August 30, 2018, The Syrian Mission to the United Nations
Syria’s permanent representative to the UN, Dr. Bashar al-Ja’afari, August 30, speaking ever-eloquently (in English) on who is fighting ISIS (not the US, they’ve rescued & protected ISIS…), and who is fighting terrorism in Syria, as well as another clear warning that (Western-backed) groups will stage a fake chemical attack in #Idlib.
*Please also do read and share this very important statement by the Global Network for Syria: Global Network for Syria: “Statement on impending US, UK and French military intervention in Syria”
“… This Western threat of unlawful military force against a sovereign country came as the Syrian government and the Russian military were loudly warning that a provocation with chemical weapons was being prepared by terror groups and foreign actors.
The Russian military gave details of toxic chemical supplies being transported in the northern Syrian province of Idlib by the terror group known as Nusra Front, in conjunction with their media agents called the White Helmets.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that what the Western powers are really trying to do is to stop the elimination of the last bastion of terrorist groups remaining in Syria, by issuing their threat of military intervention. It’s as cynical and as blatant as that.
It is obvious that the US, British and French governments are caught in a ruse with illegally armed militants, by trying to find a pretext for launching a military assault on Syria under the cover of “reacting” to a propaganda stunt involving chemical weapons.
This would not be the first time either for such a nefarious ploy to be used. Several times during the past eight years of war in Syria, terror groups have been guilty of staging atrocities as a deliberate false flag to frame the Syrian government forces in order to elicit a pretext for military attack by the Western states. It is also documented that the US, Britain and France have been covertly supporting these same terror groups for the objective of regime change.
…The Syrian government as the internationally recognized sovereign authority has the legal right to eliminate illegally armed groups from its territory. Russia has a legal right to assist given the official request from Damascus. What’s more, the terror groups holding out in Idlib have used their enclave to mount deadly attacks on the Syrian army and allied Russian forces. It is therefore well past time that the Syrian and Russian forces moved to eradicate this foreign-backed intrusion.
What is rather telling is that over the past three years since Russia’s military intervention in Syria to aid the government, the terrorist proxies have been systematically corralled into the enclave of Idlib after being routed from various former strongholds, including East Aleppo, Homs, East Ghouta and recently Daraa in the south of Syria. Up to now, the US, Britain and France have been afforded a measure of subterfuge by being able to claim that they are supporting “moderate rebels” which are supposedly intermingled with known terror groups like Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham and Islamic State.
The final stage in the Syrian war, or rather the war on Syria, comes down to the elimination of the remaining bastion of anti-government militants in Syria’s Idlib province. It is evident that there are no seeming “moderate rebels” among the terror groups. The militants gathered in Idlib – estimated to number 10,000 – are the concentrated dregs of the self-proclaimed jihadists affiliated with the terror network. Moreover, among this festering resistance are the so-called rescue group known as the White Helmets which have been lionized in the Western media as “humanitarian heroes”.
In other words, the assembled militants in Idlib are proof that the Western charade of supporting “moderate rebels” has at last been exposed for what it is. The US, Britain and France are caught in a trap of their own making, finally having been exposed as the sponsors of the most vile terrorist organizations that have brutalized Syrian society for the past nearly eight years….”
“…The Russian military has received information from several sources in Idlib Province that “a large supply of poisonous agents has been brought to the city of Saraqib on two trucks from the village of Afs,” Major-General Aleksey Tsygankov, head of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the opposing sides in Syria, said in a statement.
The chemicals were delivered to an arms depot, used by the militant group Ahrar al-Sham, “accompanied by the eight members of the White Helmets organization,” Tsygankov said, adding that the cargo was met by two high-ranked Ahrar al-Sham commanders.
“Later, a part of the load was put in unmarked plastic barrels and transported to another militant base in the southern Idlib in order to stage the use of chemical weapons and subsequently blame the government forces of employing poisonous substances against civilians,” the statement read.
Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned that the US has been planning to organize a fake chemical attack in Syria in order to use it as a pretext for a strike against the Syrian government forces.
The deployment of USS Ross with 28 Tomahawk cruise missiles on board to the Mediterranean as well as the arrival of other US warships to the Persian Gulf and Qatar were part of the preparations for the attack, it added….”
“In a move that was entirely predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a “chemical weapons attack”.
This was entirely predictable because that chemical attack script has been read out, with salty crocodile tears, fake concern, and mocked indignation by US talking heads over the years – since 2012, in fact, when former US President Obama himself drew his red line on Syria.
The latest script-reader to toe the chemical hoax line is President Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, who on August 22, stated: “…if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time.”
