Irrefutable evidence: Syrian government did NOT use chemical warfare on its people

Bashar Al-Assad, President, Damascus, Syria
Bashar Al-Assad, President, Damascus, Syria

**** Editor’s note: UPDATED after initial release to correct the title. “NOT” was inadvertently omitted in the original release. No content has been modified. ****

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Irrefutable evidence that the Syrian government did not conduct chemical attacks on its people:

Background

The “evidence” used by the US to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against its own people consisted primarily of photos and videos of dead bodies, predominantly children’s bodies.

Video clips, 35 of them, had been placed on social media by opposition members immediately after the alleged chemical attack at al-Ghouta. You weren’t informed of where these videos originated, but US intel knew they came from the “opposition”. At that time, in 2013, the US was fully backing the Free Syrian Army, and it was members of the Free Syrian Army’s social media staff who uploaded the videos.

When the conflict began in Syria the two main “opposition” groups were al-Qaeda in Syria and the Free Syrian Army. Al-Qaeda in Syria went under the name of Jabhat al-Nusra so that their al-Qaeda affiliation would go unnoticed.

The Free Syrian Army had two primary brigades: the Farouq and the Khalid ibn Walid brigades. The Khalid ibn Walid brigade was funded and armed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and consisted mostly of foreign Islamist mercenaries.

The Farouq brigade consisted of Salafists (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists), who were armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and were affiliates of al-Qaeda. Starting in 2011, the Free Syrian Army’s Farouq brigade often worked in tandem with al-Qaeda in Syria when attacking Christian and Alewite villages in Syria.

The Free Syrian Army’s Farouq brigade, the Salafi group backed by Saudi Arabia, was extremely knowledgeable regarding media and social networking. The group also had experts who produced videos for the television networks of Qatar (al-Jazeera) and Saudi Arabia (al-Arabiya). The propaganda videos they produced were often given to, and used by, Western media.

Thirteen of the 35 videos of the alleged al-Ghouta chemical attack, uploaded onto the Internet by “opposition” affiliates, were presented to a Senate Committee and were presented as “verified and authenticated” – but this was a lie.

Fact: The neighborhoods in question in which the alleged chemical attacks on civilians took place, in al-Ghouta, a district of Damascus, had no civilian residents at the time of the alleged attack.

The reason why there were no residents was because these neighborhoods were “rebel” held neighborhoods. Due to constant missile attacks and barrel bombings from the outskirts of al-Ghouta by the “rebel” groups for many months, the residents evacuated and moved to areas protected by Syrian Armed Forces. Other than the families of the “rebels”, there were no civilians residing in the al-Ghouta neighborhoods in question when the alleged chemical weapon attack occurred (ISTEAMS 2013:5, 9-10).

Fact: The videos that were used as “evidence” by the US were proven to be staged. In particular, the bodies of the children were from an area far from al-Ghouta. The children were from Alewite villages in Latakia, more than 200 miles to the north, in which Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra) had attacked, murdered most of the males, and kidnapped approximately 150 women and children.

Many of the kidnapped children were later killed and their bodies used for filming the staged videos. The children had been listed as missing by relatives. When the videos surfaced, relatives from Latakia recognized the missing children and identified them as the kidnapped children from villages in Latakia (ISTEAMS 2013:13, 43, 45-50).

Fact: All of the videos were staged or manipulated. Some photos of dead bodies allegedly killed in the chemical attack at al-Ghouta were photos from a Muslim Brotherhood protest in Egypt that ended in violence and deaths on August 14, 2013, just one week prior to the alleged “chemical attack” in al-Ghouta (ISTEAMS 2013:20). Those photos were used to show men’s bodies since the creators of the videos had no male bodies to film – only the bodies of the kidnapped children.

Noticeably absent in the alleged chemical attack were bodies of females. The opposition claimed the attack occurred at 2:30 a.m. while people were sleeping. Families would have been found together — women most certainly would be found with their children.

