5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

truther September 18, 2013 2

Tony Cartalucci

As predicted days before the UN’s Syrian chemical weapons report was made public, the West has begun spinning the findings to bolster their faltering narrative regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks on August 21, 2013 in eastern Damascus, Syria. The goal of course, is to continue demonizing the Syrian government while simultaneously sabotaging a recent Syrian-Russian deal to have Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles verified and disarmed by independent observers. 

5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

Image: 107mm rocket shells frequently used by terrorists operating within and along Syria’s borders. They are similar in configuration and function to those identified by the UN at sites investigated after the alleged August 21, 2013 Damascus, Syria chemical weapons attack, only smaller. 

A barrage of suspiciously worded headlines attempt to link in the mind of unobservant readers the UN’s “confirmation” of chemical weapons use in Syria and Western claims that it was the Syrian government who used them. Additionally, the US, British, and French governments have quickly assembled a list of fabrications designed to spin the UN report to bolster their still-unsubstantiated accusations against the Syrian government.

The BBC’s article, “US and UK insist UN chemicals report ‘blames Syria’,” again states unequivocally, [emphasis added]:

The UN report did not attribute blame for the attack, as that was not part of its remit.

However, that did not stop UK Foreign Secretary William Hague who claimed:

From the wealth of technical detail in the report – including on the scale of the attack, the consistency of sample test results from separate laboratories, witness statements, and information on the munitions used and their trajectories – it is abundantly clear that the Syrian regime is the only party that could have been responsible.

And US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power who stated:

The technical details of the UN report make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large-scale chemical weapons attack.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is also quoted as saying:

When you look at the findings carefully, the quantities of toxic gas used, the complexity of the mixes, the nature, and the trajectory of the carriers, it leaves absolutely no doubt as to the origin of the attack.

The Washington Post went one step further, and perhaps foolishly, laid out a detailed explanation of each fabrication the West is using to spin the latest UN report. In an article titled, “The U.N. chemical weapons report is pretty damning for Assad,” 5 points are made and explained as to why the UN report “points” to the Syrian government.

1. Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels: This claim includes referencing “Syria watcher” Eliot Higgins also known as “Brown Moses,” a UK-based armchair observer of the Syrian crisis who has been documenting weapons used throughout the conflict on his blog.

While Higgins explains these particularly larger diameter rockets (140mm and 330mm) have not been seen (by him) in the hands of terrorists operating within and along Syria’s borders, older posts of his show rockets similar in construction and operation, but smaller, most certainly in the hands of the militants.

The Washington Post contends that somehow these larger rockets require “technology” the militants have no access to. This is categorically false. A rocket is launched from a simple tube, and the only additional technology terrorists may have required for the larger rockets would have been a truck to mount them on. For an armed front fielding stolen tanks, finding trucks to mount large metal tubes upon would seem a rather elementary task – especially to carry out a staged attack that would justify foreign intervention and salvage their faltering offensive.

2. The sarin was fired from a regime-controlled area: The Washington Post contends that:

The report concludes that the shells came from the northwest of the targeted neighborhood. That area was and is controlled by Syrian regime forces and is awfully close to a Syrian military base. If the shells had been fired by Syrian rebels, they likely would have come from the rebel-held southeast.

What the Washington Post fails to mention are the “limitations” the UN team itself put on the credibility of their findings. On page 18 of the report (22 of the .pdf), the UN states [emphasis added]:

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

It should also be noted that militants still controlled the area after the alleged attack and up to and including during the investigation by UN personnel. Any tampering or planting of evidence would have been carried out by “opposition” members – and surely the Syrian government would not point rockets in directions that would implicate themselves.

3. Chemical analysis suggests sarin likely came from controlled supply: The Washington Post claims:

The U.N. investigators analyzed 30 samples, which they found contained not just sarin but also “relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers.” That suggests that the chemical weapons were taken from a controlled storage environment, where they could have been processed for use by troops trained in their use.

Only, any staged attack would also need to utilize stabilized chemical weapons and personnel trained in their use. From stockpiles looted in Libya, to chemical arms covertly transferred from the US, UK, or Israel, through Saudi Arabia or Qatar, there is no short supply of possible sources.

Regarding “rebels” lacking the necessary training to handle chemical weapons – US policy has seen to it that not only did they receive the necessary training, but Western defense contractors specializing in chemical warfare are reported to be on the ground with militants inside Syria. CNN reported in their 2012 article, “Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” that:

The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

4. Cyrillic characters on the sides of the shells: The Washington Post claims:

The Russian lettering on the artillery rounds strongly suggests they were Russian-manufactured. Russia is a major supplier of arms to the Syrian government, of course, but more to the point they are not a direct or indirect supplier of arms to the rebels.

