# US used $144,000,000 worth of
missiles, in an attempt to destroy alleged chemical sites,,, due to be
inspected starting today....seems the US would want the inspectors to
find traces.... Unless there was no evidence to be found........
US-led Syria strikes: West trashes international law in favor of ‘might is right’
Robert Bridge
RT : 14 Apr, 2018
Once again, Western nations have ganged up on a sovereign state, first accusing it of crimes without evidence before following up with a brazen attack. The reason for such behavior is diabolically simple: because they can.
On Saturday morning, the world awoke to the news that the US, the UK and France had followed through on their threat to punish President Bashar Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons against innocent people. These NATO states unleashed a massive missile strike near Homs and the capital Damascus with the stated purpose of destroying sites said to be connected to the production of chemical weapons. If the attack was intended for domestic consumption only, in typical ‘wag the dog’ fashion, it failed miserably on that score.
Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the military assault, saying it had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and was carried out “in violation of the UN Charter and principles of international law.”
That was just the beginning of the serious legal issues regarding this brazen, cowardly attack on a sovereign nation. Not only did the Americans, British and French flaunt international law, exactly as they had done seven years ago in Libya, they arrogantly ignored the democratic will of their respective constituents, bypassing congressional and parliamentary procedure in a mad rush to war. In fact, the only thing ‘transparent’ and ‘accountable’ about Saturday’s attack was the flimsy foundation upon which it was advertised.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May, invoking the very same invalid argument that she used to accuse Russia in the Skripal poisoning mystery, said it was “highly likely” Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the 'chemical attack'.
Echoing that subjective, fact-free assertion, the White House said it had a “high level of confidence” the Assad ‘regime’ was responsible for the alleged attack.
Not to be left behind by his peers, Emmanuel Macron, displaying early warning signs of Napoleon complex, told reporters that he had “proof” Assad was responsible for the attack. Yet the French makeup artist has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support his claim, and, we can safely assume, never will.
This brings us to the really disturbing part about Saturday’s attack: had Team Trump shown some restraint for just a few more days, they would have been able to make a much more accurate and measured assessment as to what really happened in the Damascus suburb one week ago. That’s because a team of experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), was scheduled to arrive in Syria on April 14 - the very same day the NATO members launched their assault - to carry out an investigation of the alleged chemical attack.
In other words, Trump, May and Macron could actually be charged with ‘tampering’ with a crime scene and destroying the evidence before investigators can carry out their forensic work.
"It's most probably an attempt to create difficulties for the OPCW mission that is just starting its work… or even to thwart it," the chair of Russia's Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, Konstantin Kosachev, said.
This rush to war brings to mind the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. With UN weapon inspectors on the ground in the country, reporting no trace of weapons of mass destruction, then Secretary of State Colin Powell saved the day by giving a performance worthy of an Academy Award at the UN General Assembly. As attendees stared on in wide-eyed disbelief, Powell shook a vial of ‘anthrax,’ inviting his audience to imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein decided to unleash the deadly bacteria against their people. Only after the disastrous Iraq War was well underway did the Western mainstream media think to question the ‘bad intelligence’ and blatant deception that permitted the US and its allies to undertake the cruelest, most opportunistic attack on innocent people in recent memory.
The very same could be said about the disastrous NATO-backed regime change in Libya in 2011. In both cases, relatively stable and prosperous countries were turned into hotbeds of terrorism, violence and crime. In fact, the world would most likely never have heard of the terrorist organization ‘Islamic State’ had the West stayed out of Iraq. And here is the sick irony of the West attacking Syrian government forces: it could open the door to bona-fide terrorists coming to power in the event Damascus falls. Indeed, the US has made no secret that its goal is to remove Assad from power, yet – exactly as was the case with Iraq and Libya – they offer no realistic alternatives to his rule aside from ‘moderate rebels.’
Another irony from yesterday’s brazen attack: Trump used the phrase “mission accomplished” to describe the assault, like it was just another day at the golf course. The remark echoed former US President George W Bush’s premature speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in 2003 when he declared the end of combat operations in Iraq in front of a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished.” Yet in reality that was just the beginning of the nightmare for Iraq.
