Syrians At Site Of Chemical Attack Say Saudi-Backed Rebels To Blame

This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News (also of the Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh. 

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

Saudi involvement

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.
“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.
“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.
“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.
The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:
His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.
Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.
Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”
But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.
Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:
Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.
It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.
Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates . 

Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at
Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism,  He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

[NOTE: This is Google's cache of It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 29 Aug 2013 19:17:55 GMT. Thecurrent page could have changed in the meantime. ]

On the eve of war with Syria John Kerry’s “Colin Powell moment”

 27 August 2013

Yesterday US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on national television to deliver a lying statement aimed at preparing public opinion for an impending US-NATO attack on Syria. It was his very own “Colin Powell moment.”

On February 5, 2003, Powell, then the Secretary of State in the Bush administration, made an infamous presentation before the United Nations. For two hours, armed with photos, graphs, and audio tapes, the chief diplomatic officer of the United States made the case for war against Iraq. He claimed that the evidence he presented showed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which it was about to unleash on the world.

The media and politicians of both parties hailed Powell’s performance, declaring that the former general had made an overwhelming case that Iraq had enormous WMD programs. Six weeks later, bombs fell on Iraq as the US invasion began.

Powell’s speech was a pack of lies. Not one of his claims about yellowcake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, or mobile weapons labs was true. At the time, the WSWSwrote that the brief for war was “a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism and deceit… predicated on a colossal lie: that the coming invasion is about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Baghdad’s supposed threat to US security and world peace.” And so it proved to be.

The speech ten years later by Kerry was no less dishonest, no less cynical. Indeed, by comparison, Powell’s presentation was a masterpiece of detail.

Kerry’s entire case against the Syrian regime consisted of a general moral denunciation of chemical weapons. Describing “gut-wrenching images” of casualties from the alleged chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, he said: “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.”

The United States government and its allies in Britain, France, and Germany are in no position to lecture the world on the “moral obscenity” of chemical warfare or anything else. A complete documentation of the war crimes and atrocities carried out by American and European imperialism would fill many volumes.

Washington has poisoned entire Iraqi cities with depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Earlier, it dropped 75 million liters of Agent Orange—a chemical weapon—on Vietnam, affecting millions of people. The US is the one country in the world that has used nuclear weapons on defenseless cities—not once, but twice, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Together with the European imperialist powers—who pioneered the use of poison gas—they are collectively responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

While invoking the “moral obscenity” of indiscriminate killings with chemical weapons, the Obama administration continues to fund the Egyptian military junta, which over the last month has slaughtered thousands of unarmed protesters in the streets.

Kerry could not present a single fact, beyond his own lurid allegations, to justify the claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces carried out a chemical attack in Ghouta.

Instead, he said: “Our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense … Chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets.”

Such arguments prove nothing. Though Kerry preferred not to mention it, it is well known that US-backed opposition militias have access to chemical weapons and have used them. Opposition groups have posted YouTube videos bragging of their ability to manufacture poison gas, and UN officials have repeatedly stated that investigations inside Syria showed that opposition forces, not the Assad regime, were responsible for previous chemical attacks.

The CIA, which has been transformed into a heavily-armed global paramilitary organization, has access to such weapons and could easily make them available to the opposition.

Kerry’s claim that his accusations against Syria are grounded in “common sense” is false: common sense, applied to the situation in Syria, leads one precisely to the opposite conclusion.

The opposition is on the run, losing the war; their only hope is massive military intervention by their backers in the US, Europe, and the Middle East. The chemical weapons attack—previously described as a “red line” by the Obama administration—provides the desired pretext for this intervention.

In another remarkable statement, Kerry gave a back-handed acknowledgment that Washington does not intend to offer proof of its allegations against Assad. He stated, “as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the UN investigation will not determine who used the chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.” That is to say that, regardless of what the investigation shows about the identity of the attackers, Washington will seize upon it as a pretext to attack the Syrian government.

After demanding that Syria allow “unrestricted” access to investigate the alleged attack, Kerry responded to the government’s acquiescence to this demand by declaring that it doesn’t matter anyway, since it was “too late to be credible.” All the demands are simply intended to pave the way for war. Short of opening up the country to foreign occupation, there is nothing the government could do to satisfy the ultimatums of US imperialism.

Only months after his 2003 speech on Iraq, it was clear that Powell had lied through his teeth. In the months ahead, Kerry, the one-time anti-Vietnam war protester, will also be caught up by the web of lies underlying the US war drive against Syria.

Alex Lantier

The Moral Obscenity of John Kerry’s Chemical Weapons Speech

August 26, 2013  | by Scott Creighton

Sec. Kerry’s obtuse and stunningly hypocritical speech on the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a sight to behold. It is morally obscene in a way that I cannot even begin to accurately convey to you readers.
“President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.” Sec. Kerry
The facts on the ground surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons, our terrorists in Syria being the likely culprits if such weapons were indeed used and the timing of the statement being made just days after Obama’s administration asked for total immunity for the war criminals of the Bush administration who really did kill a million Iraqis with WMDs … it all suggests a level of disregard of basic human decency on a scale that is shocking to behold… and tragically almost commonplace in Westernized politics these days.

Then you consider that what the “honorable” secretary is calling for is more bombing, more bloodshed and more needless deaths of innocent women and children in pursuit of profits for the international bankers and corporations that literally feed upon such wanton carnage.

It is a moral obscenity of near biblical proportions.

But first, a little background on the situation on the ground:

The United States has no evidence that chemical weapons were even used in Syria, much less anything to determine who used them. In fact, someone shot at the UN inspectors as they were entering the area of the alleged attack, hoping the inspectors were turn back and as it just so happens, the US asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to turn back after the sniper attack. As if the official US position is that they don’t want anyone actually looking at the hard evidence itself. Rather odd position to take, wouldn’t you say?
“The U.N. weapons inspectors arrived at the site after the U.S. delivered a caution to Mr. Ban, telling him it was no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless, said a person familiar with the matter.” Wall Street Journal
But then again, the US, after making a big deal about Assad taking too long to grant access to the site of the latest alleged attack, didn’t actually want inspectors to travel to the site in the first place.
“The American message to Mr. Ban as of Sunday was that the U.S. believed there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission, a senior official in Mr. Obama’s administration said. The administration also told the U.N. that the U.S. didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence owing to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling, this person said.” Wall Street Journal
Their position that the evidence would be gone after only a few days is preposterous. Signature traces of chemical weapons would remain in the area, the soil, the vegetation, the clothing of the victims, for a very long time. That to say nothing of the remnants of the shells that delivered the chemical agents.