Yet in the rare video that has a woman present, she is seen looking for her child among a display of dead children. If the attack occurred at 2:30 a.m. as the opposition claimed, how is it that the women lost their children in the middle of the night?

The videos were dramatized. The veiled woman looking for her “missing” child was the wife of a “rebel” in rebel-held al-Ghouta.

Fact: When the videos were analyzed it was proven that the same bodies were repeatedly moved and placed in various different buildings and different neighborhoods in al-Ghouta to make it appear as if there were many more dead bodies than there actually were. The opposition social media sites claimed 1465 were killed in the alleged chemical attack. Yet there were only a handful of burials. This is because the same small number of dead bodies were videotaped in different locations to make the numbers appear larger (ISTEAMS 2013:21-35).

Fact: In a video that was supposedly filmed in the streets during the immediate aftermath of the attack, videos showed al-Ghouta inhabited only by males (something you only see in “opposition” held areas). Many of these males were proven to be members of the Free Syrian Army (ISTEAM 2013:42).

Fact: The UN acknowledged that their investigation in al-Ghouta was fully arranged and directed by “opposition” forces.

The UN’s September 13, 2013 report on al-Ghouta states:

“A leader of the local opposition forces who was deemed prominent in the area that was to be visited by the Mission, was identified and requested to take custody of the Mission. The point of contact within the opposition was used to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission and to control patients in order for the Mission to focus on its main activities” (UN Sept. 2013:13).

In other words: Opposition members, in rebel-held al-Ghouta, were in control and influencing the UN mission’s movements and access to “evidence” and “witnesses” throughout the time the UN mission spent gathering evidence.

In the UN’s report, under the section titled “Munitions Recovered”, when discussing the weapons allegedly used in the chemical attack, the UN mission states the following:

“The sites have been well-travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team” (UN Sept. 2013:21).

Regarding the al-Ghouta neighborhoods of Ein Tarma and Zamalka, UN inspectors stated:

“As with other sites, the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated” (UN Sept. 2013:25).

Fact: The UN mission collected environmental samples from the Moadamiyah and Zamalka neighborhoods of al-Ghouta (UN Sept. 2013:App.6:27-29). But there were major conflicting lab results.

The UN reported that there was not one environmental sample taken from “impact sites and surrounding areas” in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin (UN Sept. 2013:30-41).

Yet the alleged “victims” of the chemical attack in Moadamiyah tested the highest for Sarin, with a positive result of 93% – 100%.

Fact:  It is scientifically impossible that victims would test that highly for exposure to Sarin without any trace of environmental evidence testing positive for Sarin at the impact sites.

Fact: The UN mission’s selection of victims in Moadamiyah and Zamalka were not of their own choice. As mentioned previously, the UN reported that: Opposition took custody of the UN mission and facilitated the access to the most critical cases to be interviewed (UN Sept. 2013:13).

The “opposition” the UN speaks of were the Free Syrian Army, a US-backed Islamist group. The Free Syrian Army chose which “victims” the UN would interview and draw samples from to test for sarin.

Fact: It was confirmed in a UN report that opposition groups used sarin in attacks on the Syrian National Army at Khan al Asal, Jobar, Ashrafiah Sahnaya, and army checkpoints at al-Ghouta (detailed in a moment), in which the UN concluded:

“The various attacks on Syrian soldiers indicate that the opposition were in possession of sarin both before and immediately after the chemical weapon attack at al-Ghouta on August 21, 2013.  It would have been impossible for the opposition to acquire chemical weapons so quickly in late August had they not already previously been in possession of chemical weapons” (UN Dec. 2013:23).

But the UN did not release that report until December, 2013, four months after the alleged attacks on civilians. This gave the US plenty of time to convince the public that the Syrian government was to blame.

Meanwhile, interviews conducted by independent reporters with opposition fighters and their families inside al-Ghouta said that rebels were using mosques and vacated houses to sleep while storing chemical weapons in nearby tunnels. Many of these rebel fighters were exposed to, or mishandled the chemical weapons, and died. Also, “some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off explosions” thereby exposing others nearby (Gavlak & Ababneh 2013).