America’s waning unipolar moment
At this point, the question must be asked: What sort of dire affliction has infected the Western mind to the point where it believes it can act with impunity against multiple sovereign states? My personal guess is that America and the West are struggling with the uncomfortable realization that their ‘unipolar moment’ is setting fast below the horizon.
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States began to indulge itself in increasingly belligerent behavior across a wider and wider swath of the planet. The juggernaut was made all the more harrowing by America’s almost fanatical belief that it is the one and only ‘indispensable nation’ blessed by some higher authority with ‘exceptional’ qualities that are beyond question. This was America’s ‘unipolar moment.’
That open window of militaristic opportunity was applauded by neoconservatives, including Charles Krauthammer, who penned a 1990 article in Foreign Affairs (‘The Unipolar Moment’) where he boldly states: “The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.”
This is pure unadulterated Machiavellian thinking, which substitutes liberty and equality before the law with a medieval ‘might is right’ philosophy. Yet, as has been proven time and again throughout history, whenever any single country sits astride the pinnacle of power, it is invariably proven, in the words of British politician Lord Acton that, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
This tendency towards the abuse of power was highlighted by a shocking comment made by General Wesley Clark during an interview with Democracy Now. Clark revealed that he had been shown a memo by one of his military superiors that outlined a classified plan to take out seven countries in a five-year period.
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran,” Wesley said, repeating what he had been told and shown.
Coincidence or not, many of the names on that list have experienced the full wrath of the Western military in one way or another. However, given the rise of a multi-polar world, this diabolical shopping list has been put on hold, hopefully forever.
Whatever the case may be, it has become beyond clear that the West holds the claim to the title ‘protector of democratic principles’ only by the force of its lies, deception and outright aggression. How long it will be before the charade ends and the people openly proclaim that the emperor has no clothes is anybody’s guess.
- - -
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013. robertvbridge@yahoo.com
# They strike "chemical weapons factories and warehouses" with missiles and are not concerned about releasing the poisonous agents into the surrounding area and killing thousands of people? Are westerner sheeple so foolish to believe these blatant lies?
===
Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive
Eva Bartlett
RT : 15 Apr, 2018
The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.
After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.
For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.
This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the highly partial, USAID-funded, US State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.
On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.
Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.
President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.
General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”
But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:
“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism has been committed.”
What if chemicals had been at targeted locations?
In the same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”
This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close to the homes of the people around.”
Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”
If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in or near densely populated areas?
Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.
Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”
Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.
Bombings based on Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims
The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and allies would benefit from staged attacks.
The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of Syria’s culpability, including the following:
"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients' seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are seen in the background working on a real patient.”
Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred. One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.
In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.
“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s not even a dodgy dossier this time.”
Israel and America benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to the ongoing Israeli slaughter and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17 unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions. Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.
According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”
The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.
In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented numerous instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.
If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations — and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should outrage.
However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely Trump’s threats to Syria:
“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.”
By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had global ramifications, to say the least.
The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.
- - -
Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.
First a lie, then the strike and in the end ispectors found no evidence. Same story with Iraq nukes. History repeating as a tragic joke.
OPCW fail to include in its Skripal's poisoning report, that the BZ nerve-agent only produced by US & UK was identified in the samples.
The full extent of the damage to international peace and security caused by the US-led Syrian strikes will take some time to become clear. But its impact on the very concept of legality in international affairs is already evident.
Simply put, the most powerful county in the world and its chief satellites, the UK and France, have thrown the rule of law into the trash can. The only "law" now is the law of the jungle. There is no going back.
Ironically, the attack itself was claimed by its perpetrators as enforcement of legality, not of its obliteration. For example, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces "a clear breach of international norms and agreements" that "calls for a collective and effective response by the international community."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of what really happened in the Syrian city of Douma, Stoltenberg knows very well what the mechanism is for a collective response by the international community. It is agreement by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," and to take military or non-military joint action to "restore international peace and security" under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Such action is subject to veto by the permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France.