Keep in mind, the foreign fighters in Syria attempting to destabilize the nation, are there on behalf of Western interests. We are training and equipping these terrorists. They are, for all intents and purposes, the proxy terrorists of the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and a handful of other interested nations.

In light of the fact that the UN inspectors did not turn tail and run as they were supposed to, Sec. of State Kerry gave a rather ridiculous speech in an effort to turn up the heat on Syria and create a rush to go to war.

And now, the speech itself (video below):

For his performance (and that’s all you can call it) Sec. Kerry summed up all of the righteous indignation he could muster as he spewed forth one of the most stunninglyhypocritical and morally vapid monologues I have heard in recent times.

We will take it point for point (full text, here)
“What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusableand — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.” Sec. Kerry
Let us forget for a second that the only evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria this past week are some cobbled together promo videos, produced by fighters, paid by us, who wish to have the world believe that the “red line” has been crossed and the NATO bombs to rain down on the Syrian people who do not support their al Qaeda / al Nursra “rebellion”

Let’s just take Sec. Kerry at his word. Let us assume that he means the indiscriminate killing of innocent bystanders and women and children by ANY means is inexcusable. Would NAPALM by acceptable? Would a smart bomb be alright? How about a car bomb or an Ak-47 for that matter? Are these acceptable ways to kill women and children in Sec. Kerry’s mind?

Is the chemical weapons that constitute the “moral obscenity” or the victims? He doesn’t make that clear and there is good reason for that: because the United States, my home, is the single greatest perpetrator of collateral murder in the history of mankind.

Bar none. No exceptions.

We don’t have to go back to the firebombing of Japan or the atomic bombs we dropped on two cities well after the war was all but done. We don’t have to go back to the bombing of Cambodia or Vietnam either. We don’t have to go back count the 500,000 children who died as a direct result of sanctions imposed on Iraq which the then Sec. of State said was ‘acceptable” on national television.

We don’t even have to go back as far as the million dead Iraqis who perished as a result of our Shock and Awe campaign, which specifically calls on bombing civilian infrastructure in order to terrorize the population into absolute submission.

You haven’t got to go that far back.

Just go back to last week when the Obama administration requested immunity for the previous administration for waging a criminal war of aggression on Iraq in which countless women and children, innocent in every meaning of the term, died horribly and for no reason other than the owners of our leaders wanted to chop up a nation for their own profit.
“In court papers filed today, the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.” Daily Kos
The crime of waging a war of aggression on a nation is so serious because within it lies all the other crimes committed during that war and occupation. And there have been many, many crimes committed in the wake of the lies about WMDs and forged Yellow Cake documents.
“By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.”
But it is excusable according to the Obama administration, isn’t it? It’s excusable when it’s done by us.

Sec. Kerry then went on to appeal for credibility suggesting the videos put out by our assets in Syria and Jordan are evidence enough that the attacks did in fact take place and more importantly, that it was the Assad government who launched them.
“Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.” Sec. Kerry
The idea that the Sec. of State is ready to launch an all out attack against a sovereign nation because of some Youtube videos is patently absurd. But that’s what he is saying, isn’t it?

They don’t want inspectors checking out the site. Kerry himself will later cast doubts on the doubts that he obviously expects the UN investigators to raise. So basically he’s suggesting we go to war… over some Youtube videos which I myself could recreate right down here in Tampa for less than what it costs to put Sec. Kerry in a hotel for a weekend.

Then he tugged at the heart strings of the parents of the world because in order to sell anything these days, there has to be an emotional connection:
“As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.” Sec. Kerry
I wonder if Sec. Kerry gets all choked up over the hundreds of Pakistani kids, or Yemeni kids blown to pieces by his drone strikes? I wonder how hard it is to get the image of those children out of his head.

Or the image of their fathers screaming in agony while their child dies for our Global War on Terror.

Sec. Kerry then tells us how to think:
“Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.” Sec. Kerry
No sir. I think that anyone who is willing to hire al Qaeda linked mercenaries and terrorists to bomb and kill and destabilize another country… for money… needs to check their conscience and moral compass.

Someone looking to consider the evidence before launching another murderous right to protect NATO bombing campaign, in my opinion, has their head screwed on pretty tightly.

Here is a flat out lie:
“At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the UN investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the UN investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.” Sec. Kerry
On multiple occasions, the Assad government has allowed UN inspectors into the country to assess what is happening. They have allowed members of the Arab States in to see what was going on and they were attacked by our hired terrorists as well.

But as I clearly showed earlier, it was the Obama administration, and specifically John Kerry, who didn’t want the inspectors to investigate the claims made by our assets.

The last time the Obama administration claimed the “red-line” had been crossed, the UN inspectors found that it was likely the terrorists, our terrorists, had used the chemical weapons. There are actually videos of them preparing them.

In the end, Sec. Kerry’s hollow and soulless words cannot help but undermine his stoic demeanor exposing him for the callus and indifferent vulture that he really is.

“But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.” Sec. Kerry

As yesterday’s war criminals sit back and enjoy immunity from prosecution granted by the Obama administration just hours after the alleged chemical weapons attack hit Syria, they are literally counting the piles of cash they sucked from that unnecessary war with their stained blood red hands.

But make no mistake: Sec. Kerry’s success is measured by how many nations he delivers up to his owners.

He doesn’t care if it ignites a regional war unlike any that have been seen since the Ottoman Empire.

He doesn’t care if it pulls in Russia and China as well.

His job is to make nation states available to the financial elites when they need profits. And that’s it.

Were he to get them via an inside coup like in Egypt or through a regional bloodbath, to someone like Kerry it makes no difference.

His children aren’t there and they won’t be going either.

Talk about Moral Obscenity, that’s pretty much the definition.

I don’t know what’s a sadder statement as to the state of our national moral center; the fact that this man is 600 degrees of separation from the character he portrayed during the 2004 presidential election or the fact that someone somewhere wrote this insultingly vapid copy for Sec. Kerry thinking they could pass it off as sincere… thinking a percentage of the American people would buy it.

