Conveniently overlooked or just not mentioned by our media was the ‘Newsweek’ report from February this year on the Syrian Government not using the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people. You would have thought it crucial that people should have been told this.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that the U.S. has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against anybody in Syria. As the article says, Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency. In other words, there is not now, or has there ever been any kind of proof for the accusations made against President Assad and by implication, Putin’s Russia.
Taken together with the claim of Iraqi WMD of which there was no such thing, we would all need to very, very dubious of the recent events in Salisbury and Douma. No less an expert than ‘Major General Jonathan Shaw, a former head of Britain’s Special Forces has challenged Theresa May’s claim that President Assad was behind the chemical attack in Douma. In his statement he said, “Why would Assad use chemical weapons at this time? He’s won the war. That’s not just my opinion, it is shared by senior commanders in the US military. There is no rationale behind Assad’s involvement whatsoever. He’s convinced the rebels to leave occupied areas in buses. He’s gained their territory. So why would he be bothering gassing them?” Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, the ex-SAS and Parachute Regiment commander added, “The jihadists and the various opposition groups who’ve been fighting against Assad have much greater motivation to launch a chemical weapons attack and make it look like Assad was responsible. Their motivation being that they want to keep the Americans involved in the war following Trump saying the US was going to leave Syria for other people to sort out.”
In fact, he was invited to speak to SKY news but when he raised these issues, he was promptly cut off, as you see from this short clip.
But his views were echoed by Admiral Lord West, former head of the Royal Navy, who said, “If I was advising President Assad, why would I say use chemical weapons at this point? It doesn’t make any sense. But for the jihadist opposition groups I can see why they would.”
As you can read here, the Russians found forty tons of chemical weapons after clearing terrorist ISIS groups out of one area. They reported this to the US and suggested that these terrorists not only had such weapons but would likely stage an attack in Syria with them and then get the White Helmets to blame Assad. Syria, which was confirmed to have destroyed its sarin stockpiles under a deal brokered between Russia and the US in 2013, has denied the current American accusations. Russia also pointed out that thorough impartial investigation of the incident never took place, with OPCW experts refusing to visit Khan Shaykhun. It has argued that the attack could have been staged. For more on this, have a look at this short video.
What is of particular interest is the testimony of the two medics in the hospital where the injured were treated directly after the alleged attack.
So knowing Assad had no motive to launch a chemical attack even if he could get such weapons and having no concrete proof to show the world that he did it and further, not waiting for an investigation of any kind to take place, the western powers launched an attack of this sovereign country. In doing so, they broke several international laws they claim to uphold and contravened the very UN Charter they helped draft. But the Russians and Syrians remained calm in the face of such scandalous behavior and instead asked that the OPCW be sent to examine the site of the alleged attack. After some prevaricating, this was finally agreed and the inspectors were due on the ground in Damascus last Saturday, (14th April 2018). However, out of the blue that Friday, warplanes from the West struck and bombed the site the OPCW were supposed to examine. As a result, under UN mandate, peacekeepers from the UN had to visit the area to judge how safe it was before giving permission to the OPCW inspectors to examine it. The delay then was contrived by the western press as being Russia’s fault, which it patently was not. It was the fault of the West for bombing the site when they knew it was due to be examined.
When finally the UN force on the ground pronounced it safe and the Syrians and Russians announced that the examination would go ahead, Washington and London immediately issued statements accusing the Russians of tampering with the site. If that isn’t classic smoke and mirrors I don’t know what is. For the western press it means that if the OPCW were to find evidence of chemical weapons which could only have come from, let’s say, The Porton Down Laboratories, then our media can scream that the Russian planted them there as the Yanks predicted. If it turns out, (as I suspect), that no evidence is found of chemical weapons by the OPCW then it’s the same story, the Russians cleared it all away.
But if all of that is not perplexing enough, it appears that London handed over samples of the substance used in the alleged Salisbury attack to to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW), who in turn sent them for analysis to the Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland. It turns out that the Skripals were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination. The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document. Incidentally, the Spiez Laboratory. This facility is a Swiss state research center controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and, ultimately, by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW. Interesting too that the toxin, BZ, was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states. This story was covered in the West by Tyler Durden here.
So where does all that leave us? That the West has been continually denigrating both Moscow and Damascus is an absolute fact. They routinely demonise Assad and Putin in a most undiplomatic and ugly manner. They would blame them for the hard winter we have just had if they thought we’d believe them. And yet Moscow would know that there was not a single benefit to them in using Novichok on their own citizens in the UK at this time or any other. They could have shot, knifed or choked both if they wished and nobody would have been any the wiser. Similarly, Assad is on the point of overall victory in Syria and Trump has announced he intends to bring his army home. Even a village idiot under such circumstances would not commit a chemical attack on his own people and Assad is no idiot. He’s a British trained medical doctor, a popular political leader to his own people and a true reformer in the western sense. He protects both a thriving christian and jewish community in Syria while engaging muslim terrorists intent on destroying his country. The Russian presence in Syria is legal under international law but the presence of western forces there is utterly illegal.
And finally, people all over the west people are beginning to claim that all of this is just more false flag operations carried out by the west in attempt to get backing from their own people for more wars. Very worryingly, “Theresa May has declared without hesitation that she would order a nuclear strike to kill hundreds of thousands of people if she thought it was necessary.” Wow! If she thinks it is necessary. Necessary for what? Her own flagging political career perhaps? A war time Prime Minister is guaranteed the people’s support, right? Compare that against Putin’s many statements and pleas to the West for peace in our world and respect for international laws. Instead the Democrats in America are intent on making you believe that Hilary lost the election because of the Russians. On that topic, it may be informative for you to watch this nugget,
called ‘Overthrow.’ In it, they chronicle 100 Years of U.S. Meddling & Regime Change, from Iran to Nicaragua to Hawaii to Cuba. By one count, the United States has interfered in more than 80 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. And that doesn’t count U.S.-backed coups and invasions. Now try googling Russian Meddling & Regime Change and it won’t take you long to see the huge difference.
It’s all a lot to take in but worth it if you seek the truth rather than the lazy option of wanting to believe propaganda.