The US regime doesn't give a flip about chem weapons. It doesn't give a flip about democracy, freedom, or terrorism either. These are just bumper sticker slogans to get the public behind their wars of aggression.
The Russian Defense Ministry said that it had detected 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles, 71 of which had been intercepted by the SADF. The Russian military provided the following list of the targets with additional details on the strikes:
Four missiles were launched at the area of the Damascus International Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
12 missiles were launched at the Al-Dumayr Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
18 missiles were launched at the Baly Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
12 missiles were launched at the Shayarat Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
9 missiles were launched at the Mezzeh Military Airport. Five of them were intercepted.
16 missiles were launched at the Homs Military Airport. 13 of them were intercepted.
30 missiles were launched at targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani. Seven missiles were intercepted.
According to the Russian Defense Minisry, the US and its allies fired cruise missiles, including seaborne Tomahawks and GBU-38 guided bombs from B-1B planes while F-15 and F-16 fighter jets launched air-to-surface missiles. The UK Air Force’s Tornado aircraft fired eight Scalp EG air-launched cruise missiles.
The Russian military added that Moscow will consider supplies of S-300 air defense systems to Syria and other countries in response to the US actions.
The Pentagon held a press briefing to provide own version of the events. The Pentagon said that the US and its allies had launched 105 missiles at the alleged “chemical weapons” facilities of the Assad government.
The US-led bloc used the following means and launchers:
The USS Monterey CG61 fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
The USS Laboon DDG58 launched 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
The USS Higgins DDG76 launched 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Persian Gulf.
The USS John Warner SSN785 launched 6 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
The French frigate LANGUEDOC launched 3 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG (French naval variant is called “Missile de Croisière Naval”) cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
B-1B strategic bombers launched 19 AGM-158 JASSM [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] air-launched cruise missiles.
British Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets launched 8 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
French Rafel and Mirage launched 9 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
The targets of the attack, according to the Pentagon:
76 missiles – “Barzah Research and Development Center”
22 missiles – “Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site”
7 missiles – “Him Shinshar CW Bunker”
US-led Syria strikes: West trashes international law in favor of ‘might is right’
Robert Bridge
RT : 14 Apr, 2018
On Saturday morning, the world awoke to the news that the US, the UK and France had followed through on their threat to punish President Bashar Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons against innocent people. These NATO states unleashed a massive missile strike near Homs and the capital Damascus with the stated purpose of destroying sites said to be connected to the production of chemical weapons. If the attack was intended for domestic consumption only, in typical ‘wag the dog’ fashion, it failed miserably on that score.
Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the military assault, saying it had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and was carried out “in violation of the UN Charter and principles of international law.”
That was just the beginning of the serious legal issues regarding this brazen, cowardly attack on a sovereign nation. Not only did the Americans, British and French flaunt international law, exactly as they had done seven years ago in Libya, they arrogantly ignored the democratic will of their respective constituents, bypassing congressional and parliamentary procedure in a mad rush to war. In fact, the only thing ‘transparent’ and ‘accountable’ about Saturday’s attack was the flimsy foundation upon which it was advertised.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May, invoking the very same invalid argument that she used to accuse Russia in the Skripal poisoning mystery, said it was “highly likely” Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the 'chemical attack'.
Echoing that subjective, fact-free assertion, the White House said it had a “high level of confidence” the Assad ‘regime’ was responsible for the alleged attack.
Not to be left behind by his peers, Emmanuel Macron, displaying early warning signs of Napoleon complex, told reporters that he had “proof” Assad was responsible for the attack. Yet the French makeup artist has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support his claim, and, we can safely assume, never will.
This brings us to the really disturbing part about Saturday’s attack: had Team Trump shown some restraint for just a few more days, they would have been able to make a much more accurate and measured assessment as to what really happened in the Damascus suburb one week ago. That’s because a team of experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), was scheduled to arrive in Syria on April 14 - the very same day the NATO members launched their assault - to carry out an investigation of the alleged chemical attack.