In the end, I guess both of those point us to the same, horrific conclusion as to who has really become morally obscene.



UPDATE: Looks like the point of all of this was to sabotage the peace talks. The last thing the administration wants is to negotiate a peaceful settlement to this crisis that they themselves created. They want regime change first and foremost so they can bring in their technocrats to rewrite the constitution like they are currently doing in Egypt.

UPDATE: While writing this article, CBS announced that President Obama has order the release of the report justifying the pending bombing of Syria based on what they say is “a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind” the use of chemical weapons.

A “near” “circumstantial” case, huh?

He has promised to have the report ready for the public before he starts bombing Syria.

Is it just me or does that remind anyone of the white paper Colin Powell promised to produce which was to prove bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11th attacks? For those of you who forgot, that white paper that never showed up was the grounds for bombing Afghanistan.


Syria: Another Western War Crime in the Making

Monday, 26. August 2013

The West Knows Only One Rule- “Might is Right!”

Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons.

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection.

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand.

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying.

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar.

# # # #

Paul Craig Roberts, Boiling Frogs Post contributing author, is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. Mr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy, and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. You can visit his website here.



Transparent Hoax Could Lead to War

Phony "poison gas" attack spurs calls for intervention 
by Justin Raimondo, August 26, 2013

Those rollicking jihadists, the Syrian rebels, love a joke: although they can be deadly serious – such as when they’re eating the internal organs of their enemies – what they enjoy more than anything is a really good prank. There was the time they claimed the Assad regime was killing babies in incubators – not very original, but hey, it workedfor the Kuwaitis! Then there was the "massacre" at Houla, which was alleged to have killed 32 children and over 60 adults: a photo started appearing in the mainstream media, documenting the slaughter. The state-supported BBC was first to run with it – until it was discovered the supposedly incriminating photo was taken in Iraq during the recent war. The photographer was justifiably furious, the story was withdrawn, and the Syrian rebels went back to the drawing board.

I could go on for quite a while about the various Syrian hoaxes we’ve been subjectedto, but let’s get down to the latest one – a claim Syrian government forces used nerve gas at the Syrian village known as Ghouta. Videos posted by the rebels show rows of people killed or incapacitated without any dramatic indications of physical trauma: instead, the victims display convulsions and other signs of exposure to asphyxiating gases. Yet, as Ha’aretz reports:

"Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination.

"Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: ‘None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,’ he says, ‘and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.’"

Perhaps Allah is protecting these caregivers and others attending to the sick: or maybe the aid we’re shipping the rebels includes some really neat stuff from Marvel Comics. On the other hand, maybe the whole thing is yet another put up job. You tell me.

If the "massacre" at Ghouta involved military-grade nerve gas, all those doctors and others milling around the fallen victims would be dead or in serious trouble. That’s because the poison would stick around for days, penetrating the skin and being inhaled by anyone who came close to them or even entered the vicinity. Another problem is that, as Kaszeta says, "One issue is that you can’t really test for sarin gas, you test for chemicals that are released as it decomposes."

The UN inspection team was in Damascus anyway, investigating previous claims of poison gas use: of course it’s just a coincidence that this latest claim is made about a site a few miles from where they’re staying. They are on their way to Ghouta even as I write: but how will they determine who used whatever chemical agents were unleashed, if indeed that is what happened? The answer is: they won’t. They have only to come up with "evidence" that some sort of "WMD" was used: in spite of rebel claimsthat they would "retaliate" in kind in response to previous alleged chemical attacks, it will simply be assumed by Western governments and media (or do I repeat myself) that the Syrian government is responsible.

As for Washington and its allies: they aren’t waiting for the "evidence." They already know who is guilty, and who is not. A "senior US official" is cited by ABC as saying:

"Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons."

The War Party has the President’s ear, and believe you me they aren’t whispering in it – they’re making their case loud and clear, in public and no doubt in private. The only dove in the vicinity of the White House is Hagel, and he’s consigned to simplypreparing the US military for any and all contingencies. On that front, the news isn’t good: US forces are already converging on the region and moving into position.

So if the evidence for a nerve gas attack is so thin, and the rebels’ record of crying "Wolf!" at the drop of a scimitar is grounds for skepticism, what is all the shouting about? Are we really about to go to war on the strength of a transparent hoax?

The shouting is about taking the NSA story off the front pages for a while and drowning out the rising voices of civil libertarian protest. Edward Snowden’s revelations of a wide-ranging years-long domestic spying operation threatens Obama’s presidency. It also threatens the leadership of the two parties, who are confronted with a grassroots rebellion on both sides of the aisle and have only just barely managed to contain it. Official Washington has been shaken to its already pretty flimsy foundations by the scandal – and there’s nothing like another war to take everyone’s mind off the fact that they’re shredding the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, a little "kinetic action" in Syria affords them the opportunity to tear the Constitution into even tinier pieces by going to war without even bothering to consult Congress, and without much of anyone outside Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and a few others (all Republicans, by the way) making a fuss about it.

Speaking of those intrepid libertarian-leaning Republicans: invariably, when the subject of Syria comes up, their first response is to address the question of whether it’sconstitutional for the President to simply send in the bombers without going to Congress. This action would be clearly unconstitutional, it’s true, but that can’t be the end of it, and it is barely the beginning of an adequate argument: aside from the purely procedural case, we need to hear substantial policy-oriented specifics as to why overthrowing Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad would be a stupid move on our part.

They might start by accurately characterizing the "rebels" as terrorists, the lot of them either formally affiliated with Al Qaeda – remember those folks who brought downthe twin towers and breached the Pentagon? – or else willing dupes and fellow travelers. Suicide bombings, the beheading of their enemies – and even the eating of their victims internal organs – it seems there’s nothing these savages aren’t capable of.

Oh, but they’re our jihadists – well, that’s not quite what the interventionists are saying, but that will be the effect if the War Party wins out. The allegedly "secular" groups we are supposed to be aiding aren’t exactly Unitarians, and, aside from that, they’re not a real presence on the battlefield. They merely serve as mouthpieces for the real hub of Syria’s emerging Islamist state – the numerous autonomous "commanders" of the various Islamist militias currently rampaging through half of Syria, killing Christians, looting and murdering their way across the countryside.

