A preliminary report published Friday by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no traces of any nerve agent at the site of a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma. The OPCW report states this unambiguously as follows:
"No organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties."
Compare the newly published official OPCW findings with the 5-page White House assessment released on April 13th, just days after the alleged attack. Now contradicted by the new OPCW findings, the White House asserted that sarin was used at Douma,
A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Duma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin.
Joe Quinn
Sott.net
Throughout the 20th century, the US ability to project power and dominate global geopolitics was, to a large extent, based on the general perception that the US was the most powerful military force in the world. In most cases, the mere threat of this military prowess was enough to 'get things done' the American, or Western, way. The maintenance of the widespread belief in US military preeminence is therefore extremely important to the US establishment, and any event that might expose a different reality is to be avoided at all costs. When US/Western military might is physically demonstrated, a careful propaganda campaign and media management of the outcome is necessary, up to and including outright lies about the performance of the military tech used. No surprise there.
In the first 1990 Gulf War, for example, the performance of US Patriot missiles in shooting down Iraqi Scud missiles fired at Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was lauded by Western powers and the media. A 95% success rate was claimed at the time, with then President George Bush claiming that the Patriot's record was "near perfect". Over the following year however, the US Army lowered this estimate to 79% over Saudi Arabian skies and 40% over Israel. A later report by the General Accounting Office concluded that Patriot missiles destroyed only 9% of the Scuds they attempted to engage. The Israeli Defense Force calculated the hit rate at just 2%.
On the night of Jan. 25, 1991 in Tel Aviv, three Patriots that were fired into the air fell back to earth and exploded. Two of them hit residential areas and the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported at the time that one Israeli was killed, 44 were wounded, and 4,156 apartments were destroyed. That incident and a few others like it led Ted Postol, an MIT weapons scientist, to testify before a congressional committee that, "it is possible that if we had not attempted to defend against Scuds, the level of resulting damage would be no worse than actually occurred."
In a documentary aired on Israeli television in 1993, Moshe Arens, who was Israel's Defense Minister in the Gulf War, Gen. Dan Shomron, who was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force during the war, and Haim Asa, a member of an Israeli technical team that worked with Patriots during the war, all dismissed the Patriot anti-missile system. General Shomron described accounts of the Patriot's success as "a myth." Mr. Asa called them "a joke." All concurred with a 1991 report by the Israeli Air Force, which concluded that "there is no evidence of even a single successful intercept" although there is "circumstantial evidence for one possible intercept."
The point being, the US has a track record of lying about the effectiveness of its missiles.
After 100+ cruise missiles or cruise missile variants were fired at targets in Syria early in the morning of April 14th, President Trump declared "mission accomplished" and tweeted that it was "a perfectly executed strike." Pentagon officials said that none of the 105 allied missiles fired were hit by Syria's Soviet-era anti-missile ground systems, that the raids were "precise and overwhelming," and Syrian air defences remained "largely ineffective."
An important point that seems to have gotten lost in the media propaganda offensive is that only 3 locations were targeted and hit. Or, at least, that's the official story. Lieutenant-General Kenneth F. McKenzie told reporters on Saturday that the prime target of the operation was the Barzeh Research and Development Center in the greater Damascus area. A total of 76 missiles, including 57 Tomahawk missiles, were fired at the facility, he said. He also said that 22 missiles were fired against a 'chemical weapons storage facility' near Homs, and some seven missiles at another 'chemical weapons bunker' in the same area.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, confirmed that only those three targets were hit, including the Barzeh 'scientific research centre' in the greater Damascus area, which he claimed was used for research, development, production and testing of chemical weapons, a facility just west of Homs which the US claimed was a centre for sarin gas production, and a command post located near the first facility.
Read more
truthdig.com
Reports on unproven allegations of a chemical attack in Douma, the Syria city formerly occupied by the Army of Islam insurgent group, invariably rely on a key source: The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS). Together with the White Helmets, SAMS has been cited by the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and virtually every Western media organization reporting on the incident. In Douma, SAMS staff have claimed that they treated more than 500 people for symptoms “indicative of exposure to a chemical agent.”