The opposition was leading the UN mission and providing them with evidence and victims, as the UN testified; therefore, it is probable that the opposition gave them the victims of their own chemical weapons mishandling and explosions. This explains why the UN found chemical exposure in “victims” in the Moadamiyah neighborhood, but no environmental evidence of any kind.

Events leading up to the alleged al-Ghouta attack

Fact: On December 9, 2012, eight months before the alleged chemical attack in al-Ghouta, the Free Syrian Army, a known Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist group, in coordination with al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra), attacked and seized the chemical plant in Aleppo (Gerard Direct 2012; see also RT 2013 which reports sarin in the hands of al-Qaeda in Syria).

Fact: On March 19, 2013, five months before the alleged chemical attack in al-Ghouta in August, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian National Army had been attacked in Khan al-Asal by the opposition and that chemical weapons had been used in the attack (UN Dec. 2013:5). The Syrian government requested the UN to establish a specialized, impartial independent mission to investigate the chemical attack in Khan Al Asal (UN Dec. 2013:6).

In the notification to the UN, the Syrian government reported that “armed terrorist groups had fired a rocket that fell approximately 300 meters away from a Syrian army position. Following its impact, a thick cloud of smoke had left unconscious anyone who had inhaled it. This resulted in 25 deaths.” (UN Dec. 2013:5)

Russia presented evidence to the UN proving that Syrian rebels attacked government forces at Khan al-Asal with sarin gas that was produced in “cottage industry” conditions (i.e. homemade weapons). Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had gone to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal and gathered firsthand evidence (Bright 2013; DW 2013).

The samples taken from the impact site at Khan al-Asal of the gas-laden projectile “were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The analysis showed that the rocket that hit the army position at Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard weapon. The samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift “cottage industry” conditions. According to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February 2013 by the Free Syrian Army (Bright 2013; DW 2013; al-Jazeera 2013).

A video further confirmed this report of a chemical attack on the army, showing dead Syrian National Army members sprawled on the ground with blatant indications that they were killed by a chemical agent. All bodies were intact, no blood or wounds, and gas masks are seen next to the soldiers in obvious attempts to put the gas masks on (Video: Syrian Perspective 2014).

Fact:  In the UN report dated December 13, 2013, the UN stated the following regarding the chemical attack at Khan al-Asal that took place on March 19, 2013:

“The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan al Asal on March 19 against soldiers…” (UN Dec. 2013:21)

Fact: On August 22, 2013, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian Army had been attacked at an army checkpoint and that chemical weapons had been used in the attack (UN Dec. 2013:8).

“At 2120 hours on 22 August 2013, several soldiers in Bahhariyeh in the eastern Ghouta region had inhaled poison gases and  complained of respiratory and other symptoms. Eighteen of them had been immediately taken to the Military Hospital to receive emergency care” (UN Dec. 2013:8).

The UN later reported that witnesses said the attack “started with a number of objects being fired at the soldiers, one of which fell about 5 metres away from them. The witnesses stated that there had been no explosion, just the release of some blue-coloured gas with a very bad odour, which had moved into the soldiers direction by the wind. The object was collected by one of the soldiers and later seen and assessed by the United Nations Mission” (UN Dec. 2013:17).

Fact: On August 24, 2013 the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian army had been attacked with chemical weapons at another location, this one at Jobar:

“At 1100 hours on 24 August 2013, as a group of soldiers had approached a building near the river in Jobar, they had heard a muffled sound and then had smelled a foul and strange odour, whereupon they had experienced severe shortness of breath and blurred vision. Four of them were immediately taken to Martyr Yusuf Al Azmah Military Hospital to receive emergency care” (UN Dec. 2013:8).