In other words, Trump, May and Macron could actually be charged with ‘tampering’ with a crime scene and destroying the evidence before investigators can carry out their forensic work.
"It's most probably an attempt to create difficulties for the OPCW mission that is just starting its work… or even to thwart it," the chair of Russia's Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, Konstantin Kosachev, said.
This rush to war brings to mind the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. With UN weapon inspectors on the ground in the country, reporting no trace of weapons of mass destruction, then Secretary of State Colin Powell saved the day by giving a performance worthy of an Academy Award at the UN General Assembly. As attendees stared on in wide-eyed disbelief, Powell shook a vial of ‘anthrax,’ inviting his audience to imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein decided to unleash the deadly bacteria against their people. Only after the disastrous Iraq War was well underway did the Western mainstream media think to question the ‘bad intelligence’ and blatant deception that permitted the US and its allies to undertake the cruelest, most opportunistic attack on innocent people in recent memory.
The very same could be said about the disastrous NATO-backed regime change in Libya in 2011. In both cases, relatively stable and prosperous countries were turned into hotbeds of terrorism, violence and crime. In fact, the world would most likely never have heard of the terrorist organization ‘Islamic State’ had the West stayed out of Iraq. And here is the sick irony of the West attacking Syrian government forces: it could open the door to bona-fide terrorists coming to power in the event Damascus falls. Indeed, the US has made no secret that its goal is to remove Assad from power, yet – exactly as was the case with Iraq and Libya – they offer no realistic alternatives to his rule aside from ‘moderate rebels.’
Another irony from yesterday’s brazen attack: Trump used the phrase “mission accomplished” to describe the assault, like it was just another day at the golf course. The remark echoed former US President George W Bush’s premature speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in 2003 when he declared the end of combat operations in Iraq in front of a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished.” Yet in reality that was just the beginning of the nightmare for Iraq.
America’s waning unipolar moment
At this point, the question must be asked: What sort of dire affliction has infected the Western mind to the point where it believes it can act with impunity against multiple sovereign states? My personal guess is that America and the West are struggling with the uncomfortable realization that their ‘unipolar moment’ is setting fast below the horizon.
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States began to indulge itself in increasingly belligerent behavior across a wider and wider swath of the planet. The juggernaut was made all the more harrowing by America’s almost fanatical belief that it is the one and only ‘indispensable nation’ blessed by some higher authority with ‘exceptional’ qualities that are beyond question. This was America’s ‘unipolar moment.’
That open window of militaristic opportunity was applauded by neoconservatives, including Charles Krauthammer, who penned a 1990 article in Foreign Affairs (‘The Unipolar Moment’) where he boldly states: “The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.”
This is pure unadulterated Machiavellian thinking, which substitutes liberty and equality before the law with a medieval ‘might is right’ philosophy. Yet, as has been proven time and again throughout history, whenever any single country sits astride the pinnacle of power, it is invariably proven, in the words of British politician Lord Acton that, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
This tendency towards the abuse of power was highlighted by a shocking comment made by General Wesley Clark during an interview with Democracy Now. Clark revealed that he had been shown a memo by one of his military superiors that outlined a classified plan to take out seven countries in a five-year period.
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran,” Wesley said, repeating what he had been told and shown.
Coincidence or not, many of the names on that list have experienced the full wrath of the Western military in one way or another. However, given the rise of a multi-polar world, this diabolical shopping list has been put on hold, hopefully forever.
Whatever the case may be, it has become beyond clear that the West holds the claim to the title ‘protector of democratic principles’ only by the force of its lies, deception and outright aggression. How long it will be before the charade ends and the people openly proclaim that the emperor has no clothes is anybody’s guess.
- - -
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013. robertvbridge@yahoo.com
# They strike "chemical weapons factories and warehouses" with missiles and are not concerned about releasing the poisonous agents into the surrounding area and killing thousands of people? Are westerner sheeple so foolish to believe these blatant lies?