Beyond the tattered veil of moral superiority that is US war propaganda, Bolton’s words were clearly a very public command to Al-Qaeda and co-extremists to stage yet another fake chemical attack.
Bolton’s statement was preceded by an August 21 France-UK-US (FUKUS) joint statement, likewise threatening further illegal bombing of Syria if a chemical attack in Syria occurred (based on evidence the US never has nor needs to reveal).
Recall that the last time they acted on such a threat, in April 2018, the US and its interventionist allies didn’t even wait for the Douma lie to be exposed, let alone for any mythical evidence to materialize, before they illegally bombed Syria with 103 missiles. The bombings occurred before the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had a chance to visit the Douma sites in question.
It seems that FUKUS’ appetite for destroying Syria wasn’t satiated in April 2018, nor in the April 2017 bombings of Syria following unsubstantiated allegations around Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib.
Bolton’s assertions are backed by the usual suspects of the corporate media, fake human rights groups, “media activists”, and individuals linked to NATO’s Atlantic Council war propaganda think tank.
The over two decades-long dictator of Human Rights Watch (HRW), Ken Roth – who couldn’t even discern whether a video was Gaza’s Israeli-flattened Shuja’iyya or Syria when he tweeted about it being Aleppo in 2015 – is re-beating the Ghouta 2013 dead horse to scare would-be humanitarians around the world. The Western narrative of events in Ghouta been widely-discredited by journalists, and by the so-called “rebels” themselves.
NATO war propagandists, not even slightly original
Chemical weapons accusations are among the most overused war propaganda tactics during the war on Syria. From late 2012 to April 2018, NATO’s mouthpieces have screamed bloody chlorine or sarin. But time and again, they’ve been revealed as intellectually-challenged, supremely-unoriginal liars, to put it politely. Less shrill voices have pointed out the many occasions where so-called “rebels” had access to sarin, control over a chlorine factory, and motives for an attack to occur, among other prudent points.
Some of the more loudly blasted claims were: March 2013, in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo; August 2013, in eastern Ghouta areas; April 2017, in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib; and April 2018, in Douma, eastern Ghouta.
Of the Khan al-Assal allegations, Carla Del Ponte, a lead member of the UNHRC commission of Inquiry, stated that it was “rebels” which used sarin, saying: “I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got… they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition.”
A Mint Press News journalist who went to the areas in question wrote of speaking to “rebels” and their family members who blamed Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar for sending them weapons they didn’t know were chemical weapons and didn’t know how to use.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote and spoke on the sarin allegations, noting (among many things) that, “the sarin that the Syria army has, has a different chemical component than the sarin that would be made by al-Nusra.”
Among the many questions journalists should have posed around the April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun allegations is the question of how we can trust any of the samples by the OPCW when clearly there was no chain of custody: the area is controlled by Al-Qaeda or groups affiliated, groups which have a vested interest in fudging results.
As noted in an article by Moon of Alabama, there is also a distinct lack of certainty around the Khan Sheikhoun accusations. The article further notes that in the OPCW report on Khan Sheikhoun, there are what they mildly dub as irregularities: the 57 cases of patients being admitted to hospitals before the alleged incident occurred, and the contradictory results of blood vs urine samples in “sarin victims”.
Following the April 2018 White House accusation that the Syrian government used sarin in Douma, and in spite of Damascus’ insistence on an OPCW investigation, FUKUS bombed Syria, including Damascus’ densely-inhabited Barzeh district, destroying a site which was involved in production of cancer treatment components, but not chemical weapons.
In Douma, medical staff said that patients had not shown symptoms of a chemical attack. Douma citizens likewise said there hadn’t been a chemical attack. Seventeen Douma civilians and medical staff testified this at the Hague. Corporate media snidely dismissed these testimonies.
The OPCW’s July 2018 interim report on Douma noted that in samples taken from alleged sites, no chemicals that are prohibited in the Chemical Weapons Convention were detected. The OPCW found traces of “chlorinated organic chemicals”, but not Sarin, as alleged by supposed expert Eliot Higgins and the White House, among others.
Who benefits from these repeated allegations? Would the Syrian government truly have benefited had it perpetrated any of these alleged attacks? No. Would it have been logical for the Syrian president to have ordered such a chemical attack, knowing it would bring forward the wrath of Obama, Trump, and their allies? Do these allegations benefit the regime-change coalition? Yes.
In their recent briefing report on the Douma allegations, the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media analyzed the facts around the Douma allegations (and previous ones), the discrepancies around the official narratives, and the murky details behind experts bringing us “evidence”, including one expert with potential ties to the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.
Factors which just might influence the official outcome of investigations….”