Hands Off Syria, Sydney, Condemns the US/UK/France Bombing of Syria

Hands Off Syria, Sydney, strongly condemns the US/UK/France Coalition bombing against Syria.

This war of aggression against Damascus occurred in the early hours of Saturday 14.04.2018 morning, Syrian time, and lasted almost two hours to punish the Syrian people for refusing to submit to regime change.

Hundreds of US missiles rained in the densely populated ancient city, many of its residents internally displaced civilians who sought refuge following the destruction of their homes by Western backed terrorists.

The people of Syria have endured seven years of a proxy war, a dirty war perpetrated by mercenary terrorists from all around the world funded, trained and armed by the US/NATO/Israel & Gulf monarchies.

Among those terrorists groups are Daesh/ISIS, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda in Syria, FSA, Jaish al-Islam and many more which have perpetrated grand scale destruction, torture and vile acts against the people of Syria.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and allies have been liberating towns and cities which had been held hostage to Daesh and other terrorist groups.

In the last couple of weeks the SAA liberated all of East Ghouta, a town near Damascus, which saw the freedom of 400,000 civilians who had been kept hostage by terrorists for six years.

The US/UK/France bombing of Syria was unilateral, illegal under international law and a war crime.

The OPCW was given no time to investigate an alleged chemical attack which took place in Douma, and was blamed on the Syrian Government and used as an excuse to carry out the criminal bombing. This is a clear indication that these US/UK/France had no interest in the investigation and its outcome.

This criminal attack is a blatant Imperial aggression, a cowardly act which only demonstrates how vile these Western powers are, attacking a small nation which has suffered seven years a proxy dirty war and has endured many more years of sanctions.

Hands Off Syria joins the call by the Syrian-Australian Community for a protest/Vigil commencing at 6pm this coming Thursday 19 April 2018 in Martin Place, Sydney, outside the US Consulate.




Syria: People’s Assembly Condemns FUKUS Aggression

By Shaza/Manal
Source: SANA
Damascus – People’s Assembly strongly condemned the US-British-French tripartite aggression on Syria, confirming it violates the international legitimacy principles, international law and UN Charter.

In a statement on Saturday, the People’s Assembly demanded the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Union of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Member States’ councils, and all the parliamentary, regional and international organizations to shoulder their ethical and legal responsibilities by condemning the aggression which will only fuel the world’s conflicts and threatens international peace and security.

The Assembly considered that unjustified aggression on a sovereign state and a founding member of the United Nations is an attempt to foil the work of Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in Douma city in Eastern Ghouta.

The People’s Assembly hailed the steadfastness of the Syrian people who took to the streets in various provinces since Saturday dawn to denounce the aggression, also saluting the heroes of the Syrian Arab Army who proved their ability to down hostile missiles.

The People’s Assembly reaffirmed that these attacks will only boost the determination of the Syrian people and army in defending Syria’s sovereignty and national dignity.




SYRIA: Jaish Al Islam Renew Attacks on Damascus from Terrorist Occupied Douma

By Vanessa Beeley
21st CenturySource: Wire.Com
After ten days of peace, mortars have returned to Damascus. A brief respite of around ten days of peace and security has been broken by the remaining Jaish Al Islam factions still embedded in Douma, the final pocket of Eastern Ghouta still under their control.

Yesterday the foreign media teams were taken to Eastern Ghouta, accompanied by the Syrian Arab Army for our own security due to the risk of mines, IEDs, booby traps and potential for suicide bombings etc. As we tried to enter Mleha we were told of a suicide car bombing in Barzeh about 15km away and to the north-west of our position. We were held for a few minutes and then advised to turn back. Soldiers passed us in pick-up trucks, heading towards Mleha, and we could see smoke rising further down the road, gunfire rattled sporadically in the distance.

