Posts Tagged ‘chemical weapons’
Russian military: No trace of chemical weapons. At alleged attack site in Douma (Al Ghouta)
Posted on: April 13, 2018
No trace of chemical weapons at alleged attack site in Douma – Russian military
Experts in radiological, chemical and biological warfare, as well as medics, on Monday inspected the parts of the Eastern Ghouta city of Douma, where an alleged chemical attack supposedly took place on Saturday, the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria said in a statement.
The specialists “found no traces of the use of chemical agents” after searching the sites, the statement said. The center’s medical specialists also visited a local hospital but found no patients that showed signs of chemical weapons poisoning.
“All these facts show… that no chemical weapons were used in the town of Douma, as it was claimed by the White Helmets,” the statement said, referring to the controversial “civil defense” group that was among the first to report about the alleged attack.
“All the accusations brought by the White Helmets, as well as their photos… allegedly showing the victims of the chemical attack, are nothing more than a yet another piece of fake news and an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire,” the Reconciliation Center said.
On Saturday, some rebel-linked groups, including the White Helmets, accused the Syrian government of carrying out a chemical attack that, allegedly, affected dozens of civilians in the Eastern Ghouta town of Douma.
The reports have already provoked a wave of outrage in the West, as the US and the EU rushed to put the blame for the incident on Damascus and Moscow. US President Donald Trump hastily denounced the perceived attack as a “mindless” atrocity and a “humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever,” warning of a “big price” to be paid.
Syria and Russia have dismissed the accusations and called the reports fake news, aimed at helping the extremists and at justifying potential strikes against Syrian forces.
In the very early hours of Monday, Israeli fighter jets targeted Syria’s T-4 airbase in Homs province, violating Lebanon air space in and out, (at the instigation of Trump) the Russian Defense Ministry said. Israel has not commented on the strike.
Earlier, a number of Israeli officials had called on the US to strike Syria as a response to the reported chemical attack. (Israel is wary to carring out other attacks on Syria)
Trump has promised to decide on potential actions against Syria within 24-48 hours, adding that nothing is “off the table” (and followed with another tweet backtracking. Germany and Italy will Not participate in that attack. Macron of France is toning down his threats)
Earlier, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said that the US did not rule out a potential military action against Damascus. But he cannot predict the reactions of Putin for any further escalation.
The White Helmets (trained to fabricate videos) claim to be volunteer first-responders saving Syrians caught up in the fighting. They gained traction in the western media and rose to prominence during the Battle of Aleppo in 2016, while working exclusively in the militant-controlled areas of the city and becoming one of the most widely used sources of information and visual materials in the West. (Paid by the colonial powers that want to dismember Syria)
The people on the ground in Aleppo, however, told RT’s Murad Gazdiev that the White Helmets were working closely with the militants and saving only “their own.”
Local witnesses also accused the “activists” of looting the humanitarian aid that was coming into the city and of forcing the locals to read fake anti-government statements on camera, in return for food.
Assaad Zakka shared a link. ·
One Truth Behind the War in Syria: Qatari/US Natural Gas Pipeline?
Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?
Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad of Syria won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria that ends up in Turkey as the main export port to Europe?
Michael Snyder published in Men’s News Daily on Sept. 8, 2013
The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline – Obama’s War for Oil
Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?
Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.
On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.
One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.
Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009…
Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of export from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum.
“We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia.
A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of 4 European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.
“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers.
The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.
Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year.
However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.
As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.
Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…
In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans.
No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…
The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.
Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.
Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.
The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!
The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through.
Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.
I know that this is all very complicated.
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants…
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.
Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.
In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…
The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.
Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes.
1. The proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.)
2. Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”
3. Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).
I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.
Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…
I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’
Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.
In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?
Note 1: Historically, the Wahhabi Saudi Monarchy refuses to forgive Turkey: During the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century, Sultan Mahmoud 4 ordered his nominal vassal in Egypt Muhammad Ali to quell the Wahhabi insurrection in the Arabic Peninsula. Muhammad Ali tergiversed for many years, but ended up launching two military campaigns.
The first campaign liberated Mecca from the Wahhabi tribe. The second campaign was lead by the strategist eldest son Ibrahim Pasha who eradicated and totally destroyed the Wahhabi capital in Najd. The British were behind the support of the Wahhabi insurrection in weapons and financial means and resumed its support after Ibrahim Pasha retreated from the Peninsula.
Note 2: To save face and not having to admit a bad decision, the Emir of Qatar resigned “official power” to his son, with tacit pressures from the USA. Practically, the Qatar project is buried and the pipeline will cross and end up in Syria. Turkey will get a secondary branch just to supply Turkey with its own needed energy.
Turkey is getting ready to face a terrible conflict on its southern and eastern borders from the extremist Islamists and from the Kurdish independent movement.
The Judge, the Righteous, the Honorable… And what this has to do with using chemical weapons?