The Syrian government further reported to the UN that:

“In its search of the buildings immediately surrounding the above-mentioned site, it had discovered some materials, equipment and canisters, examination of which confirmed that they had contained Sarin. Analysis had confirmed that one of the soil samples taken from that site had also been reported by the Syrian Government laboratory to be contaminated with Sarin.” (UN Dec. 2013:8)

Also regarding the attack on soldiers at Jobar:

“Approximately 10 metres away from some soldiers, an improvised explosive device detonated emitting a low noise and releasing a very bad-smelling gas. A group of 10 soldiers was evacuated in armoured personnel vehicles to the field medical point with breathing difficulties. Four soldiers were severely affected. They were only partially conscious and not able to support themselves” (UN Dec. 2013:18).

After investigating the report and visiting the site, the UN stated:

“The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August on a relatively small scale against [Syrian Army] soldiers” (UN Dec. 2013:22).

Fact: On August 25, 2013, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian army had been hit with chemical weapons at Ashrafiah Sahnaya. The UN investigated and reported:

“Based on interviews conducted by the United Nations Mission, it can be ascertained that there were around 15 military personnel deployed at one of the Government checkpoints controlling entry to rebel-held areas near Ashrafiah Sahnaya in the Damascus Rif. At the entrance of Sahnaya the opposition side started to throw objects with a catapult around 1800 hours. At approximately 2000 hours, an object was thrown at a group of five soldiers and landed about 10 to 15 metres away. Something with a bad smell was released, but no explosion was heard. Symptoms such as blurred vision and difficult breathing started to develop in the victims. Forty-five minutes later, they were evacuated by a rescue team and taken to Martyr Yusuf Al Azmah Military Hospital” (UN Dec. 2013:8,20).

Fact: The UN concluded this regarding the attack on soldiers in Ashrafiah Sahnaya:

“The United Nations Mission collected evidence that suggests that chemical weapons were used in Ashrafiah Sahnaya on 25 August 2013 on a small scale against [Syrian Army] soldiers”  (UN Dec. 2013:23).

Fact: The UN stated in their final report:

“The various attacks on Syrian soldiers indicate that the opposition were in possession of sarin both before and immediately after the chemical weapon attack at Ghouta of August 21, 2013. It would have been impossible for the opposition to acquire chemical weapons so quickly in late August had they not already previously been in possession of chemical weapons” (UN Dec. 2013:23).

The UN did not release their report on the alleged chemical attack on civilians at al-Ghouta until September 13, 2013 which gave the Obama Administration 23 days to bombard the western public with lies and propaganda. Moreover, the UN did not release their reports on the chemical attacks on Syrian soldiers at Khan al-Asal, Jobar and Ashrafiah Sahnaya until December 13, 2013, four months after the attacks at al-Ghouta!

No facts of any kind were given to the western public that the Syrian National Army had been attacked by opposition groups who used sarin gas. This gave the Obama administration time to lay the foundation of lies and propaganda campaign.

John Kerry lies repeatedly to the American people

On the day of the alleged chemical attack at al-Ghouta, supposedly conducted by the Syrian army on it own people, “opposition” social media sites released the 35 opposition-created videos. The US, French, and the British governments immediately began to claim that there was a “massacre conducted by the Syrian government” – without any evidence of any kind as to “who” actually conducted the attacks. The US, French and British governments had no confiscated weapons or other factual evidence at that time.

There was only the “opposition” created videos.

Western media incessantly showed video clips of dead children to gather sympathy, formulate outrage, and to create unjust condemnation towards the Syrian government. The authenticity of the videos was never verified, nor were the “sources” of the videos investigated by mainstream media.

Neither the US government, nor its allies Britain and France waited for the report by the UN inspection team. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry dismissed the UN inspectors’ presence in Syria as “irrelevant”. The US pronounced a verdict of guilt based on the opposition-created videos and on information it said was supplied by Intelligence agencies. But their Intelligence sources were not on the ground inside Syria at the time. And only “opposition” sources were on the ground in al-Ghouta — opposition sources that consisted of the US-backed Free Syrian Army, whose members consisted of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

On August 30, 2013, just eight days after the alleged attack, the U.S. Government published its “Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons” (US Government 2013). And using that report, John Kerry bumped up the lies to the American people in his press conferences.

