US And Allies Bomb Syria The Night Before International Inspectors Arrive
The illegal battles included 103 missiles, 71 which Russia states were intercepted.
The United States, Britain, and France stomped international law to introduce rockets against Syria, declaring to have "evidence" of the government's use of chemical weapons.
After a week of outrageous tweets and pronouncements by POTUS Donald Trump which included continued accusations that Syria's president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using monstrous and juvenile terminology, such as "animal Assad."
The very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW was to visit Douma, America and allies released illegal bombings against Syria.
The illegal battles included 103 missiles, 71 which Russia states were intercepted.
For the past week, we were informed that the United States had 'evidence' and the UK had 'proof' that Syria had actually used chemicals.
The 'evidence' mainly relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, offered by the Western-funded White Helmets (that "rescuer" group that in some way only runs in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist inhabited locations and takes part in abuse and executions), along with by Yaser al-Doumani, a guy whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for instance of previous Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.
This, we were told, was 'proof.' This and the words of the extremely partial, USAID-funded, United States State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda's rescuers, only supports medical professionals in terrorist-occupied locations.
On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the United States government does not have any proof that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still trying to find evidence.
Syria, discovering the claims to be lies and the sources polluted, asked for that the Organisation for the Restriction of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately pertain to Syria to investigate the claims.
Appropriately, the OPCW accepted send out a group-- the visas for which Syria gave immediately-- which showed up in Damascus on April 14.
President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to validate his 'proof,' picked the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to check the allegations, to bomb Syria.
The timing of the attacks is more than simply a little prompt. And the battles were prohibited.
General Mattis aimed to dance around the legality, stating, "the president has the authority under Post II of the Constitution to utilize military force overseas to safeguard essential United States national interests."
But he is wrong, this does not allow the United States to bomb a sovereign country illegally, and he understands it. So does Russia.
In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as unlawful, noting:
"Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in the offense of the UN Charter, standards and principles of worldwide law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the leading edge of the fight against terrorism has actually been committed."
What if chemicals had been in targeted areas?
In the very same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies' targets in Syria, declaring they were "specifically associated with the Syrian program'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 associated with the "advancement, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology."
This 'target' is in the middle of a densely-inhabited location of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who understands the location in question, "the establishment includes a variety of structures. Among them is a teaching institute.
Of the strikes, Dunford declared they "inflicted maximum damage, without unneeded risk to innocent civilians."
If one believed the claims to be precise, would battle them actually save Syrian lives, or on the contrary cause mass deaths?
Where is the logic in battle centers believed to consist of harmful, toxic chemicals in or near densely inhabited locations?
Regarding the real nature of the structures bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as "centered on preparing the chemical structures for cancer drugs."
The destruction of this institute is especially bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.
Interviews with one of its workers, Said Said, substantiate SANA's description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medical parts.
One post consists of Said's rational point:
"If there were chemical weapons, we would not have the ability to stand here. I've been here considering that 5:30 remain in complete health-- I'm not coughing."
Of the facility, the same SANA post 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 conference, keeping in mind that the OPCW "handed to Syria an official document which verified that the Barzeh centre was not used for any kind of chemical activity" that would remain in contravention to Syria's commitments relating to the OPCW.
The entire pretext of the US and allies' prohibited battles of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma.
Many analysts have mentioned the apparent: that Syria would not benefit from having actually used chemical weapons.
However America, Israel and allies would take advantage of staged attacks.
The site Moon of Alabama kept in mind discrepancies in the videos circulated on social media as "proof" of Syria's culpability, consisting of the following:
"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', splashing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and much of the 'clients' appear to have no genuine problem. It is theater. The real medical workers are seen in the background working on a genuine patient."
Russia's Defense Ministry has released interviews with 2 guys who were included in the footage declaring a chemical attack has actually happened.
One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the health center in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying:
"We treated them, based on their suffocation," likewise noting: "We didn't see any client with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning," he stated.
In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the previous British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the allegations game is to allow the actual inspection to happen.
"The proof that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors enter and possibly within days we will have a decision but the jury is still out. ... I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of proof to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they 'd have brought it forward.
Exactly what they're saying and exactly what Mrs. May is saying, is just 'take our word for it, trust us'. There's not even a dodgy file this time."
While the world's eyes have actually been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of business media, little notification is provided to the continuous Israeli massacre and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of a minimum of 17 unarmed Palestinians opposing in Gaza's eastern regions.
Israel's murder of these unarmed youths, females and men got just moderate tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to "clashes" by slavish business media. Israel is actually getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.
Inning Accordance With Secretary Mattis, the US-led prohibited attack on Syria "shows international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any scenarios in a conflict of worldwide law."
The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have actually used chemical weapons on civilians.
The United States has actually attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to call however 2 nations, with chemical weapons.
In 2009, I was residing 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 nestled in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented various instances of Israel's use of white phosphorous.
If this does not outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers' dollars sent to Israel and invested in the bombing of sovereign countries-- and not on America's impoverished, nor on budget-friendly healthcare-- must outrage.
Nevertheless, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not simply Trump's hazards to Syria:
"There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour celebration 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 United States narrowly avoided a direct military fight with Russia, one which would have had global implications, to say the least.
The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be silly and harsh sufficient to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their endless efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and enable Syria's complete return to peace?
The United States and allies declare their concern for Syrian civilians, however, do everything in their power to make sure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.