The same day four civilians were killed in Damascus, among them a child and a woman. Twenty-two others were injured in the Jaish Al Islam attacks on the city centre that targeted Al Rabweh, Masaken, Barzeh, Al Mezzeh 86 neighbourhood and the surroundings of Umayyad Square. On a Friday it is a Damascene tradition for families to head to Al Rabweh for lunch and to spend the evening on the banks of the river in one of the colourful restaurants that line the roadside. This was deliberate targeting of busy civilian areas by Jaish Al Islam factions, backed by Saudi Arabia and hostile Gulf States.

Last night the roar of jets overhead returned and the boom of Syrian Arab Army artillery echoed around the narrow cobbled streets of the Old City shaking the already fragile windows as people poured on to the streets for the start of the Orthodox Easter.

Early this morning I heard the return fire from Jaish Al Islam militants again targeting the civilian areas of Damascus. 7 mortar shells have hit Al Mezzeh 86 neighbourhood, the surroundings of Umayyad Square close by, Abu Remmaneh and Ish al Warwar areas. The inevitable material damage to houses, cars and public infrastructure has also resulted from these indiscriminate attacks.

The general director of Al Mowasat hospital in Damascus has announced that there are six dead already today, 38 injured and ten in critical condition. The following video just published by the Syrian Arab News Agency shows horrifying scenes from these deadly attacks across the city.

Yesterday, I had picked up the following statement from the Russian reconciliation centre:

“In accordance with the Russian Center for Reconciliation information on the 6th of April the shelling of Damascus and position of Government troops has been renewed. Mortar shelling and small arms firing are conducted by Jaysh al-Islam fighters leaded by Abu Qusay, who seized the power. Leaders of the group interrupted the evacuation of fighters and their family members and demanded to review previously agreed issues regarding the group disarmament.

Abu Qusay decided to use civilians as a human shield. With the aim to frighten population they executed civilians protesting against fighters staying in the area. Terrorists as well started preparing for execution of hostages. There are about 5 000 people, including women and children, in 2 JAI’s prisons.”

It was clear yesterday that the new leadership of Jaish Al Islam are digging in and will cause maximum damage to Damascus and its citizens before being militarily defeated or eventually evacuated.

Today on Twitter – Syrian/UK journalist Danny Makki published the following updates. The numbered points are taken directly from Makki’s Twitter thread.:

1: Yesterday the Russian negotiator & Jaysh al Islam agreed on several points & a deal was made pending final confirmation which would see weapons handed over, some militants taken to Jarablus and others to stay.

2: Then when the meeting occurred (yesterday) to formalize the arrangement’s Jaysh al-Islam withdrew from some of the agreed points & were given a time-frame to respond to.

3: Jaysh al Islam changed their negotiator for the meeting replacing Abo Ammar Dalwan (Head of JAI’s political office) to Abo Qusay al-Deirani assistant to the head of JAI & security official.

4: One of the reasons for JAI’s withdrawal from the negotiations at end of the meeting was due to issues over giving over heavy weapons, preferring to only give it over till a wider political solution is made, in Syria in terms of those wanting to stay in Douma.

5: The idea was those whose wanting to stay could stay and become an auxiliary force to the SAA fighting Nusra & ISIS or guarding Douma as a local police force.

6: Those who wanted to leave would be taken to Jarablus in Aleppo which is held by Turkish backed Euphrates Shield.

7: The agreement was that JAI gives over its heavy weapons only at the start of the process and the SAA withdraws its heavy weapons from around Douma in a de-escalation phase.

8: JAI asked the Russians If they could guarantee whether the SAA would withdraw their heavy weapons to which the Russians replied we can guarantee that warplanes won’t be used & some heavy weapons would be withdrawn accordingly.

9: Heavy weapons would be handed over to SAA with Russian military police observing the whole process over a period of three days.

10: Then over a period of 1 week, JAI handover its light and medium weapons, and the SAA withdraws its fighting units from the area.

11: Those who hand over their weapons can enter a reconciliation agreement & apply for joining the police force over a 2 week period and thus guard their area with Russia being the guarantor.