Please note: I have highlighted in bold the untruths Secretary of State Kerry said to the American people, followed by my own comments as “notes”.

Kerry: “Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack, and I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves.”

Note: These words were deliberately used to fool people into thinking they were given “facts”. This was a lie: the American people were not given any of the facts.

Kerry: We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.”

Note:  Every word in this statement was a lie, most especially that the rockets came “only from regime-controlled areas”. This was proven to be untrue by many, including a UN weapons inspector (Lloyd 2014) and is detailed in the next section.

Kerry: “In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.”

Note: It was not “common sense” to conclude that the Syrian government conducted the attack, nor was there any evidence or facts leading to this conclusion.

Kerry: “By the definition of their own mandate, the UN can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you. And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the UN Security Council, the UN cannot galvanize the world to act as it should.”

Note:  Kerry wanted Americans to distrust Russia because as detailed earlier in this report, Russia produced verified evidence that the chemical weapons were produced in a “cottage industry” – homemade chemical weapons by the opposition.

Regarding the missiles the US claimed as evidence in the al-Ghouta attack and where they were launched from:

Fact: “The caliber of the missiles suggests that a Soviet-made, BM-14 series 140mm. multiple-rocket launcher was used to shell Eastern Ghouta. This launcher, designed in 1951, was previously part of the Syrian Army’s inventory until it was replaced decades ago by the newer BM-21 (Grad, 122 mm. caliber, designed in 1963) and Chinese-made Type 63 (107 mm. caliber) launchers. However, the old-fashioned BM-14s are widely available in the region and were used, for example, by the Algerian rebels in the 1990s and the Taliban in 2000s. They are very compact and could easily have been brought in to any location on that night. Therefore, the presumed location of the launch pad is insignificant, as any deserted suburb of Damascus that lies within range could have been used.”  (Global Research 2013; New Eastern Outlook 2013)

Fact: Mikhail Barabanov, an expert with the Russian Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies stated that the label on a warhead found at the site matches those on missiles produced in 1967 in Novosibirsk (Russia). “One might justifiably wonder why the Syrian Army would launch a 46-year-old missile when it holds abundant stockpiles of far more reliable modern weapons. … If the date of a missile’s production does not match the production date for its chemical agent, it stands to reason that the warhead was filled in an underground laboratory or was homemade. This is fully in keeping with earlier evidence regarding the use of homemade chemical weapons by rebels in Syria.” (Global Research 2013)

Fact: British Intel later obtained a sample of the sarin used in the August 21 chemical attack at al-Ghouta. Analysis at Porton Down, the defense laboratory in Wiltshire, UK concluded the sarin used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal (Hersh 2014).

On September 3, 2013 John Kerry continued to manipulate public opinion:

Excerpts from Kerry (2013):

Kerry: “We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information. And we ask the American people and the rest of the world to judge that information. We have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.”

Note: This is a lie, as proven by Lloyd (2014), detailed in the following section.

Kerry: “We have a map, physical evidence, showing every geographical point of impact – and that is concrete. We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the heart of regime territory.”

Note:  These statements are lies as detailed previously and by UN weapons inspector Lloyd (2014) detailed below. The opposition did indeed have the weapons and the capacity.

Additionally, the UN report of September 13, 2013 states that the rockets appeared to have been “moved to al-Ghouta”. There was no evidence as to where exactly the weapons were fired from. Kerry lied when he said that the strike was conducted from “the heart of regime territory”.

UN Weapons Inspector proves US claims “cannot possibly be correct”

FACT:  Richard Lloyd, UN Weapons Inspector, after evaluation of all US claims in their Intel report, stated:

“The US Government’s interpretation of the Technical Intelligence it gathered prior to and after the August 21 attack cannot possibly be correct” (Lloyd 2014:11).

