Preempting The Next Round of Lies Against Syria
September 14, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) – The bottom line regarding the UN’s upcoming report regarding
the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Syria is best summed up by the BBC’s
article, “Syria crisis: UN report to confirm chemical arms attack” [emphasis added]:
Ban Ki-moon made no comment on who was to blame for the 21 August attack in the Ghouta
area of Damascus, as that is not part of the report’s remit.
Despite this, the United States and its axis of collaborators are already trying to spin the report as
confirmation that the Syrian government was responsible.
Relying entirely on the momentum of its massive media networks and their ability to “will” reality into
any shape they please, headlines such as “United Nations’ Syria chemical weapons report
“overwhelming,” shamelessly attempt to link two out of context statements by UN Secretary General
Ban Ki Moon regarding the Syria government’s “crimes against humanity” and the confirmed use of
chemical weapons in Damascus Syria, to place in the mind of readers assigned blame for the attacks.
In reality, the UN inspectors that were stampeded out of Damascus in the middle of their work, fearing
an impending unilateral US military attack, were only attempting to determine how victims in eastern
Damascus died, not who killed them. Independent assessments of who was responsible for the attack
have not been carried out. The best the US has been able to do is suggest terrorists operating in Syria
were incapable of such an attack, leaving only the Syrian government as a possible suspect.
Of course this single point of contention is dispelled by the US’ own policy in the region. CNN’s
“Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” reported that:
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian
rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
Militant groups operating inside Syria with Western “contractors” (read: mercenaries, see: Blackwater)
are more than capable of handling and deploying the weapons, and therefore more than capable of
carrying out the attacks in question. The only argument left for the US is whether or not these militants,
aligned with Al Qaeda, possess the will or motivation to do so. That doing so and framing the Syrian
government would serve as impetus for direct US military intervention and therefore the salvation of
the crumbling militant offensive, is more than motivation enough.
UN’s Complicity in Ongoing Syrian Bloodbath
And while Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s comments were taken out of context, that he has
seemingly failed to also call for accountability of Syria’s so-called “opposition” smacks of partiality –
partiality exhibited by the UN throughout the Syrian conflict. Additionally, the UN’s failure to question
who in fact is arming, funding, and logistically supporting verified terrorist organizations within and
around Syria’s borders is equally troubling.
Al Qaeda has been active in Syria since the conflict began, and according to the US State Department’s own assessment titled, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq:”
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city
centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.
Could the UN be so out of touch with reality that it doesn’t realize an operation of this scale surely is
state-sponsored, and that the question of who is funding, arming, and otherwise supporting such an
extensive operation never seemed important enough to publicly ask?
Examining the UN’s role in the Syrian crisis must also include its 2011 UN Human Rights Council’s report (full text .pdf), and its most recent report published August of this year (.doc). These are nothing more than a collection of “interviews” conducted abroad with “witnesses” provided by Syrian “opposition groups” and alleged defectors, augmented with fabrications and biased spin provided by Western-funded “NGOs” openly working for armed militants inside Syria.