12: A fighting brigade of JAI remnants would also be created allowing those to fight alongside SAA against extremist groups elsewhere.

13: The new brigade & Police force made up of JAI remnants are given weapons and support by the Russians.

14: Russian military police was meant to be present at the checkpoints and the area to guarantee all of this.

15: After weapons are handed over to SAA, a committee from the Damascus C.S governorate comes into Douma and attempts to solve all of the issues the city is suffering from – services – water etc.

16: All civilians set to return to their homes, those in Douma facing military service would be given a temporary amnesty.

17: SAA and security forces won’t enter the city, then the pro government captives get handed back over to the SAA through the Russians.

18: Russians left meeting stating that they are awaiting a written response from JAI by 8.00 PM affirming that the handing over of weapons is compulsory for any deal to continue.

19: After that the negotiations stopped and a response never came, and since the afternoon today all hell has been breaking loose in Douma with heavy fighting and shelling, in both Douma and Damascus.

It appears that the primary issue for Jaish Al Islam is quite simply – nobody wants them, they are the pariahs of the terrorist community inside Syria. The only option open to them for evacuation is Jarablus. They will not be allowed to take their heavy armoury that has been accrued over years (if not decades) of smuggling & contraband activity financed largely by the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia, with Israel as the midwife during the birth of one of the most brutal & tyrannical of the terrorist groups inside Syria.

Their inherent barbarism is now coming to the fore with an unprecedented viciousness. They have executed civilians who stand against them to put pressure on the Syrian government, loss of human life is of no consequence to them. The conservative estimate of prisoners incarcerated in their “repentance” prisons is 3,500 but many have told me they fear there are many more. Their lives now hang in the balance.

Lives will be lost if the Syrian Arab Army intensify the military campaign against JAI now but lives are already being lost on a daily basis and freedom from terrorist occupation comes with a sickening and bloody price. Always it is the innocents who suffer.

The soldiers I have seen in Eastern Ghouta appear haunted by that choice, one that has been imposed upon them by external powers – NATO member states, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia. These soldiers must witness the inevitable loss of life among their own people in order to free their own people who are being held hostage in urban areas by heavily armed extremist forces. That is not a choice, it is the horrific result of this regime change war that has driven an entire nation to make choices that defy all moral or ethical values. It is not a reflection of the Syrian Arab Army, nor of its allies – it is the reflection of those who are waging, financing & promoting this war for whom human life of any denomination is to be carelessly trodden underfoot in their rush towards their destructive objectives.

Jaish Al Islam have left the Russian reconciliation efforts and the Syrian government with very little negotiating room. They would reduce Syria to a “stone-age” nation of graveyards and they must be stopped. Violence begets violence in the minds of these backward extremists who see no way out of their self-imposed predicament and who will take all of Douma down with them if not stopped in their tracks. The imprisoned civilians must be liberated and Douma must be freed from this decaying carcass of violence being kept alive by the Saudi-backed warlords.




Syrian Army Encircled Strategic Militant-controlled Town in Eastern Ghouta

Source: SouthFront
The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF), supported by Syrian warplanes, have de-facto encircled the strategic militant-controlled town of Tell-Kurdi in Damascus’ Eastern Ghouta region.

On October 11. the army and the NDF delivered a devastating blow to Jaish al-Islam militants and seized the Rayhan Cemetery and the town of Rayhan in Eastern Ghouta. Controlling Rayhan and Adra jail, the government forces laid a siege on the strategic town of Tell Kurdi and the nearby industrial area controlled by Jaish al-Islam.

If this pocket is cleared from the militants, the army and the NDF will be able to prepare an operation to liberate the last major militant stronghold in the region, Duma.




Chemical Fabrications: East Ghouta and Syria’s Missing Children

By Tim Anderson 11 April 2015
Source: TeleSur English
The dirty war on Syria has involved repeated scandals, often fabricated against the Syrian Government to help
create pretexts for deeper intervention. Perhaps the most notorious was the East Ghouta incident of August 2013, where pictures of dead or drugged children were uploaded from an Islamist-held agricultural area east of
Damascus, with the claim that the Syrian Government had used chemical weapons to murder hundreds of
innocents.

