Below we offer two interpretations of this news, one by left analyst Stephen Lendman, whom we trust, and the other by the UK Guardian (which publishes Glenn Greenwald’s dispatches), an establishment liberal paper. Being a liberal organ we find that its reporting on this topic must be taken with extreme caution. Despite its current status as an enemy of the imperial state due to the NSA imbroglio, the Guardian is essentially an establishment institution and a class ally. This has been demonstrated on a number of occasions.
Still, we include the Guardian article here for media education purposes, to show how even papers that regard themselves—on balance— as “progressive”, the best of the liberal lot, can often serve as smooth propaganda platforms for the world imperial propaganda system. For if the US itself has not come out and endorsed the veracity of this latest report of {Syrian] Government crimes…why lend it credence by running it in whole and without any editorial cautionary notes? But the “smoking gun” in what we regard as a criminal fabrication is simply the test of logic. The Syrian government or army have little nothing to gain by lobbying gas canisters at the rebels. Consider:
(1) The use of dreaded chemical weapons on their foes by the Syrian government is a stupid political and military move. Such an act immediately gives the Western media and the governments they shill for (US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, etc., all intent on toppling Assad but NOT for human rights reasons) a huge propaganda victory to whitewash the escalation of their meddling in Syria’s affairs;
(2) Chemical weapons are tactically as effective as many other available weapons and they can be highly indiscriminate, something the Syrian government is well aware of. So why use them at all unless pinned against the wall, which they certainly are not as the tides of this civil war have actually tuned against the so-called rebels, despite the immense aid rendered by the NATO/Arab cabal? Given the history of the chief protagonists, this story continues to have all the earmarks of a fabrication, a classic case of provocation. —P. Greanville
The Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Canard
by Stephen Lendman
Throughout months of conflict, Assad faced repeated accusations of chemical weapons use. No evidence whatever suggests it. Clear evidence suggests otherwise. Wrongful accusations persist. They ring hollow. They lack credibility. It doesn’t matter. They repeat with disturbing regularity. On August 21, The New York Times headlined “Syrian Rebels Accuse Government of Chemical Attack.”
They claimed rockets targeting areas east of Damascus “carr(ied) poison gas. (They said) people had been killed in their sleep and that local hospitals were filled with casualties.” eports are conflicting. Some suggest hundreds died. “The attacks will undoubtedly increase the pressure on a team sent to Syria by the United Nations to investigate allegations of chemical weapons that was to begin working on Monday,” said The Times.
“Numerous allegations of chemical weapons use have surfaced” throughout months of conflict. None suggest government involvement. On August 21, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Media source: Reports on chemical weapons in Ghouta untrue,” saying:
“A media source on Wednesday dismissed as untrue the news broadcast by some media outlets that chemical weapons have been used in the Ghouta region in Damascus Countryside.”
“The source stressed that the reports circulated by the TV channels of (Qatar-run) al-Jazeera, (Saudi Arabia’s) al-Arabiya and (Murdoch’s) Sky News among other channels which are involved in the shedding of the Syrians’ blood and supporting terrorism are completely baseless. The source said the aim behind broadcasting such reports and news is to distract the UN chemical weapons investigation commission away from its mission.”
A government security source called accusations about Syria’s use of chemical weapons “lies.”
“There is nothing new happening here because there’s fighting every day. Operations are under way in all regions to chase armed groups,” he said.
The Times quoted someone named Abu Yassin, saying:
“We thought this regime would not use chemical weapons, at least these days with the presence of the U.N. inspectors. It is reckless. The regime is saying, ‘I don’t care.” Opposition Syrian National Council media coordinator Louay Mekdad was cited, saying:
“Bashar al-Assad doesn’t care any longer about red lines since he has already exceeded too many of them while the world has showed no reaction. This means the alleged lines never existed.”
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague [a criminal hypocrite himself—Eds] was quoted. He expressed “deep concern.” He admitted reports are uncorroborated. He wants more information.
He suggested Syrian government use, saying:
It’s “clear that if (reports) are verified, it would mark a shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Vincent Floreani condemned the “murderous attacks attributed to the Syrian regime in the region of Damascus.” Photos and videos were posted online. Images are graphic (see below). They show bodies on a makeshift hospital floor. They’re being hosed down with water. Another shows a child treated with a hand-held respirator. Others show victims gasping for air. Whether they reflect Ghouta’s incident remains undetermined.
Images are unverified. They contain no DNA. They could be from anywhere. They can be new, old or contrived. Hollywood sound stages expertly recreate them. (As the pro-CIA film ARGO aptly indicated.)
If Ghouta evidence is credible, at issue is who’s responsible. Throughout months of conflict, no evidence suggested government use. Plenty corroborated insurgent responsibility. A previous article explained.