The US predator has been circling its Syrian prey ever since George W. Bush’s first term, There was that whole Hariri business, which was supposed to trigger a UN interdict and then presumably US-NATO military action. However, that somehow got lost in the shuffle, perhaps because the "evidence" the Lebanese leader was killed by Syrian intelligence agencies was thin to nonexistent. Anyway, that ticking time bomb was somehow defused, but the ever-inventive folks over at War Party HQ soon came up with a new scheme and a new narrative – and that’s where we are today.

Amid all the solemn UN "investigations" and "inspections," all the learned discourseon the pros and cons of intervention as it impacts America’s (alleged) "national interest," the reality is that this is all mere window-dressing. It matters not a whit that – just based on the science of how nerve gas and other military-grade variants work – the rebels’ claims aren’t even half-credible. Nor does it matter what sort of blowbackwe’ll have to endure, including the increased threat of terrorism on our shores. There is no "national interest," only the political interests of individual political actors who seek, above all, to maintain and extend their own power and prestige.

A crude interpretation of this theory – that domestic politics essentially determines the course of a nation’s foreign policy – would be vulnerable, in this instance, since this administration is seriously considering war in spite of polls showing massive opposition: a pitiful nine percent favor US meddling. The pro-intervention group increases somewhat if it’s shown the Syrian government used chemicals weapons, but still a plurality – 46 percent – oppose US action.

Yet the administration may be willing to take heat on this front rather than on another potentially far more disastrous front: the NSA scandal that is unraveling the credibility of this White House at Weiner-like speed. Obama’s poll numbers areplummeting at alarming speed, and if the Guardian keeps publishing in spite of the best efforts of the British government it won’t be long until Obama’s tied with Mayor Filner in the polls.

Consider the President’s position: first his DNI went in front of Congress and liedabout the nature and extent of the NSA surveillance programs – and later joked about it. Then the President himself went in front of the American people and flat out lied to their faces, denying any such domestic surveillance program existed. Not only that, but his lie was exposed within one week, with new revelations coming courtesy of Snowden.

Even the President’s most ardent defenders are having a hard time standing up for their guy, who, instead of embodying Lincoln and FDR, as his cultists insist, stands revealed as an unholy hybrid of LBJ and Richard Nixon – exhibiting the politics of the former, the guile of the latter, and the low cunning of both. From this administration’s perspective, it’s time to change the subject, to shift the focus of the camera away from the Liar-in-chief and swing it in the direction of the War Party’s latest hate object – let the mob take out their anger and frustrations on Assad.

In the midst of a public relations and political meltdown, with new information about how they spied and how they lied coming out day after day, this punch-drunk administration is apparently quite prepared to "pay any price" and have us "bear any burden," as another interventionist President put it, as long as they can get this President off the ropes.

So, sure, the idea of going to war in Syria is unpopular, but widespread post-Iraq aversion to intervention didn’t stop him in Libya. If you add in all the indirect costs and benefits in purely political terms, then the interventionist argument begins to make sense: at least we won’t be talking about the latest Snowden documents and what Glenn Greenwald is reporting all the time. A knockout blow will have been averted, at least for the moment.

Several international players have sufficient clout in this country to make the President stop and think before he defies the calls by the political class to "do something" about Syria. To begin with, the Saudis, the main arms supplier and ideological guide to the Syrian rebels, have a powerful Washington lobby, and plenty of cash to throw around. The Israelis, too, are rumored to have a bit of clout on Capitol Hill, although it’s a hate crime to say so. The Netanyahu government is strangely soft on the rebels – who are, after all, fanatical anti-Semites – and seems to have saved all its vitriol for Assad, essentially echoing and amplifying jihadist propaganda – albeit with this twist:

"The civil war in Syria is continuing, with one hundred thousand dead, and, not for the first time, the regime is employing chemical weapons. This is a life-and-death struggle between a regime representing the Alawite minority and a disunited opposition. The end is not yet in sight, and even the fall of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad would not end this conflict."

That ‘s Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, as cited in the Ha’aretz piece quoted above. Note his characterization of the rebels as "disunited": in other words, they’re not all flying Al Qaeda’s black banner. The main point, however, is the "no end to it" doctrine, as we might call it: Ya’alon’s absolutely accurate prognosis that Western intervention will not be the end of anything.

Israel wants a buffer between itself and a rapidly decomposing Syria: in the end, they hope, we’ll see Western "peacekeeping" troops, no doubt under UN auspices, stationed on the Syrian-Israeli border. By themselves, the Israelis cannot control the chaos theydid much to unleash: or, rather, they could control the chaos, militarily, but would rather the West do their dirty work for them, as usual. With the Islamist regime in Egypt quashed, and Hezbollah thrown on the defensive, the Israelis just want to kick back, thumb, their noses at John Kerry, and build more "settlements." What better way to accomplish this than by recruiting an army of human shields made up of Western "peacekeepers" – a scouting party paving the way for the ultimate confrontation with Iran.

All the political interests – including economic heavy-hitters like the "defense" industry, Big Media, the leadership of both parties, the "humanitarian" liberals and the neocon empire-builders – stand united in demanding we "punish" Assad. With one voice, they demand we fulfill our self-appointed role as Arbiter of Global Morality and Planetary Father Figure ever ready to give "rogue" states a proper spanking. This is certainly the British view and style, but I think they rather enjoy it too much, if you know what I mean….

The American people, on the other hand, are as yet unused to – or, at least, largely unaware of – the burden of empire, and have yet to succumb to its perverse pleasures. Certainly our history militates against it: the very idea of America as Big Daddy seems not only presumptuous but positively un-American. After all, didn’t we burst the imperial pretensions of a similarly arrogant and supposedly invincible empire during that little incident known as the American Revolution?

To the Washington policy wonks and power-mad social climbing Beltway sycophants of Power, the American empire can just keep on expanding, exporting its goodness and its decadent culture all over the world. Bankruptcy, either financial or moral, doesn’t enter into it: our rulers have even less fiscal sense than they have moral sense. In both cases, they think we owe it to ourselves.

Propaganda Overdrive Suggests Syria War Coming Soon

by Brandon Turbeville

With recent reports of a chemical weapons attack having taken place inside Syria, and with Western governments such as the United States, Britain, and France foaming at the mouth to take some type of decisive action against the embattled nation, it is important to investigate the claims being made, the individuals and organizations making such claims, and the relevant information surrounding the attacks which might contradict the narrative being force-fed to the Western public by mainstream corporate media outlets.

