in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and
executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani,
a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts,
for example of former Jaysh al-Islam
leader, Zahran Alloush.
This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the
highly partial, USAID-funded, US State
Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like
Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.
On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services
Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or
chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.
Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted,
requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a
team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.
President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm
his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would
arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the
attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.
General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the
president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use
military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”
But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a
sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President
Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:
“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United
Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international
law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of
the fight against terrorism has been committed.”
What if chemicals
had been at targeted locations?
In the same Pentagon briefing,
General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging
they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical
weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh
scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford
claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of
chemical and biological warfare technology.”
This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of
Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar
Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of
a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close
to the homes of the people around.”
Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum
damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”
If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them
really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the
logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in
or near densely populated areas?
Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media,
SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical
Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical
compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is
particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines
sales to Syria are prohibited.
Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s
description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal
components. One article includes Said’s
logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to
stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”
Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been
visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical
weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in
the April 14 UN Security
Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an
official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any
type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to
Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.
Bombings based on
Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims
The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria
is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used
chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria
would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and
allies would benefit from staged attacks.
The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies
in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of
Syria’s culpability, including the following:
"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and
administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients'
seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are
seen in the background working on a real patient.”
Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two
men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred.
One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they
had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based
on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any
patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.
In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British
Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the
accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.
“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent.
Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but
the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not
produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If
the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying
and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s
not even a dodgy dossier this time.”
Israel and America
benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons
script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to
the ongoing Israeli slaughter
and maiming ofPalestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted
assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17
unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions.
Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts
from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish
corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are
turned elsewhere.
According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on
Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons
from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of
international law.”
The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used
chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and
Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.
In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes
when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were
civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their
homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documentednumerous
instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.
If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US
taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations
— and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should
outrage.
However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely
Trump’s threats to Syria:
“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and
the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party
in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been
goading Trump into launching attacks.”
By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly
avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had
global ramifications, to say the least.
The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and
cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their
unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game
and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern
for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians
suffer from terrorism and sanctions.
No comments:
Post a Comment