Posted on: October 11, 2013
The Judges, the Righteous, and the Honorable
Cedric Choukeir, regional director of the World Youth Alliance in the Middle East, posted this Oct.5, 2013:
Lately, I find myself repeatedly wondering whether our ability to choose is a gift at the heart of human freedom or a curse that keeps my mind preoccupied as it is now in choosing the words of this blog post.
Charles Malik defines humans as struggling and caring beings, struggling because they constantly have to make irreversible choices, while caring for the impact of these choices on themselves and on others.
How do we make our choices today, at a personal and global level, in a world of continuous injustice?
So the question is narrowed down to a simple “how can we know what the right choice is… if there ever was one…”
Let me clarify that this is not a simple mathematical calculation of choosing the option that provides me with the highest return. I would probably define that as the “the best choice that benefits only me on the short term”.
This version of the best choice is not always the right choice. The best choice for me might not be the best choice for you and so we enter into an internal debate of placing ourselves somewhere between two extremes; one of selfishness and another of sacrifice.
What follows is my modest contribution in my quest in search of the right rather than the best.
I would like to think that acting upon our decisions usually involves three parties, the subject, the object, and the collateral damage or collateral benefits. The choices I make can affect me, the person I am directing my choices at, and people who are not directly involved in my decision.
Every day, we are faced with situations of conflict with other people caused by contradictory interests, beliefs, practices, or simply bad communication skills. Let’s face it, in almost every situation of conflict, both parties involved think they are right.
By thinking that I am right, I feel that an injustice has been done to me and therefore I make my decisions in order to “restore that justice”.
For example, my boss scolds me in front of other employees for not being professional. I feel a certain injustice when I see my boss being unprofessional himself and doing what I myself was being scolded for (Disclaimer: I am not hinting to the lack of professionalism of WYA’s president… my boss).
I get the a feeling that I need to restore justice or else I will lose part of what my Arab brothers would call “dignity”, when in fact it is just pride.
In fact, I think the loss of pride leads to more humility, which might not be such a bad thing after all, but that is a separate topic for another post. So restoring justice always caries its price. In this case, I might lose my job, a promotion, or simply the good favor of my boss.
So I need to make a choice, do I fight to restore my pride or do I suck it up and become a boot-licker?
I personally would chose the second option and substitute the term of “sucking it up” with “making the smart choice”. I am willing to sacrifice my pride as it is born of my ego, which needs to be kept in check.
However, honor is a different matter. It is built on right decisions aimed at doing good, (I am not referring to the hereditary family honor of the European dark ages and modern Arab societies).
To complicate things further, let me consider the situation where I feel an obligation to restore justice to those who do not have the ability to do it themselves.
Let me take the example regarding the likely use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad regime. President Obama felt the need to restore justice by punishing Bashar through a military strike.
The truth is that a military strike might have restored the heavenly sense of the word justice, but it would have led to the death of the same civilians whose justice Obama vowed to uphold. The strike would have had a short term and long term collateral damage on the Syrian population sitting idly between the two men.
The short term damage refers to the civilian causalities caused by western military interventions that media likes to ignore (such as the 125,000 dead civilians between 2003 and 2013 caused by the war on Iraq).
The long term damage refers to clearing the ground for Al Qaeda linked Jihadists to strengthen their grip on Syria. Luckily, Obama decided to suck it up and make the smart decision.
Restoring justice puts the person in the seat of the judge, a position for someone who supposedly knows what is right or wrong. In making that judgment, remember not to step on others’ toes as you pass your judgment and do not ignore the collateral damage you may cause.
The right choice is not about your personal pride or the pride of the person you are judging, it is about doing what is best for the other negatively affected people. Making the right choice requires a bit of humility, and in that humility you are able to find yourself and achieve a true sense of honor.
‘Stage-managed’ Syria footage: Nun Mother Agnes Mariam puts entire US intel community to shame…
Posted on: September 21, 2013
One nun puts entire US intel community to shame over ‘stage-managed’ Syria footage
The US intelligence community has been put to shame by the dedication and determination of a lone Christian nun.
Her modest study of the videos of the Syrian chemical attack shows they were productions involving staged bodies.
Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, a sociologist, award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, posted this Sept. 19. 2013:
Those who take the time to read the report by Mother Agnes and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS) will realize that it disgraces the entire US intelligence community for endorsing video footage that is clearly dubious and not credible upon careful study by even a layperson.
No one denies that chemical weapons were used.
The US federal government and the mainstream media in the US and countries allied to it have been playing a dirty game of equating the:
a) rejection of accusations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons with
b) an outright denial that chemical weapons were used.
The two are deliberately being mixed together to confuse the general public.
The question is who used the chemical weapons?
Little boy in red shirt in video from Zamalka (left) is seen with other children in video from Jobar (right). Photo from Mother Agnes report to UN.What is the US intelligence community?