The incident generated such attention that direct US intervention was only averted by a Russian diplomatic
initiative. The Syrian Government agreed to eliminate its entire stockpile of chemical weapons (Smith-Spark and Cohen 2013), maintaining that it had never used them in the recent conflict.

Indeed, all the independence evidence on the East Ghouta incident (including evidence from the US and the UN) shows that the Syrian Government was falsely accused. This followed a series of other false accusations, ‘false flag’ claims recorded by senior nun Mother Agnes (SANA 2011), a shamefully biased investigation into the Houla
massacre (see Anderson 2015) and failed or exposed attempts to blame the Syrian Government over Islamist group killings, for example at Daraya and Aqrab (Fisk 2012; Thompson 2012). The Islamist groups’ use of chemical
weapons was mostly dismissed by the western powers, and that dismissal has been reflected in most western
media reports. However, because the chemical weapon claims have been repeated for years, public perceptions seem to have little reference to facts based on evidence. After a little background, let’s consider the independent
evidence on the East Ghouta incident, in some detail. Arising from that evidence we are led to another serious crime of war, the fate of the dead or drugged children portrayed in those infamous images.

1. Chemical weapons in Syria
Chemical weapons are a crude relic of an earlier era, such as the trench warfare of a century ago. They have no utility in urban warfare, where an army hunts armed groups amongst streets, buildings and civilian populations. No real utility, unless a ruthless party wants to create a general panic. In the case of the Syrian Arab Army, their conventional weapons were far superior to such crude weapons and their urban warfare training, often done in Iran, had the aim of rooting out terrorist groups, building by building (al Akhras 2013). A stockpile of chemical weapons had been kept as a deterrent to Israel, which holds nuclear weapons; but there had been no proven use of them in recent decades.

By mid 2013 the war had turned in favour of the Government. Although parts of Aleppo and some parts of eastern Syria were held by various Islamist groups, the Army had secured the major populated areas in western Syria and had closed much of the armed traffic across the mountainous Lebanese border. Along the borders with states which backed the Islamists – Turkey, Israel and Jordan – there were regular incursions, but they were always beaten back by the Syrian Army. Over May-June 2013 the Army, backed by Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, took back the city of Qusayr, south-west of Homs, from a combination of the Farouq Brigade and Jabhat al Nusra, including many foreigners (Mortada 2013).

In this context anti-government armed Islamist groups were accused of using chemical weapons. The main foreign support group for the Syrian Islamists, Jabhat al Nusra, were reported to have seized a chemical factory near Aleppo in December 2012 (Gerard Direct 2012). Then in March the Syrian Government complained to the UN that sarin gas had been used in a major battle with the Islamists at Khan al Assal, west of Aleppo. The Syrian news agency SANA reported that terrorists had fired a rocket ‘containing chemical materials’, killing 16 people and wounding 86, soldiers and civilians. The death toll later rose to 25 (Barnard 2013). The Muslim Brotherhood-aligned British-based source, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, along with other anti-government ‘activists’,               confirmed the casualties but insinuated that the Syrian Army might have used the weapons and ‘accidentally’ hit
themselves (Barnard 2013). Western media reports mostly elevated the Islamist counter-claims to the level of the Government’s report. In April 2013 Jabhat al Nusra was reported as having gained access to chlorine gas
(NTI 2013).

About Khan al Asal, a 19 March statement from Syria’s UN Ambassador, Bashar al Ja’afari, said that ‘armed terrorist groups had fired a rocket from the Kfar De’il area towards Khan Al Asal (Aleppo district) … a thick cloud of smoke had left unconscious anyone who had inhaled it. The incident reportedly resulted in the deaths of 25 people and injured more than 110 civilians and soldiers who were taken to hospitals in Aleppo’. The following day the Syrian Government ‘requested the Secretary-General to establish a specialized, impartial independent mission to
investigate the alleged incident’ (UNMIAUCWSAA 2013: 2-3).