For instance, while the typical narrative coming from the majority of mainstream media outlets such as NPR,[1] the Wall Street Journal,[2] CNN,[3]and the New York Daily News clearly implies that Bashar al-Assad was most likely the guilty party behind the attacks, the reasons to not only question the claims in this regard but to actually believe the opposite are legion.

Indeed, in predictable fashion, the United States government is now claiming[4] that is has “strong indications” that chemical weapons have been used and that the culprit was “clearly [by] the government.” Such propaganda, of course, hearkens back to the days of “Incubator Babies” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq.

France, however, is doing whatever it can to take the lead in imperialism and warmongering withForeign Minister Laurent Fabius stating[5] that “a reaction with force” might be needed if it is determined that it was the Syrian government who used the chemical weapons.

As I wrote in my article, “New Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria Another False Flag?”[6] it has been the case with every other propaganda push against Assad regarding chemical weapons, that there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the Syrian government in the launching and use of chemical agents against the Syrian people or even the death squads themselves. In fact, the accounts being published throughout the mainstream media are very suspect in their own right.

First, although there is some video evidence of chemical weapons usage, the estimates of the extent of the atrocity, as well as the blame for the attacks, are coming entirely from the death squads themselves. Both in the title to the Reuters article mentioned above and in nearly all of the mainstream media reports, statistics and information is prefaced by the phrase “activists say.”

“Activists say,” of course, can be translated merely to mean “death squads” say, as the activists being referred to are indeed nothing more than terrorist killers - politically, ideologically, and physically - invested in the outcome and presentation of the Syrian crisis. In short, these individuals have a vested interest in the blame for these attacks being placed on Assad, popular opinion being turned against the Syrian government, and some type of condemnation or military action being taken against the Syrian army.

Second, the location of the attack is heavily suspect. The Ghouta region, where the attacks allegedly took place, is an area that had been overrun with death squad organizations such as Jabhat al-Nusra and at one point. However, it is also interesting to note that the attacks come at a time after the area had been liberated by Syrian government forces as far back as May, 2013[7] and is now largely free of death squad activity. This suggests that the death squads themselves may have detonated chemical weapons as a move of desperation and coordination with NATO/Anglo-American interests seeking to justify military action against Syria.

Third, and even more interesting, is the fact that the chemical weapons attacks come just days after a team of U.N. chemical experts entered Damascus and checked into a hotel a few miles from the targeted area. With this in mind, one must ask “why would Assad order the use of chemical weapons in this area at such an inopportune time?” Given the track record of Assad’s cleverness, this seems to be an incredibly foolish move, even as the Syrian army has gained the clear upper hand against the death squads. Why detonate chemical weapons in front of UN chemical experts? Why wait until after they arrive to do so? Why detonate chemical weapons so close to them?

These questionable details have caused even mainstream “experts” to hesitate[8] when commenting on the nature of the alleged chemical attacks. For instance, Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center, stated,

Logically, it would make little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relatively close proximity of the targeted towns (to the U.N. team).
Nonetheless, the Ghouta region (where the attacks were reported) is well known for its opposition leanings. Jabhat al-Nusra has had a long-time presence there and the region has borne the brunt of sustained military pressure for months now. BBC security correspondent Frank Garnder also stated something similar, when he said, “Firstly, the timing is odd, bordering on suspicious. Why would the Assad government, which has recently been retaking ground from the rebels, carry out a chemical attack while UN weapons inspectors are in the country?”

Likewise, Swedish diplomat and former UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus stated to Reuters that, “It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country….at the least, it wouldn’t be very clever.”

Another Swede, chemical weapons expert Ake Sellstrom, who is currently leading the UN inspection team in Syria told SVT[9] that the large number of victims being reported sounded “suspicious.”[4]

In addition, soon after the attacks, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexansdr Lukashevich stated that the attacks may have been a “provocation planned in advance” promoted for political purposes by “biased regional media.”

Lukashevich also said, “It draws attention to the fact that biased regional media have immediately, as if on command, begun an aggressive information attack, laying all the responsibility on the government.”

When Lukashevich refers to “biased regional media” he most likely means news agencies such as Al-Arabiya who, according to William Engdahl,[10] was the agency who broke the initial story regarding claims of 500 deaths from chemical attacks, reports which were taken almost entirely from “activists” aka death squads. After the initial reports were made by Al-Arabiya the massive wave of Western media picked up the story and ran with it, inflating the numbers of victims almost every hour, finally reaching claims of 1,300 deaths.

As Engdahl writes,

Al Arabiya,[11] the origin of the story, is not a neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the Saudi Royal Family in Dubai. It is majority-owned by the Saudi broadcaster, Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). Saudi Arabia is a major financial backer of the attempt to topple Syria’s government. That is a matter of record. So on first glance Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad allegation might be taken with a dose of salt.In addition, the Russian spokesman also added that “A homemade rocket with a poisonous substance that has not been identified yet – one similar to the rocket used by terrorists on March 19 in Khan al-Assal - was fired early on August 21 [at Damascus suburbs] from a position occupied by the insurgents.”

As RT reported in their article “Russia suggests Syria ‘chemical attack’ was ‘planned provocation’ by rebels,”

Lukashevich pointed out that similar reports about Syrian authorities allegedly using chemical weapons have popped up before. However, the information has never been confirmed.
In Moscow’s view, the latest possible “provocation” might be the opposition’s attempt to get support from the UN Security Council and undermine the Geneva peace talks on Syria.
Russia believes the incident should be thoroughly investigated by professionals. It urged everyone who has influence on armed extremists to do everything possible to finally put an end to such provocations involving chemical poisonous substances.[12] Lukashevich and the Russian government have ample reason[13] to suspect that the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria was the handiwork of the death squads instead of the Syrian government.

Since the ridiculous “red line” talk has been repeated in government halls and press conferences since late 2012 by both President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as French President Francois Hollande, the idea that the Syrian government would be the party to actually use chemical weapons was patently absurd from the beginning.

As far back as June 2012, the pieces were clearly seen being moved into place in order to create the environment and subsequent chain of events for a successful false flag attack used to justify an invasion of or, at the very least, some limited military action against Syria. However, the more hidden aspects being used to create infrastructure for such an event could be seen going back even further.