The Washington Post’s logic fails even at face value. Terrorists operating inside of Syria also possess rifles and even tanks of Russian origin – stolen or acquired through a large network of illicit arms constructed by NATO and its regional allies to perpetuate the conflict.

Additionally, had the attacks been staged by terrorists or their Western backers, particularly attacks whose fallout sought to elicit such a profound geopolitical shift in the West’s favor, it would be assumed some time would be invested in making them appear to have originated from the Syrian government. The use of chemical weapons on a militant location by the militants themselves would constitute a “false flag” attack, which by definition would require some sort of incriminating markings or evidence to accompany the weapons used in the barrage.

5. The UN Secretary General’s comments on the report: The Washington Post itself admits the tenuous nature of this final point, stating:

“This is perhaps the most circumstantial case at all, but it’s difficult to ignore the apparent subtext in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s news conference discussing the report…”

That the Washington Post, and the interests driving its editorial board, could not even produce 5 reasonably convincing arguments as to why the UN report somehow implicates the Syrian government casts doubt on claims regarding the “wealth of technical detail” pointing in President Bashar al-Assad’s direction.

The UN report confirms that chemical weapons were used, a point that was not contended by either side of the conflict, before or after the UN investigation began. What the West is attempting to now do, is retrench its narrative behind the report and once again create a baseless justification for continued belligerence against Syria, both covert and as a matter of official foreign policy.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at  Land Destroyer Report

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments


  1. Michael J. Marsalek September 18, 2013 at 10:38 pm - Reply

    It’s absolutely clear that Barack Obama is determined to degrade the Assad government’s military capability to defend against being overthrown by the U.S. supplied & supported government opposition forces. Because the CIA and other U.S. & foreign agencies have been covertly furnishing weapons and material support to the rebels, it is impossible to determine where the chemical weapons originated from let alone prove that the weapons came from the Syrian government stockpiles. Now what we do know is that because the U.S. and its allies have been supplying lethal aid to the government opposition forces, the Syrian civil war has lasted much longer and caused many more civilian casualties than had the U.S. & its allies not intervened. The American people are convinced that there are undisclosed economic & geopolitical interests motivating the U.S. to overthrow the Assad government. The American people also know that when forces in the region retaliate against the U.S , and they will, the U.S. first response will be to take away Constitutionally guaranteed American freedoms.

  2. BARBBF September 18, 2013 at 9:52 pm - Reply



    Syria’s Al Nusra Rebels and Chemical Weapons »

    By Larry Johnson on September 17, 2013 at 8:39 AM in Current Affairs | 49 Comments

    Despite the frantic efforts of the Obama Administration, the Brits, the French, the Turks and the Saudis to indict Bashir Assad for the chemical attack on the 21st of August, there is strong and compelling evidence that the incident that day was the result of one faction of rebels targeting another. Why? They wanted to make it look like it was the work of Assad but it was not.

    As I have reported before, CIA buddies knowledgeable of what was going on at the time warned me at the outset that this was a set up. I would point you to a Facebook posting by a Vladimir Suchan:

    UN report identifies 140mm M14 Artillery Rocket in chemical attack See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-14. When the story of the attack was first published, the New York Times immediately provided a link to “Amer Mosa’s” video on Youtube, claiming it to be a recording of the attack. As I pointed out earlier, though, the video was actually showing rockets being fired BY the rebels in Ghouta. Read the rest

    UN Set to Release Report on Chemical Casualties in Syria »

    By Larry Johnson on September 16, 2013 at 8:21 AM in Current Affairs | 140 Comments

    If you are hoping for a damning indictment of Bashir Assad and the Syrian military in today’s UN report on the chemical casualties that the Obama folks insisted was a deliberate Sarin gas attack by the Syrian Government, be prepared to be disappointed. The chemical that was used was not military grade Sarin. The Syrian Government uses a binary weapon. What does that mean? You must mix two separate substances together in order to create the nerve agent.

    The incident of 21 August was not a persistent, highly lethal military weapon. It was, most likely, a chemical obtained by and/or produced by one of the rebel groups seeking to oust Assad. This was a pre-planned attack by one of the rebel groups who, with the assistance of outside intelligence organizations, were hoping to create an incident that would bring the United States into the fray.

    The CIA apparently was not the “brains” behind this effort, but the CIA was witting of the plan. In other words, the CIA knew early on that Assad was not responsible for ordering a chemical weapon attack on rebel positions. But the US was on board for using the incident as a pretext to launch military strikes inside Syria in a bid to weaken Assad and bolster the rebels.

    Only one little problem. Read the rest

Leave A Response »

jebol togel
Slot Gacor