Almost immediately following this, from 21 March onwards, the governments of the USA, France and Britain (all of which were by then directly or indirectly supporting the Islamist groups) began to add a series of incidents,
claiming the use of chemical weapons in Syria (UNMIAUCWSAA 2013: 2-6). Washington repeatedly claimed there was ‘no proof’ the ‘rebels’ were responsible for chemical weapon use. They sought to turn the accusations against the Syrian Government.

However, in an interim statement in May, UN investigator Carla del Ponte said she had testimony from victims that ‘rebels’ had used sarin gas (BBC 2013). Then in May, Turkish security forces were reported to have found a 2kg
canister of sarin, after raiding the homes of Jabhat al Nusra fighters (RT 2013). In July Russia announced it had
evidence that Syrian ‘rebels’ were making their own sarin gas (Al Jazeera 2013).

Despite dissatisfaction over the Houla inquiry the previous year (see Anderson 2015), the Syrian Government          invited UN inspectors to visit the Khan al Asal attack site. Details were organised and the UN’s Special Mission          finally arrived in Damascus on 18 August 2013. The Mission ‘intended to contemporaneously investigate the reported allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Khan Al Asal, Saraqueb and Sheik Maqsood’, that is three of the 16 reported sites, ‘which were deemed credible’. However, ‘after the tragic events of 21 August 2013 the UN Secretary General directed the group to investigate that incident ‘as a matter of priority’ (UNMIAUCWSAA 2013: 7-8). The East Ghouta incident and claims of mass gassing derailed the initially planned investigations. Despite the implausibility of the Syrian Government launching a chemical weapons attack, just as it had invited UN inspectors in Damascus, the Islamist claims succeeded in gaining world attention.

2. The East Ghouta Incident
The main armed Islamist group which controlled the area, the Saudi-backed Islamic Front (Liwa al Islam), blamed the Government for gassing children. Photos of dozens of dead or injured children were circulated. Supporting the ‘rebel’ accusations, the US government and the Washington-based Human Rights Watch blamed the Syrian government. Human Rights Watch said it had ‘analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used’, and claimed the rockets used were ‘weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces’ (HRW 2013a). Much the same was said by the US Government. Close links between the two should tell us that this was more collaboration than corroboration. A group of Nobel Prize winners would later accuse Human Rights Watch of running a ‘revolving door’ between its offices and those of the US government (Pérez Esquivel, and Maguire 2014).

The New York Times backed the US Government claim ‘that only Syrian government forces had the ability to carry out such a strike’ (Gladstone and Chivers 2013). The paper claimed vector calculations of the rocket trajectories    indicated they must have been fired from Syrian Army bases in Damascus (Parry 2013). Yet studies at MIT quickly showed the rockets to have a much shorter range than was suggested. The NYT retreated from its telemetry claims saying, while ‘some argued that it was still possible the government was responsible’, new evidence ‘undermined the Obama administration’s assertions’ about the rocket launch points’ (Chivers 2013; also Parry 2013). The final MIT report was more emphatic, concluding that the rockets ‘could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’, or from the eastern edge, of the Syrian Government controlled area shown in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013’ (Lloyd and Postol 2014).

While western media outlets mostly repeated Washington’s accusations, independent reports continued to
contradict the story. Journalists Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh reported direct interviews with ‘doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families’ in the East Ghouta area. Many believed that the Islamists had received chemical weapons via Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack (Gavlak and Ababneh 2013). The father of a rebel said his son had asked ‘what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry’. His son and 12 other rebels were ‘killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha’ (Gavlak and Ababneh 2013). A female fighter complained they had no instructions on how to use chemical weapons. A rebel leader said much the same. Many of those interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government (Gavlak and Ababneh 2013).