For instance, in November, 2011, it was reported in The Telegraph[14] that the “transitional” government of terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, and NATO puppets in Libya[15] were offering to send money, personnel[16] (aka terrorists[17] and mercenaries), and weapons to the death squads operating in Syria. It was largely understood, at least after the initial announcement of the weapons deal, that the weapons in question included chemical weapons.

Later, in June of 2012, it was reported by Russia Today[18] that these weapons had indeed found themselves into the hands of the death squads by virtue of their Libyan counterparts now acting as head of the failed Libyan State. RT stated that, “They allegedly plan to use it against civilians and pin the atrocity on the Bashar al-Assad regime.”

Thus, it should be noted that the London Guardian[19] reported that the Libya possessed “25 metric tonnes of bulk mustard agent and 1,400 metric tonnes of precursor chemical used to make chemical weapons."

It was also reported in August of 2012[20] that the death squads had managed to capture a missile site belonging to the Syrian army which contained chemical weapons. The death squads erroneously claimed that the reason for attacking the site was to prevent the Assad government from using the weapons against members of the “opposition.” Regardless, one does not have to speculate very much as to the possibilities available here - in June, the death squads gain access to chemical weapons. In August, they gain access to a delivery mechanism in the form of missiles.

It is just such a coincidence that should cause one to examine another event which occurred shortly before the assault on the missile site. In July 2012, Tony Cartalucci of LandDestroyerReport,[21] described “reports of so-called 'Free Syrian Army' militants seen trying on gas masks, along with reports of Libyan chemical weapon caches & equipment being discovered in Damascus.”

Together with the acquisition of the missile delivery capability by virtue of the conquering of the Syrian missile site and the possession of the chemical weapons themselves via Libya, the acquisition of gas masks points to the preparation for the launch of an actual chemical attack, or at least the possibility of it, on the part of the death squads.

As one of the death squad members stated to Reuters in April, 2012,[22] “The rebels are getting better at bomb-making; as you know, desperation is the mother of invention." Reuters also commented that the death squads were now able to develop “more sophisticated bombs” due to “rare outside donations” although Reuters did not attempt to name those mysterious sources.

Moving forward to August 2012, a false flag plot was discovered which had been hatched between NATO and Saudi Arabia that would have staged a chemical weapons deployment in Syria either by mercenary firms or by the NATO-backed death squads, an attack that would subsequently have been blamed on the Assad government, thus serving as a pretext for NATO intervention and the creation of a “buffer zone” in the country.

According to Paul Joseph Watson,[23] the source reporting the impending attack stated to Syrian news channel Addounia that a Saudi Arabian firm “had fitted 1400 ambulance vehicles with anti-gas & anti-chemical filtering systems at a cost of $97,000 dollars each, in preparation for a chemical weapons attack carried out by FSA rebels using mortar rounds. A further 400 vehicles have been prepared as troop carriers.”

Interestingly enough, the attack was set to make use of white phosphorous, sarin and mustard gas. It then stands as yet another questionable “coincidence” that, among the weapons possessed by the Libyan regime and now in the hands of the death squads, was large quantities of bulk mustard agent. Indeed, recent claims regarding the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack have made use of sarin gas would do nothing but add credence to the suspicion that it was the death squads themselves who committed the chemical weapons attack, not the Assad government.

Nevertheless, the potential false flag attack reported by Addounia[24] was set to be launched on densely populated areas, most likely Daraa, a city on the Syria/Jordan border, after which the newly fitted ambulances would pour into Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid. Although painted with the labels, “Syrian People’s Relief,” the ambulances would actually be nothing more than armored personnel carriers designed to capitalize on a manufactured disaster for the purpose of deploying such personnel in order to create the desired buffer zone.

Furthermore, the same company that manufactured and fitted the ambulances to be used in the attack is one that is based in Riyadh and was negotiating a contract with the Yemeni government for the manufacture of military vehicles for the Yemeni army.

A source also reported that a meeting had taken place between the head of Al Arabiya, the Saudi news channel, and a U.S. diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates. As Paul Joseph Watson writes, “The purpose of the meeting was to agree[25] upon a conditioning program to prepare the public for the likelihood that Bashar Al-Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons. Shortly after the meeting, Al Arabiya began running news segments depicting the inevitability of a chemical weapons attack carried out by Assad’s forces.”

Of course, it was around this same time period that discussions of a “red line” by the French and American Presidents as well as the U.S. State Department and Israeli representatives began their repetition in the mainstream media circles and hence the American public at large.

For instance, in August 2012, President Barack Obama[26] warned that not only the use but merely the transportation of chemical weapons would constitute a “red line” that would result in military intervention. French President Hollande[27] also stated at the time that the use of chemical weapons “Would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention.”

Likewise, Watson writes, Israel’s Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told media outlets “that if Syrian rebels obtained chemical weapons from stockpiles belonging to the Assad regime, such a development would force Israel to resort to 'preventive operations,' in other words – a military strike on Syria.”

The creation of a “buffer zone” inside Syria is also interesting in its own right, not just because of the necessary loss of legitimate territory close to Syria’s borders but also because of its inherent nature of destabilization and weakening of the ruling regime in Damascus. Thus, it is interesting to note that, while the false flag chemical attack and the subsequent creation of a buffer zone was designed to use the pretext of humanitarian aid as mentioned above, such a plan follows the roadmap provided by the Brookings Institution in a paper entitled “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,”[28] published in March 2012. The paper essentially argued for the use of a humanitarian issue in order to engage in military intervention on the part of NATO in Syria.

Indeed, the paper states, “An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian-corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power.”

Yet one does not have to go any further afield in order to understand that the plan to stage false flag chemical weapons attack inside Syria in order to see the mass of evidence supporting such a claim.

For instance, in January, 2013, hacked emails[29] belonging to British defense contractor Britam actually revealed a plan that was agreed to by the United States and funded in part by Qatar [according to the emails] that would have involved in the staging of a false flag attack chemical attack and the creation of videos to be used in an international propaganda campaign against Assad, who would have been blamed for the attack.

