On Wednesday 21st of August the world received the news that a chemical attack had been launched in Damascus countryside with, numbers and facts varying hugely according to the source, 300 to 1300 victims counting. A large part of them women and children.
The United States, United Kingdom, France and their allies backed up by the Western media was quick to blame, without any investigation or proof, the Syrian government of carrying out this attack. Warning that a red line had been crossed and that military action was on the table to “punish the Syrian government”.
Taking into account the international context of hostility towards Syria, it is easy to understand why the Western governments and their regional allies were jumping within hours on the carriage of false accusations, accusing the Syrian government and hence opening a window of opportunity to launch a military strike as they have done before in Iraq, Libya and in other places at different times all over the world.
But it is more hardly to understand how established media organisations with a reputation on the national and international level are acting in such an unprofessional way as to blindly follow their political leaders in their reporting and criticism, or lack of, without any journalistic investigation or ethics and professionalism applied.
The Syrian stance
The Syrian government has repeatedly and unambiguously stated that it would never use weapons of mass destruction, if such weapons exist in Syria, against its own population. Not only because it makes no strategic sense but because of the unethical nature of the use of these kind of weapons by any government against its own population.
The Syrian government also immediately called for an international and scientific investigation backed by the United Nations of the facts and accusations towards it proving that is has nothing to hide.
No military strategic logic in the use of weapons of mass destruction
The Syrian national army has for the last couple of months been on the offensive and made huge gains on the battle field against the terrorist groups and foreign infiltrators all over the country. The Syrian army also made huge progress in Damascus countryside and the Eastern Ghouta and cleared large parts of it from these terrorist groups. From a military point of view it makes no sense to use weapons of mass destruction because the Syrian army proved for the last two years and a half that it doesn’t have to use such weapons to successfully counter the aggression against it and the use of chemical weapons in such an environment would not only affect the civilian population but would also endanger its own troops.
The Syrian government repeatedly stated that it would never use such weapons, if they exist, against its own population. The Syrian government also backed any international initiative to find a political way out of the crisis. It gave its full support for the Geneva II Conference while the foreign opposition in the same time boycotted participation in this Conference as well as every other political initiative to find a peaceful way out of the crisis.
It is in this context of political goodwill and constructiveness that the Syrian government got the backing and support of many countries, not the least Russia and China, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
If, hypothetically speaking, the Syrian government would act against its own principles on which its international relations are build on, it would immediately lose this support and commit political suicide. So also from a political point of view it makes no sense at all to even think that the Syrian government would use weapons of mass destruction against its own population.
The timing : Visit of UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus
It is of course no coincidence that the current crisis coincides with the visit of a UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus as the whole world’s attention is now focused on Syria. The team of inspectors arrived in Syria to investigate another incident involving chemical weapons, the chemical weapons strike in the village of Khan al-Assal near Aleppo on March 19 in which dozens of people were killed. Also in this attack unfounded and baseless accusations were directed against the Syrian government without any investigations being made.
Turning the situation into a window of opportunity, the Syrian government made use of the visit of the chemical weapons inspectors team and, in an expression of openness and goodwill, agreed immediately to let the inspectors visit the site of the attack to make the necessary investigations. Unfortunately, on their way to the site, the inspectors teams came under a fierce attack by snipers belonging to the terrorists groups and had to return to their hotel in Damascus. These acts of violence and hostilities make it very clear which side wants to sabotage the work of the inspection team and has things to hide.
Despite being under attack by terrorist snipers the inspectors could still take samples and made interviews with local people about the events which took place and they will make another attempt to reach the site today, Wednesday August 28.
Iraq revisited and other False Flag operations
Within hours after the attack, without any investigation or inspection being made, the U.S. government and its British and French allies bragged that they had undeniable evidence that the attack was carried out by the Syrian national army and that the Syrian government “should be punished” for it and… faced with Russian and Chinese warnings about the illegality of conducting once again a military attack against another country without a U.N.-mandate, the U.S., British and French governments were quick to respond that they would attack even without any U.N.-mandate.
This is of course nothing new as recent American history is dotted by examples of false flag operations, downright lies and distortion of reality to carry out their political plans and military adventures. The world witnessed how the American government lied about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to condone the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the following regime change.
And, more recently, we could again witness how the United States misled and misused the United Nations when the American government used Resolution 1973 (the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of “all means necessary” to protect civilians within Libya) to carry out regime change in Libya.
These examples show how total disregard and lack of respect for international law and rules characterise American foreign policy and that we can expect anything from a Nation who position itself out of any legal framework or international diplomatic norms.