===
Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive
Eva Bartlett
RT : 15 Apr, 2018
The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.
After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.
For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.
This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the highly partial, USAID-funded, US State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.
On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.
Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.
President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.
General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”
But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:
“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism has been committed.”
What if chemicals had been at targeted locations?
In the same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”
This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close to the homes of the people around.”
Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”
If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in or near densely populated areas?
Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.
Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”
Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.
Bombings based on Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims
The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and allies would benefit from staged attacks.
The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of Syria’s culpability, including the following:
"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients' seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are seen in the background working on a real patient.”
Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred. One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.
In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.
“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s not even a dodgy dossier this time.”
Israel and America benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to the ongoing Israeli slaughter and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17 unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions. Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.
According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”
The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.
In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented numerous instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.
If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations — and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should outrage.
However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely Trump’s threats to Syria:
“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.”
By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had global ramifications, to say the least.
The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.
- - -
Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.
First a lie, then the strike and in the end ispectors found no evidence. Same story with Iraq nukes. History repeating as a tragic joke.
OPCW fail to include in its Skripal's poisoning report, that the BZ nerve-agent only produced by US & UK was identified in the samples.
The full extent of the damage to international peace and security caused by the US-led Syrian strikes will take some time to become clear. But its impact on the very concept of legality in international affairs is already evident.
Simply put, the most powerful county in the world and its chief satellites, the UK and France, have thrown the rule of law into the trash can. The only "law" now is the law of the jungle. There is no going back.
Ironically, the attack itself was claimed by its perpetrators as enforcement of legality, not of its obliteration. For example, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces "a clear breach of international norms and agreements" that "calls for a collective and effective response by the international community."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of what really happened in the Syrian city of Douma, Stoltenberg knows very well what the mechanism is for a collective response by the international community. It is agreement by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," and to take military or non-military joint action to "restore international peace and security" under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Such action is subject to veto by the permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France.
The US regime doesn't give a flip about chem weapons. It doesn't give a flip about democracy, freedom, or terrorism either. These are just bumper sticker slogans to get the public behind their wars of aggression.
The Russian Defense Ministry said that it had detected 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles, 71 of which had been intercepted by the SADF. The Russian military provided the following list of the targets with additional details on the strikes:
Four missiles were launched at the area of the Damascus International Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
12 missiles were launched at the Al-Dumayr Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
18 missiles were launched at the Baly Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
12 missiles were launched at the Shayarat Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
9 missiles were launched at the Mezzeh Military Airport. Five of them were intercepted.
16 missiles were launched at the Homs Military Airport. 13 of them were intercepted.
30 missiles were launched at targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani. Seven missiles were intercepted.
According to the Russian Defense Minisry, the US and its allies fired cruise missiles, including seaborne Tomahawks and GBU-38 guided bombs from B-1B planes while F-15 and F-16 fighter jets launched air-to-surface missiles. The UK Air Force’s Tornado aircraft fired eight Scalp EG air-launched cruise missiles.
The Russian military added that Moscow will consider supplies of S-300 air defense systems to Syria and other countries in response to the US actions.
The Pentagon held a press briefing to provide own version of the events. The Pentagon said that the US and its allies had launched 105 missiles at the alleged “chemical weapons” facilities of the Assad government.
The US-led bloc used the following means and launchers:
The USS Monterey CG61 fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
The USS Laboon DDG58 launched 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
The USS Higgins DDG76 launched 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Persian Gulf.
The USS John Warner SSN785 launched 6 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
The French frigate LANGUEDOC launched 3 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG (French naval variant is called “Missile de Croisière Naval”) cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
B-1B strategic bombers launched 19 AGM-158 JASSM [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] air-launched cruise missiles.
British Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets launched 8 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
French Rafel and Mirage launched 9 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
The targets of the attack, according to the Pentagon:
76 missiles – “Barzah Research and Development Center”
22 missiles – “Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site”
7 missiles – “Him Shinshar CW Bunker”
No comments:
Post a Comment