| UN Inspectors Gas Attack Report: A manipulated fraud to oust Assad!

UN Inspectors Gas Attack Report: A Manipulated Fraud ~ Stephen Lendman.

A separate article explained. Crime scene evidence was manipulated. Doing so made it worthless.
UN inspectors mentioned problems. They didn’t highlight them. Their summary fact sheet ignored them. So did major media reports.
Nothing links Syrian forces to Ghouta’s attack. Plenty suggests insurgents were responsible. Rockets were launched from territory they held.
Pro-government supporters were targeted. They were civilian men, women and children. Why would Assad attack his own people? Why would he do it with UN inspectors close by? Why would he shoot himself in the foot?
Many questions remain unanswered. Why did UN inspectors rush to meet an artificial deadline? Why did they agree to operate under opposition control?
 
Why did they use tainted evidence? They admitted it was tampered with and moved. It likely was planted before they arrived. Doing so made it suspect and worthless.
Most samples tested contained no toxic chemical agents. Nothing indicated whether sarin found was factory or homemade. Munitions fragments could have come from anywhere.
Separate evidence suggested video and photo evidence was fake. Inspectors provided no body count numbers.
Their entire report was unprofessional. It was slapdashed together. It was done quickly. It was worthless.
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. It’s of no scientific significance. It willfully deceived. It did so disgracefully.
Washington, Britain, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other rogue Arab League states want war. Perhaps they plan launching it based on fabricated evidence.
It wouldn’t be the first time. All wars are based on lies. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed concern.
“Moscow has serious reasons to believe that the use of chemical weapons near Damascus (was) a provocative act,” he said.
“Russia is ready to participate in the activities to ensure security along the perimeter of the sites where Syrian experts and experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will work.”
Otherwise their efforts may be compromised. Anti-Assad warmongers reject peaceful conflict resolution. They want UN Charter Chapter VII authorization for war.
Article 41 states:
“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.”
“These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
Article 42 states:
“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
“Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
Article 43 (1) states:
“All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”
Clause 2 states:
“Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.”
Clause 3 states:
“The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council.”
“They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
UN Charter provisions prioritize peaceful conflict resolution. War is a last option. Security Council authorization is required to wage it.
Lavrov prioritizes peace. He wants Geneva II convened as soon as possible. He wants anti-Assad forces pressured to participate. He opposes Chapter VII authorization for war.
He and Kerry discussed it last weekend in Geneva, he said. UN resolution language must exclude it, he stressed.
“If there are some cases of refusal from cooperation or some reports about the obstacles from either side or the reports about someone’s use of chemical weapons then the UN Security Council will consider this situation,” he added.
Measures should be undertaken to avoid foreign intervention. “But if convincing data is produced the UN Security Council should take proper measures against the violators, these actions will be taken.”
“The Russian-US document holds that we want to focus on those possibilities that are laid down in the Chemical Weapons Convention, particularly Article 8.”
“This article holds that when the organization (OPCW) faces some difficulties in its work to destroy the chemical weapons in a country, it is empowered to address (them) in the UN Security Council.”
“Therefore, this link between the professional work of the inspectors, who will be feeling at the site how this is going on, and the UN Security Council, which will control progress of their work, will receive regular and urgent information, if some problems arise, will guarantee a quite reliable legal mechanism of supervising this process.”
“We should not discuss Chapter 7 or 6 or anything else. The top task is to fulfill a plan for the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons.”
“We call for the Russian-US agreements to be fulfilled and are prepared to promote actively those approaches, which were agreed upon in Geneva in the previous week.”
On September 11, Press TV headlined “Former US officials warn Obama of false intelligence on Syria,” saying:
“A dozen former US military and intelligence officials called the August 21 attack staged.”
“We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this,” they said.
“You have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you” plausible deniability.
“We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 UN speech, in which he peddled fraudulent ‘intelligence to support attacking Iraq.”
“(A) chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus.” Anti-Assad militants staged it. They did so “to bring the United States into war.”
The incident was “a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters.”
Netanyahu wants war. He wants “Washington more deeply engaged in” waging it.
“(W)ith outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.”
Reuters headlined “Russia says no proof Assad was behind chemical attack.”
No evidence suggests it. Lavrov said “there is no answer to a number of questions we have asked.”
Nothing indicates whether alleged weapons were factory produced or homemade. “We have very serious grounds to” dispute what’s been reported, he said.
Insurgents committed many previous provocations. They were caught red-handed using chemical weapons. Significant evidence suggests they used them in Ghouta.
Syria accused Western powers of wrecking chances for peace. They’re supporting insurgents. They’re supplying more weapons.
They “exposed the truth of their aims.” They want their will imposed. They want ordinary Syrians having no say.
“Discussion of political and constitutional legitimacy in Syria is the exclusive right of the Syrian people.”
 