Obtained by a German hacker,[30] the leaked email exchange occurred between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and Britam’s founder Philip Doughty. In the exchange, Goulding wrote,

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
DavidIn delivering a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs, “a Soviet origin g-shell similar to those Assad should have,” the stage was clearly set for the rigging of a false flag attack of a chemical nature to be blamed on Assad.

According to Cyber War News,[31] the emails also contained “extremely personal information” which included “copies of passports of Britam employees, some of whom appeared to be mercenaries.”

Britam confirmed that it had, in fact, been hacked.

In addition, in December 2012, a video was obtained[32] by the Syria Tribune[33] and subsequently released in their report and posted on YouTube[34] which allegedly shows the NATO-backed death squads testing chemical weapons on “lab” rabbits.

As the Syria Tribune describes the video,

The video (see here [35]) starts with several scenes showing chemical containers with Tekkim labels (Tekkim is a Turkish chemicals company [36]) and some lab equipment,[37] while playing Jihadists chants in the background. A glass box then appears with two rabbits inside, with a poster on the wall behind it reading The Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar). A person wearing a lab mask then mixes chemicals in a beaker in the glass box, and we see some gas emitting from the beaker. About a minute later, the rabbits start to have random convulsions and then die. The person says: You saw what happened? This will be your fate, you infidel Alawites, I swear by ALLAH to make you die like these rabbits, one minute only after you inhale the gas.The Syria Tribune also comments that “Judging from the rabbits’ reaction, the gas must be a nerve agent. The number of containers, if not a bluff, indicates ability to produce a considerable amount of this gas. Deployment could be by means of a smoke generator placed in the target area, an explosion, possibly a suicide one, of a "chemmed" car, or simply by using a humidifier."

In March, 2013, yet another YouTube[38] video was released which contained a clip of a second “test” of chemical weapons on captive rabbits by the death squads.

This is quite an ironic presentation, since the Assad government has repeatedly vowed never to use chemical weapons inside Syria, while the death squads have repeatedly threatened to do just that. Indeed, in direct contrast to the tone and statements of the death squads, the Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissiissued a statement[39] several months ago saying, “No chemical or biological weapons will ever be used, and I repeat, will never be used, during the crisis in Syria no matter what the developments inside Syria.” Yet the drums of war and military intervention from the United States, NATO, and Israel continue to relentlessly beat.

Regardless, the video mentioned above also contains an alleged audio recording of a phone conversation[40] between two Free Syrian Army fighters discussing the “details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.”

As Paul Joseph Watson writes,

The recording of the phone conversation purports to be between two FSA militants, one inside Syria and one outside of the country. Abu Hassan, the militant inside Syria, asks the person on the other end of the line to transmit a message to Sheikh Suleiman, a rebel-seized army base in Aleppo, asking for “two chemical bombs ….phosphoric” in order to “finish this whole thing.”
“I want them to be effective,” states Hassan, adding, “The radius of the strike, or reach of the gases, has to be 1km.”The video also contains a clip of the death squads openly announcing their plans to engage in chemical weapons attacks, all the while surrounded by bottles of nitric acid and other substances.

Again, back in December of 2012, after the death squads managed to capture a chlorine factory inside Syria, the Syrian government actually issued a warning that the death squads might attempt to use chemical weapons of this nature in their battle to overthrow and oppress the government and people of Syria respectively. The Syrian Foreign Ministry stated, “Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people ... after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory.”

Thus, with the most recent chemical weapon attack which has caused both a frothing and bumbling public relations response from the Anglo-Americans, it is interesting to note that chlorine has been fingered as being one of the major ingredients.

As Alex Thomson of The Telegraph reported,[41]

The Syrian military is said to believe that a home-made locally-manufactured rocket was fired, containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. They claim that the warhead contained a quantity of the gas, dissolved in saline solution.
CL17 is normal chlorine for swimming pools or industrial purposes. It is rated as Level 2 under the chemical weapons convention, which means it is dual purpose - it can be used as a weapon as well as for industrial or domestic purposes. Level 1 agents are chemicals whose sole use is as weapons, such as the nerve agents sarin or tabun.
There has been extensive experimentation by insurgents in Iraq in the use of chlorine, which is harmful when mixed with water to form hydrochloric acid. It vapourises quickly, meaning that in a big explosion it will evaporate; in a small blast - for instance, one delivered by a home-made rocket - it will turn into airborne droplets before dispersing quickly.
So it is likely only to produce limited casualties. In this case there were only 26 fatalities, far fewer than would be expected from a full chemical weapon attack. In short, it is easily improvised into a chemical device but not one that would be used by an army seeking mass-casualty effects. [emphasis added]Reports by the Syrian government coincide with the accounts given by the victims of the chemical weapons attack which one can view in the video clip contained in the YouTube video mentioned above. (See here) It is also important to note that many of the victims allegedly name the Free Syrian Army and the “rebels” as the perpetrators as they are being interviewed while waiting for medical treatment.

“The Free Syrian Army hit us with a rocket,” one woman said. "We smelled an odor and everyone fell to the ground. People died where they fell . . . the kids . . . "

A young girl was also interviewed, who said, “My lungs closed and I couldn’t breathe or speak. God curse them. Everyone died on the ground. My mom and dad died. I don’t know where is my brother. God curse them. May they [FSA] all die. This is the freedom they bring us. They [FSA] want to kill everyone. I hope there remains not a single one of them [FSA] alive.”

Let us not forget that the death squads have been responsible for unspeakable atrocities[42] against innocent people ever since the destabilization effort began. Last October, the death squads, in typical terrorist fashion, conducted at least four suicide bombings in Aleppo that killed around 40 innocent civilians.

Receiving more attention in the media, however, at least until the death squads were found to be responsible, was the infamous Houla Massacre of 2011 where approximately 90 people were killed.

Numerous other atrocities have also been documented with videos showing the death squadsmachine gunning captives,[43] beheading prisoners[44](see here and here[45]), and forcing young children to behead them.[46] I, myself, have written an article dealing with reports regarding the death squad’s hanging of a young child[47] after murdering his family in front of him. One can also view the videos of the death squad members beating and humiliating[48] the famous elderly “Yellow Man” in Aleppo.

Indeed, the videos of the torture of prisoners in the hands of the death squads are legion. One need only type the relevant keywords into a YouTube search engine to be greeted with generous results.