The group also played a central role in shaping the narrative of a sarin attack in Al Qaeda-controlled Khan Sheikhoun in April, 2017, providing biomedical samples to the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which violated its stated protocol by accepting evidence without a verifiable chain of custody. That incident prompted the launching of 57 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base by the American military. Almost exactly a year later, a strikingly similar event is said to have tripped the “red line” again, and is likely to trigger a more robust assault by the US and its allies.
SAMS claims to be a “non-political, non-profit medical organization,” and is cited as a credible authority by media reporting on the incident in Douma. Scant published material is available on the organization’s origins as an exile arm of the Islamist-oriented Syrian opposition, its involvement in sophisticated influence operations from the Turkish-Syrian border, or its close relationship to neoconservative elements in Washington and Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.
SAMS is not merely a group of Syrian doctors tending to the wounded in war torn areas, nor can it be considered an objective source on chemical attacks and other atrocities. The organization is a USAID-funded lobbying powerhouse that functions with a single-minded determination to stimulate a US-led war of regime change that will place Syrian Islamists in power in Damascus.
Read more
Vladimir Rodzianko
The Duran
The US is “still assessing the intelligence” needed to prove the Assad regime conducted a recent alleged chemical attack in Syria, Defense Secretary James Mattis said Wednesday.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis told lawmakers in the US Thursday that the Pentagon does not have any evidence that chlorine or sarin were used in the Syrian city of Douma.
Mattis went on to say that the majority of the claims were coming from mainstream media reports and social media posts – in other words, the rising tensions between nuclear superpowers over an alleged chemical attack in Syria, inching closer towards World War 3, has been all based on ZERO evidence, only fake media reports.
Read more
Comment: Are you seeing the picture now? Assad = Chemical Weapons = Putin = chemical attacks (Skripal) = salvation from Anglo-American-Israel alliance bent on claiming Syria on the road to Iran.
---------------------
Comment: Great article by the maestro and completely ignored in the Western media. Please share.
--------------------
WELT
Seymour Hersh
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world’s media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
The provenance of the photos was not clear and no international observers have yet inspected the site, but the immediate popular assumption worldwide was that this was a deliberate use of the nerve agent sarin, authorized by President Bashar Assad of Syria. Trump endorsed that assumption by issuing a statement within hours of the attack, describing Assad’s "heinous actions" as being a consequence of the Obama administration’s "weakness and irresolution" in addressing what he said was Syria’s past use of chemical weapons.
Read more
See also: An Army of Smear Artists Is Working Overtime to Undermine Sy Hersh's Syria Bombshell
Moon of Alabama
Those who blame the Syrian government for the allegedly chemical
incident in Khan Sheikhun are now pushing the analysis of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the
front. But the results of the OPCW tests are inconsistent with the observed technical and medical facts of the incident.
The OPCW Director General Ambassador Üzümcü, a Turk, yesterday released its first results of his organization:
The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their
autopsy were analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results
of the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at
hospitals were also analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories.
Similarly, the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: "The results of these analyses from four OPCW designated laboratories indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
That's "Sarin or Sarin-like substance" three times a row. Sarin is also
mentioned in the headline. Someone is pushing that meme hard.
But the OPCW did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred in Khan Sheikhun. It suggested nothing about the incident itself. Instead it talked about bio-medical samples - nothing more, nothing less.
A "Sarin like substances" could be a different chemical weapon than
sarin - soman is possible. But many general insecticides belong to the
same chemical class as sarin and soman. They are organophosphorus
compounds. (Sarin was originally developed as insecticide). All of such
compounds could be a source of the exposure found by by the OPCW. These
chemicals tend to degrade within hours or days. A forensic analysis will
not find the original substance but only decomposition products of some
organophosporus compound. That is the reason why the OPCW result is not
fixed on sarin but also mentions "sarin like substances".
The question is now where those samples come from?
And what is the chain of evidence that connects the samples to the
incident in question.
Read more