Times writers, contributors and editors marginalize, downplay or ignore voices of truth. It’s standard Times practice. One-sided reporting is featured. Readers are betrayed in the process. Ghouta was strategically timed. It came with UN investigators present in Syria. Doing so raises obvious red flags. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.
According to IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center analyst Charles Lister:
“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.”
Al-Watan’s a Syrian Arabic language daily. It’s privately owned. It said Assad “pledged to cooperate and facilitate the work” of UN chemical weapons inspectors. On August 20, their mission began. They seek firsthand evidence of chemical weapons use. They won’t determine who used them. They’ll only confirm whether or not they were used and which ones.
According to chemical weapons expert Jean Pascal Zanders:
If they only plan “going in and coming back with definitive confirmation that chemical weapons have been deliberately used, there is reason to be skeptical that the investigation will bear fruit.”
Key is pointing fingers the right way. Failure lets media scoundrels take full advantage. They accused Assad all along. They’ve done so unjustifiably. They do it anyway. They regurgitate Big Lies. In July, Russia submitted firsthand evidence. It’s credible. It’s clear and unequivocal. It indicated insurgent use. Media scoundrels ignored it. They featured duplicitous US claims.
Assad’s wrongfully blamed. So-called evidence Washington cited falls short of required standards. It’s hollow. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Independent analysis would reject it. New York Times editors aren’t deterred. On April 24, they headlined “Were Chemical Weapons Used in Syria?”
“Its not hard to imagine that President Bashar al-Assad, desperately clinging to power, might use chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” they said. “He has already pummeled them with warplanes and missiles and shows no signs of ending a bloody onslaught that has lasted more than two years.”
At the same time, Times editors admitted no proof of government chemical weapons use. Suggesting it comes close. An accurate headline would read: No evidence proves Syrian government chemical weapons use. Don’t expect it from Times editors. They prioritize pointing fingers the wrong way. They accuse Assad of insurgent crimes. They downplay or ignore their worst ones. They quoted Israeli General Itai Brun claiming Syria “has increasingly used chemical weapons.” Another Israel official suggests sarin gas. He claimed Syria stockpiled it.
Times editors accused Russia of “unconscionably” “defend(ing) and enabl(ing) Mr. Assad.” They endorse whatever political Washington supports. They substitute lies for truth and full disclose. It’s official Times policy.
Forbes magazine calls itself “a capitalist tool.” On August 19, it featured a Claudia Rosett op-ed. She’s a Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) journalist-in-residence. She heads its Investigative Reporting Center. She substitutes managed news information for responsible journalism.
FDD’s a right-wing neocon think tank. Its Leadership Council includes Forbes CEO Steve Forbes, former CIA head James Woolsey, Project for the New Century co-founder Bill Kristol and former Senator Joe Lieberman among others. Its Executive Team includes comparable rogues gallery scoundrels. So does its Board of Advisors.
Rosett misinformed readers. She did so duplicitously. She did it willfully. She did it maliciously. She headlined “North Korean-Syrian Chemistry: The Weapons Connections,” saying:
“Is North Korea complicit in the use of chemical weapons in Syria? For a host of reasons, this question ought to be high priority for the United Nations chemical weapons experts.”
Reasons to do so “range from recent press reports – unconfirmed, but plausible – of direct North Korean involvement in the alleged chemical attacks themselves,” as well as “partner(ing) (in) proliferat(ing) weapons of mass murder – not only chemical, but nuclear.”
Rosett cited a nonexistent Middle East Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah terror axis. North Korea’s involved, she said.
When evidence doesn’t exist, it’s invented. Doing so facilitates Washington’s imperium. It’s standard scoundrel media practice. Right-wing think tanks feature it.
Big Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure. They launch wars. They facilitate mass killing and destruction. It’s the longstanding American way. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
••••••••
_______________
Syria conflict: chemical weapons blamed as hundreds reported killed
Death toll claimed to be as high as 1,400 as Syrian government admits launching offensive but denies using chemical weapons
Warning: contains graphic contentLink to video: Syria: footage shows horrific aftermath of alleged gas attackHundreds of people are believed to have been killed in an apparent gas attack on rebel-held parts of eastern Damascus that is thought to be the most significant use of chemical weapons since thousands of Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein in Halabja 25 years ago.Medics, as well as opposition fighters and political leaders, said the death toll had reached 1,400 and was likely to rise further with hundreds more critically wounded in districts besieged by the Syrian military. Other estimates put the current toll at between 200 and 500. None of the figures could be independently verified.
The Syrian government acknowledged it had launched a major offensive in rebel-held districts in the east of the capital – described by pro-regime media as the biggest since the start of the civil war – but strongly denied using chemical weapons during the attack.
“These are lies that serve the propaganda of the terrorists,” a Syrian official said, referring to the armed opposition. “We would not use such weapons.”