Before I go any further, it has to be emphasized that the US intelligence community is a monstrous apparatus or network that has immense technological resources, mammoth amounts of funding, and massive manpower.
It is a collective of all the intelligence bodies of the US government, which is formed by 16 different intelligence agencies.
Out of the agencies that form the US Intelligence community, one belongs to the US Treasury, one belongs to the US Department of State, two belong to Homeland Security, two belong to the US Department of Justice, one belongs to the US Department of Energy, eight belong to the Pentagon, and finally one of them is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which is independent from any US government department.
Same footage is used in different videos with different scenarios, according to the report. Photo from Mother Agnes report to UN.The Pentagon’s intelligence agencies are:
the Air Force, ISR Agency (AFISRA), Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Marine Corps IA (MCIA), National Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
Aside from the non-departmental CIA, the rest of the departmental agencies are the Intelligence Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI), the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI), the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and the US Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI).
Nonetheless, this gargantuan body could not see what Mother Agnes Mariam has found and submitted to the United Nations. It is job of the agencies of the US intelligence community to examine these videos and to authenticate them.
But they failed either to serve US foreign policy, or to show professionalism, or both.
Instead they nominated and endorsed a sample of footage from Syria as a means of proving that (1) the chemical weapons were used in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta and (2) that the Syrian government was responsible for the diabolical attacks.
Dubious nature of videos selected by US intel community
The US intelligence community selected or nominated 13 videos that the Obama Administration used in their case against the Syrian government. These videos need to be carefully looked at.
The emphasis that US Secretary of State John Kerry put on the videos in his scripted speech that he read out to reporters on August 30, 2013, came across as ingenious. Kerry notably refers to the footage from Syria and constantly uses the words “our own eyes” and “seeing.” He even asks that the videos be watched by the general public. He should have been taken to task on this, and he was through the study that Mother Agnes has produced.
Undoubtedly there will be those who will dismiss the fact that there is an almost total absence of adult corpses next to the bodies of the children, nor any parents, especially mothers, coming to claim their children. Where were the parents?
From a cultural context, this is strikingly odd. It is highly unlikely that the parents, especially the mothers of all these children, would have left them alone or not rushed to where their bodies were.
At least 9 children in the video of the Press Office of Al Marj Region (right) have been transported from Kafarbatna (left) “out of any medical or humanitarian explanation”, the report claims. Photo from Mother Agnes report to UN.If the parents were not killed, then where are they? If the parents, especially the mothers (following the gender script of Syrian society), were with their children, then where are their corpses?
In one video where it is stated that all the bodies are dead, we can see that the some of the corpses are being injected with an unknown liquid. Why?
The report also highlights the fact that there have been no public funerals or announcements about all the dead children. This is outside of both cultural and religious norms.
In the footage of one burial, only eight people are buried and three of them are not even covered in white shrouds, which is a compulsory ritual. Were these people murdered by the insurgents and disrespectfully buried without the proper rituals as a sign of disdain?
The identities of the dead have consistently been withheld. There is more to say on this and it should be kept in mind.
Mother Agnes also makes a point of indicating that there is virtually an absence of the sound of ambulances and that in the testimonies that are used the individuals talking claim to have smelled the chemical that was used.
Sarin gas, however, is odorless, which raises important questions about the testimonies.
Stage-managed scenes
Even if one ignores some of the arguments in the Mother Agnes report, there are some observations in the study that are undeniable. These observations will lead anyone to conclude that the scenes in the footage that the US intelligence community nominated are stage-managed.
Some of the same bodies were planted or recycled in different scenes and makeshift morgues that were supposed to be in different locations. The same bodies of the same children are spotted in different locations.
There is additional footage that either gives a contradictory impression to that of the videos nominated by the US intelligence community for the Obama Administration or shows that children were being arranged and moved around.
A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network shows bodies of children wrapped in shrouds as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP/Shaam News Network)A horrible conclusion
Many bad things have happened in Syria, including the chemical attack in East Ghouta. Yet there many questions that have to be answered.
There was a massacre in Latakia on August 4, 2013 that went unreported. The mainstream media in the US and the countries allied to it failed to cover this or casually pass it over, obviously because it was inconvenient to change the agenda in Syria.
The study mentions that the relatives of children that were abducted by the US-supported insurgents have begun to come forward to identify their relatives in the videos. It paints an ominous picture that the bodies of these children were prostituted to open the field in Syria for a foreign military intervention.
Regardless of whatever position one takes on Syria, it is their responsibility to analyze the videos from the alleged chemical attack and pay attention to observations of Mother Agnes Mariam’s report.
A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network shows people inspecting bodies of children and adults laying on the ground as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP/Shaam News Network)The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Note: From where the kids were kidnapped? https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/syrian-kids-kidnapped-by-rebels-and-identified-as-gas-victims/
Adonis Diaries 