Such open acts of terrorism, lack of regard for human life, and outright savagery on the part of the death squads have thus made even coordinated Western media propaganda campaigns rest on shakier ground. Unfortunately, we must never overestimate the intellectual prowess of the population of the television and entertainment-saturated Western populations. After all, it has failed on countless occasions in the past.

We cannot allow false claims of atrocities or phantom threats of frightening weapons to be used to justify American military intervention in yet another Middle Eastern country. Indeed, our experiences with “incubator babies” and weapons of mass destruction should serve as a reminder when faced with nerve gas victims and chemical weapons.


[1] “Syrian Government Accused Again of Using Chemical Weapons.” NPR. August 21, 2013.
[2] “U.S. Suspects Syria Used Gas.” Wall Street Journal. August 21, 2013.
[3] Smith-Spark, Laura; Said, Samira. “U.N., U.S. call for urgent probe of Syria chemical attack claim.” CNN. August 22, 2013.
[4] “U.S. Suspects Syria Used Gas.” Wall Street Journal. August 21, 2013.
[5] “Syria ‘chemical’ attack: France says force may be needed.” BBC. August 22, 2013.
[6] Turbeville, Brandon. “New Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria Another False Flag?” Activist Post. August 21, 2013.
[7] “Situation Report: Syrian Army Clears Eastern Ghouta.” Syria Report. May 6, 2013.
[8] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Experts: Syria Chemical Weapons Attack ‘Suspicious.’” Infowars. August 21, 2013.
[9] “’Poisonous gas’ attack by regime troops kills at least 100 in Syria, activists say.’” FOX News. August 21, 2013.
[10] Engdahl, William. “Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda.” RT. August 21, 2013.
[11] Feuilherade, Peter. “Profile: Al-Arabiya TV.” BBC. November 25, 2003.
[12] “Russia suggests Syria ‘chemical attack’ was ‘planned provocation’ by rebels.” RT. August 21, 2013.
[13] Turbeville, Brandon. “False Flag Attacks in Syria Pin Atrocities on Assad and Justify ‘Red Line’ Engagement.” Activist Post. March 30, 2013.
[14] Sherlock, Ruth. “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels.” The Telegraph. November 25, 2011.
[15] Cartalucci, Tony. “The Libyan Election Farce.” Land Destroyer Report. July 9, 2012.
[16] “Libyan fighters join ‘free Syrian army’ forces.” Albawaba. November 29, 2011.
[17] Watson, Ivan; Razek, Raja. “Faces of the Free Syrian Army.” CNN. July 27, 2012.
[18] “Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons, blame Damascus – report.” RT. June 10, 2012.
[19] Wintour, Patrick. “Britain sends officials to Libya to help destroy chemical weapons.” Guardian. November 14, 2011.
[20] “Turkey’s (NATO) FSA Terrorists Storm Into a Missiles Warehouse & Start Propaganda.” Youtube. Posted by Arabi Souri. Posted on August 28, 2012.
[21] Cartalucci, Tony. “Syrians: NATO-backed militants Seen Donning Gas Masks.” Land Destroyer Report.
[22] Solomon, Erika. “Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs.” Reuters. April 30, 2012.
[23] Watson, Paul Joseph. “NATO Plot To Use Ambulances As Cover For Humanitarian Invasion Of Syria.” PrisonPlanet. August 29, 2012.
[24] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Hacked Emails Reveal ‘Washington-Approved’ Plan to Stage Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria.” PrisonPlanet. January 28, 2013.
[25] Watson, Paul Joseph. “NATO Plot To Use Ambulances As Cover For Humanitarian Invasion of Syria.” Infowars. August 29, 2012.
[26] “France warns Syria over chemical weapons use.” Reuters. August 27, 2012.
[27] “France warns Syria over chemical weapons use.” Reuters. August 27, 2012.
[28] Byman, Daniel; Doran, Michael; Pollack, Kenneth; Shaikh, Salman. “Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change.” Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. March 2012.
[29] Watson, Paul Joseph. “NATO Plot To Use Ambulances As Cover For Humanitarian Invasion Of Syria.” PrisonPlanet. August 29, 2012.
[30] Linnik, Dmitry. “Britam tells VoR it was hacked.” Voice of Russia. January 30, 2013.
[31] Lee J. “A Look into the Britam Defence Data Leak Files.” Cyber War News Info. January 26, 2013.
[32] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Shock Video Shows ‘Syrian Rebels’ Testing Chemical Weapons.” Infowars. December 6, 2012.
[33] “A troubling video appears on Youtube showing rebel fighters testing chemical weapons in Syria.” Syria Tribune.
[34] “Syria Rebels testing Tekkim chemicals to use as chem. Weapons.” Youtube. Posted by Syria Tribune. Posted on December 5, 2012.
[35] “Syria Rebels testing Tekkim chemicals to use as chem. Weapons.” Youtube. Posted by Syria Tribune. Posted on December 5, 2012.
[37] “Syria Rebels testing Tekkim chemicals to use as chem. Weapons.” Youtube. Posted by Syria Tribune. Posted on December 5, 2012.
[38] “West Turns a Blind Eye That Their Terrorists In Syria Used WMD.” Youtube. Posted by nuts flipped. Posted on March 20, 2013.
[39] “Syria warns UN militants will use WMD against civilians.” PressTV. December 8, 2012.
[40] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Syrian Rebels Caught on Tape Discussing Chemical Weapons Attack.” Infowars. March 20, 2013.
[41] Thomson, Alex. “Syria chemical weapons: finger pointed at jihadists.” The Telegraph. March 23, 2013.
[42] Clabough, Raven. “Evidence Shows Syrian Rebes Behind Chemical Attack.” New American. March 27, 2013.
[43] “Rebels Massacre 11 Prisoners in Saraqib, Syria.” Youtube.
[44] “Syrian Rebels Behead A Man In Aleppo, Syria – 11/08/2012.” Youtube.
[45] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Gruesome Video Shows Syrian Rebel Beheading Civilian.” Infowars. March 21, 2013.
[46] “Syrian rebels use child in beheading unarmed prisoners in Homs.” Youtube.
[47] Turbeville, Brandon. “Iranian News Reports Child Hanged By Syrian ‘Rebels.’” Activist Post. August 7, 2012.
[48] “Salafist Jihadi’s Beat ‘Yellow Man’ in Aleppo Syria (Eng Subtitles).” Youtube.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 200 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)