However, George Sabra, the head of the main Syrian opposition group, laid the blame squarely at the Assad regime, saying the scenes of widespread death “constitute a turning point in the regime’s operations”.
“This time it was for annihilation, rather than terror,” he said.
Location of Wednesday’s attack. Credit: Guardian graphicsInternational reaction intensified throughout the day. The UN security council called an emergency session and the White House formally requested the UN to investigate the attack. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said the UK was “deeply concerned”.A UN inspection team arrived in Damascus this week to look into earlier claims of chemical weapon use, but was granted permission to enter Syria with a limited mission to investigate only three specific sites. An expanded mandate to investigate Wednesday’s attack in eastern Ghouta – only 10 miles from the team’s hotel – must be sought by the UN secretary general and then approved by Syria.The US moved quickly to make the request. The White House said: “For the UN’s efforts to be credible they must have immediate access to witnesses and affected individuals, and have the ability to examine and collect physical evidence without any interference or manipulation from the Syrian government. If the Syrian government has nothing to hide and is truly committed to an impartial and credible investigation of chemical weapons use in Syria, it will facilitate the UN team’s immediate and unfettered access to this site.”
Rescuers and victims said the shelling of eastern Ghouta started shortly after 2am and targeted three districts, Ein Tarma, Zermalka and Jobar, all rebel strongholds for the past year.
“It was around 2.30am Wednesday when we received calls from Zemalka and Jobar,” said a Free Syria Army (FSA) officer, Captain Alla’a al-Basha, who has documented previous alleged chemical attacks in the area.
“The FSA members were asking for more forces to evacuate the civilians as the shells were coming in at around five per minute. As soon as I and my team arrived at the scene, I saw bodies scattered in the streets. I saw whole houses – none of their residents were alive. When I got there, I could smell what seemed to be burning sulphur and something like cooked eggs. The smoke was not pure white.
“Most of the victims were shivering and they turned yellow in colour. I saw a woman who was tearing at her clothes as she could not breath. The number of the casualties that we were able to document so far is 1,228 martyrs. The doctors think that more than 20 shells were fired with fatal gases.
“Most of the victims did not appear to be injured but died out of suffocation. I held a young boy whose body was like a piece of wood and his colour was very blue. He did not have any wound.”
By Wednesday night, more than 120 videos had been uploaded to the internet, most depicting scenes of men women and children in respiratory distress, on watery floors, and doctors describing the victims’ symptoms. Other videos showed scores of bodies wrapped in white shrouds, or lying on grey concrete.
White foam was bubbling from the mouth and nostrils of many victims. Some writhed in distress, apparently struggling to breathe.
Doctors at makeshift clinics said they were working without oxygen and had been overrun by the number of victims, many of whom needed lifesaving treatment that they could not provide.
Treatment of victims appeared rudimentary, with water and vinegar among the means of trying to dilute the effects. “We know when we have an area targeted by fatal gases we would take plastic masks and put wet cloths on our noses and mouths,” said Basha. “But most of the civilians do not know that they have to do that.”
Sergeant Abu Ali, who runs a field hospital in the Nashabiya area of eastern Damascus, said he had received patients who were vomiting and had high temperatures, breathing problems, limb stiffness and were in comas. “We received 60 cases. Most of them were sent to the nearby farms after their situation was stabilised and those with acute symptoms were kept here. I have very few medicines and all the oxygen tubes I have had run out now. People need intensive care.”
One witness told Reuters by Skype from the suburb of Erbin: “We would go into a house and everything was in its place, every person was in their place. They were lying where they had been. They looked like they were asleep. But they were dead.”
Ralf Trapp, a consultant on chemical and biological weapons, said getting access to the scenes of the attacks was paramount for inspectors. “The logical thing to do would be to go in and start interviewing doctors and getting blood and urine samples.
“This is the ideal moment to collect samples because it is so shortly after the attack. They may get intact agent – in the first day or so you would still find intact sarin, for example. Within a few days you would find degradation products. If you link those to clinical examinations and testimony, you can build up a very precise picture of what happened.
“They need to try to get to the site where it happened, talk to people who were on the spot when it happened, to victims and observers, to create as complete a picture of the actual attack. They want to discriminate against other types of weapons that might cause similar effects or release something by chance.”
Charles Duelfer, a former US chief weapons inspector, said: “[Video] reports of doctors treating these people, that’s real data.” Duelfer said the scale of the attack could probably be proved by the intelligence community. “It will be pretty clear pretty quickly because various countries’ intelligence apparatus will have noticed something on this scale, whether it’s artillery, rockets, or shells. These are knowable things.
“The White House is going to be hard pressed to construct an answer to this one. It was easy to waffle a bit so long as alleged use was minor and didn’t happen again, but this is really putting the administration in a corner.”