International law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Western powers want war. They deplore peace.
Their actions contradict their rhetoric. Saying they endorse peaceful conflict resolution doesn’t wash. They support “groups practicing violence and terrorism in Syria.”
 
Assad will remain president “as long as the people desire it. Whoever is not pleased by this reality should not go to the Geneva conference.”
 
Obama asked Congress to authorize war. So far it’s not forthcoming. Legislators can’t circumvent Security Council authority. It has final say on matters concerning war and peace.
 
Obama’s not deterred. His war plans are delayed. They remain firm. Expect another fabricated pretext. Expect it used to attack Syria. It’s longstanding US practice. It’s the American way.
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.”
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.
_________________________________________________________________________
Benjamin-NetanyahU1
On September 15, Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said his government “views with great seriousness the Russian-US deal.”

It intends to observe it to the letter, he stressed. It’s “committing itself to whatever comes from the UN. We accept the Russian plan to get rid of our chemical weapons.”

“In fact, we’ve started preparing our list. We are already documenting our papers, and we have started to do our job.”

“We don’t waste time. For 40 years, Syria has always been trusted once it has committed itself.” Syria will “absolutely” grant UN inspectors access to storage sites.

It “respects and honors what (the agreement) says. We take (it) very seriously.”

It doesn’t matter. Obama’s committed to regime change. So is Israel. Both countries want Syrian sovereignty destroyed. They want pro-Western puppet governance replacing it. They want Iran isolated. They want Shah era harshness restored.

Plans remain unchanged. Implementing them is delayed. John Kerry warned:

“Make no mistake. We have taken no options off the table.” The US/Russian deal “will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains.”

“The threat of force is real.” Destroying Syria’s chemical weapons “set(s) a marker for the standard of behavior to Iran and with respect to North Korea.”

Netanyahu thanked Kerry’s efforts “to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.”

He ignored his own country’s formidable nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal saying so. He was silent about the enormous threat it poses.

Syria threatens no one. Israel and America threaten humanity. According to Netanyahu:

“The Syrian regime must be stripped of all its chemical weapons, and that would make our entire region a lot safer.”

“The world needs to ensure that radical regimes don’t have weapons of mass destruction because as we’ve learned once again in Syria, if rogue regimes have weapons of mass destruction, they will use them.”

“The determination the international community shows regarding Syria will have a direct impact on the Syrian regime’s patron, Iran.”

“Iran must understand the consequences of its continual defiance of the international community, by its pursuit towards nuclear weapons.”

“What the past few days have shown is something that I have been saying for quite some time, that if diplomacy has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat. What is true of Syria is true of Iran, and, by the way, vice versa.”

French President Francois Hollande made similar comments. He wants a Security Council resolution passed. “We can vote on (it) before the end of the week,” he said.

“It must include the threat of sanctions. We can now seriously think of a diplomatic solution, but the military option must remain. Otherwise there is nothing to stop Syria.”

Like Washington and Israel, he wants Assad ousted. He said he always favored that outcome. On Monday, he and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with Kerry in Paris.

UK Foreign Minister William Hague and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu joined them. Kerry met separately with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. Belligerent strategy going forward was discussed.

Former Obama Middle East official Dennis Ross urges air strikes. He wants “a vote on the Hill” avoided.

“To have the diplomatic initiative fail and not carry out strikes would certainly make it hard to convince anyone that our words mean anything,” he said.

Former Obama Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for the Middle East Colin Kahl said a “credible threat of military force needs to be left on the table.”