“Indigenous chemical munition could be manufactured by anyone who has access to a machine shop with modest capabilities. The claim is incorrect that only the Syrian Government could manufacture the munition” (Lloyd 2014:12-26).

The UN Weapons Inspector then detailed how the rocket motor was removed from a “soup can” type of rocket and was “improvised” (Lloyd 2014:12-26). Lloyd concludes: “It could be manufactured by anyone who has access to a machine shop”.

Lloyd goes into several pages of technical data as well as how the maximum range of the improvised chemical munition’s range was estimated (Lloyd 2014:28-36). He concluded:

“Our estimated range for the Improvised Munition is close to its upper possible range. It means that the US Government’s interpretation of the technical Intelligence it gathered cannot possibly be correct.”

On page 36 of Lloyd’s report, he states:

“The Improvised Chemical Munitions that were used in the August 21, Nerve Agent Attack in [al-Ghouta] Damascus have a range of about 2 Kilometers. This indicates that these munitions could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the “Heart” or the eastern edge of the Syrian Government controlled area depicted in the Intelligence Map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.

“This faulty Intelligence could have led to an unjustified US Military action based on false Intelligence.”

“A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data.

“Whatever the reasons for the egregious errors in the Intelligence, the source of these errors needs to be explained.”

“If the Source of these errors is not identified, the problems that led to this Intelligence failure will go uncorrected, and the chances of a future policy disaster will grow with certainty.”

From August 21 through September 3, 2013, almost everything John Kerry said in press conferences were lies. Kerry told the American people:

Kerry: “The United States government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children.” 

~~ A lie: there were only a handful killed, and many were dead before the alleged attack. The children seen in the videos were kidnapped in Latakia by Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and the “Free Syrian Army” (ISTEAMS 2013). Additionally, if 1429 died, why were there only eight burials in al-Ghouta after the alleged attack?

Kerry: “With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs.”

~~ A lie: the same bodies were moved to different locations to make it appear as if there were 11 different sites (ISTEAMS 2013).

Kerry: “Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world, 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.”

~~ If Kerry had indeed watched the videos as he stated, he would have noticed it was the same children in the same clothing, only appearing in different locations. These words were well-calculated to manipulate the emotions of the American people.

Kerry: “As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head … the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound … human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.”

~~ Not one video showed a family, let alone a family in their beds, because there weren’t any.

Kerry: “At every turn, the Syrian regime failed to cooperate with the U.N. 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.”

~~ A lie, as detailed previously. The UN reported that the Syrian government was the first to submit detailed reports of chemical attacks on the days that they occurred, and also gave detailed hospital reports and results of those exposed or dead. The Syrian government also immediately requested a UN mission to come to Syria and investigate the chemical attacks when they occurred.

Kerry: “I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria.”

~~ These statements were lies. Doctors Without Borders did not have any staff in al-Ghouta at that time. Doctors Without Borders did NOT produce first-hand accounts because they were not there. The Doctors Without Borders website stated at the time: “Due to significant security risks, staff members have not been able to access the facilities.” Additionally, opposition forces have never allowed humanitarian or medical aid into their captured areas.

Regarding the other organization Kerry mentioned, Syrian Human Rights Commission, this is an opposition propaganda site that continuously reports “massacres conducted by the Syrian regime”, yet investigations into these claims finds that the massacres were conducted by “opposition” groups, not the Syrian army. I will detail on this group in another report, but will add here that this group has never reported the genuine massacres that have taken place in Syria. Opposition groups have continuously massacred Christian and Alewite communities beginning in 2011, in which many thousands have been killed. If this was a valid humanitarian organization, those massacres would have been reported, but they were not. This is a propaganda organization promoting the Islamist agenda.

Conclusion: There was never any evidence pointing to the Syrian government. The event in al-Ghouta was created to place blame on the Syrian government in order to oust the government and replace it with an Islamic government.

Originally posted at CheriBerens with linked sources and additional photos.

Photo credit Wikimedia

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.