Next a Syrian group, ISTEAMS, led by Mother Agnes Mariam, carried out a detailed examination of the video         evidence, noting that bodies had been manipulated for the images and that many of the children appeared ill or drugged (ISTEAMS 2013: 32-35). The videos used ‘artificial scenic treatment … there is a flagrant lack of real    families in East Ghouta … so who are the children that are exposed in those videos? (ISTEAMS 2013: 44). All reports came from ‘rebel’ controlled areas. The medical office of the area claimed 10,000 injured and 1,466 killed, 67% of whom were women and children; while the Local Coordinating Committee (an FSA linked group) said there were 1,188 victims; but videos showed less than 500 bodies, by no means all dead (ISTEAMS 2013: 36-38). Even more striking was the subsequent absence of verified bodies. ‘Eight corpses are seen buried. [The] remaining 1,458 corpses, where are they? Where are the children?’ (ISTEAMS 2013: 41). A ‘rebel’ spokesperson claimed that ‘burials took place quickly for fear the bodies might decompose as a result of the heat’ (Mroue 2013).

The ISTEAMS report suggested a possible link with a large scale abduction of children in Ballouta, Northern Latakia, just two weeks prior to the East Ghouta incident. ‘We refer also the list of the victims of the invasion of 11 Alawite villages in Lattakia the 4th of August 2013, where 150 women and children were abducted by Jobhat Al Nosra’ (ISTEAMS 2013: 43). The report said: ‘the families of some adducted women and children … recognise their  relatives in the videos’, and called for an ‘unbiased’ investigation to determine the identity and whereabouts of the      children (ISTEAMS 2013: 44). Later reports noted that the children abducted in northern Syria had been held in the northern town of Selma (Martin 2014; Mesler 2014), with one alleging the armed groups had drugged those        children to create a video, sending it to East Ghouta to be uploaded (Mesler 2014). If this were true, those  children were never in the East Ghouta.

At the end of 2013 a Turkish lawyers and writers group issued a substantial report on crimes against civilians in Syria. A particular focus was the responsibility of the Turkish Government, which was backing the ‘rebel’ groups. The report concluded that ‘most of the crimes’ against Syrian civilians, including the East Ghouta attack, were         committed by ‘armed rebel forces in Syria’. The Saudi backed group Liwa al Islam, led by Zahran Alloush, was said ‘by several sources to be the organization behind the chemical attack (Peace Association and Lawyers for Justice 2013).

North American veteran journalist Seymour Hersh interviewed intelligence agents and concluded that                  Washington’s claims on the evidence had been fabricated. Al Nusra ‘should have been a suspect’, he said, ‘but the [US] administration cherry picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad’ (Hersh 2013). President Obama cited as evidence the Syrian Army’s preparation for a gas attack and ‘chatter’ on the Syrian airwaves at the time of the    incident. However Hersh said he had found ‘intense concern’ and anger amongst agents over ‘the deliberate manipulation of intelligence’. One officer said the attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’ (Hersh 2013). The White House backgrounder combined facts after the event with those before. Hersh concludes that the White House ‘disregarded the available intelligence about al-Nusra’s potential access to sarin and continued to [wrongly] claim that the Assad government was in sole possession of chemical weapons’ (Hersh 2013).

The UN special mission on chemical weapons returned to Syria in late September and investigated several sites, including East Ghouta. They decided to investigate seven of the initial sixteen reports (UNMIAUCWSAA 2013: 10). This Mission was not briefed to determined responsibility, but rather to determine whether chemical weapons had been used and what had been the results. In a December 2013 report they reported that chemical weapons had been used in Syria, and specifically ‘against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August … in Khan Al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians … in Jobar on 24 August 2013 on a relatively small scale against soldiers … in Saraqueb on 24 August 2013 on a small scale, also against civilians … [and] in Ashrafiah Sahnaya on 25 August 2013 on a small scale against soldiers’ (UNMIAUCWSAA 2013: 19-21). Notice that on three of these five occasions chemical weapons were used against soldiers. Logically those attacks came from groups were fighting soldiers, not from government forces. A later report for the Human Rights Council (February 2014) noted that the chemical agents used in Khan-Al-Assal attack ‘bore the same unique hallmarks as those used in al Ghouta’; however they could not determine the perpetrator (HRC 2014: 19). The independent evidence was overwhelming and inescapable: chemical weapons had been used in East Ghouta, but the charges against the Syrian Army were fabricated.