He urged contingent congressional authorization for it if Syria reneges. Senate and House hawks want military force.

On September 14, Senators John McCain (R. AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R. SC) issued a joint press release, saying:

“What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement – they see it as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part.”

“We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon.”

“Without a UN Security Council Resolution under Chapter 7 authority, which threatens the use of force for non-compliance by the Assad regime, this framework agreement is meaningless.”

“Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein’s playbook.”

“It requires a willful suspension of disbelief to see this agreement as anything other than the start of a diplomatic blind alley, and the Obama Administration is being led into it by Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin.”

“What’s worse, this agreement does nothing to resolve the real problem in Syria, which is the underlying conflict that has killed 110,000 people, driven millions from their homes, destabilized our friends and allies in the region, emboldened Iran and its terrorist proxies, and become a safe haven for thousands of Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists.”

“Is the message of this agreement that Assad is now our negotiating partner, and that he can go on slaughtering innocent civilians and destabilizing the Middle East using every tool of warfare, so long as he does not use chemical weapons?”

“That is morally and strategically indefensible.”

“The only way this underlying conflict can be brought to a decent end is by significantly increasing our support to moderate opposition forces in Syria.”

“We must strengthen their ability to degrade Assad’s military advantage, change the momentum on the battlefield, and thereby create real conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict.”

On September 15, the UN News Centre headlined “Ban receives report from team probing possible chemical weapons use in Syria, will brief Security Council on findings.”

On Monday, he did so in closed-door session. He’ll also brief General Assembly members. On Tuesday, the report will be posted on the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs’ web site: http://www.un.org/disarmament.

On Sunday, Russian State Duma (lower house) international affairs committee head Alexei Pushkov twittered:

“The agreement on Syria should not create any illusions: it has not hampered the US military strike (and) does not mean refusal from a ‘regime change’ in Syria.”

Going forward, he said, the US/Russian deal prevents insurgents from blaming Assad for chemical weapons use. “Now it will be clear that only they could have done this,” he stressed.

He expressed concerns that implementing the agreement may stall. Only general principles were stipulated. Moscow and Washington may disagree on key issues. It happened many times before.

Most important is the threat of force. Russia categorically opposes it. According to Pushkov:

“(W)ill the US treat this Syria chemical disarmament deal with Russia as a basis for further cooperation, or will Moscow and Washington once again disagree in their views of the issue, and Washington will pursue its previous goal – to topple the Assad’s government by all means.”

At the same time, destroying Syria’s chemical weapons won’t be simple to accomplish. Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Richard Kemp said:

“I think it’s extremely difficult to do something like this during an active conflict, during a war.”

(I)t’ll take a very large amount of time, with a significant amount of military protection, so that the inspectors can be as safe as they can be.”

“That aspect will present huge challenges. Which country, first of all, will provide the scientists who will take these risks and the military forces to back them up? It’s a very dangerous situation.”

“(T)o get verification in this kind of situation, I would say, is impossible. It would be very easy for President Assad to hide or remove out of the country significant quantities of chemical weapons.”

“What we might end up seeing is a token show of disarmament. I don’t think it is realistically feasible.”

Assad’s strengthened by greater international support, Kemp added. Iran also gains. America’s deterrence “appears to be degradedâ¤|and Iran’s position is obviously strengthened (by) closer relations with Russia” and China.

This spells bad news for Israel, he said. It’s “the only reliable power in the region.” It’s the one “the world can count on to intervene if the situation gets too dangerous.”

America and Britain “demonstrated their complete lack of resolve” to intervene when “needed,” he said.

He ignored how many previous times they used false flag incidents to do so. Odds strongly favor another going forward. Reports suggest one coming on Israel.

Congressional support to act would be overwhelming. Strong anti-war public sentiment wouldn’t help. Odds favor this type scenario ahead. It’s longstanding US practice.

Obama wants Assad replaced. He’ll do whatever it takes to oust him. Advancing America’s imperium matters most.

Unchallenged global dominance is sought. War is Washington’s option of choice. It’s always been since efforts began expanding America “from sea to shining sea.”

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

IsraeliCW1

US Barb2

1 thought on “| UN Inspectors Gas Attack Report: A manipulated fraud to oust Assad!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.