East Ghouta chemical weapons incident (August 2013): significant reports

  • Source/report/evidence [column size=one_half position=last]Methods and conclusion[/column]
  • Carla del Ponte (UN) [column size=one_half position=last ]Pre-East Ghouta: ‘Rebels’ believed to have used sarin gas in North Syria[/column]
  • Various news reports [column size=one_half position=last ]Pre-East Ghouta: ‘Rebels’ (al-Nusra) arrested in Turkey with sarin gas[/column]
  • ‘Syrian Rebels’ and associates [column size=one_half position=last]1,300+ killed, including children, from Government CW shelling (however only 8 bodies are publicly buried)[/column]
  • Human Rights Watch  [column size=one_half position=last]The CW used were only in possession of the SG[/column]
  • New York Times [column size=one_half position=last]Telemetry evidence links attacks to SG bases (later MIT studies force NYT to modify this claim)[/column]
  • Lloyd and Postol (MIT) [column size=one_half position=last]Rockets used had limited range and could not have been fired from suggested SG positions[/column]
  • Gavlak and Ababneh (MINT Press) [column size=one_half position=last]CW had been supplied by Saudis to ‘rebel’ groups, some locals had died due to mishandling[/column]
  • Mother Agnes / ISTEAMS [column size=one_half position=last]Images were contrived, no social context, only eight people buried – who are the children?[/column]
  • John Mesler (NSNBC) [column size=one_half position=last]Parents identified children in photos as those kidnapped in Latakia, two weeks earlier[/column]
  • Seymour Hersh (LRB) [column size=one_half position=last]Interviewed US officials. Intelligence was manipulated to blame President Assad, false claims used.[/column]
  • Turkish lawyers and writers group (PALJ) [column size=one_half position=last]Saudi backed ‘rebel’ group Liwa al Islam believed to be responsible.[/column]
  • UN Dec 2013 report on [column size=one_half position=last]CW attacks in Syria CW were used in East Ghouta; three of five CW attacks were ‘against soldiers’ or ‘against soldiers and civilians’[/column]
  • HRC Feb 2014 report [column size=one_half position=last]chemical agents used in Khan-Al-Assal attack ‘bore the same unique hallmarks’ as those used in East Ghouta[/column]

Independent evidence came from Syrian, Jordanian, Turkish and US sources, and from a United Nations team. Further, many of the displays of children were not reliably linked to East Ghouta. Nor is there independent verification of who those children are and what happened to them. The weight of evidence proves this was another ‘false flag’ incident, designed to attract deeper foreign intervention. The scale of independent reporting which undermines claims against the Syrian Government stands in contrast to the open self-publicity of ‘rebel’ atrocities such as beheadings, public executions, truck bombings, mortaring of cities, bombing of hospitals and destruction of mosques and churches. The fact that the Syrian Army strongly contests civilian atrocity claims (the treatment of captured fighters is another matter), while many of the ‘rebel’ groups publicise their own atrocities against civilians, sets a distinct background to these controversies.

3. Chemical fabrications and Syria’s Missing Children
After the East Ghouta incident, Islamist groups supported by a range of anti-Syrian governments kept up their     accusations, while covering up their own exposures. Jabhat al Nusra claimed the chemicals they were caught with in Turkey were ‘not for making sarin gas’ (Today’s Zaman 2013). Yet video evidence from south Syria showed al Nusra using chemical weapons against Syrian soldiers (Turbeville 2014). In July 2014 barrels containing sarin were reported as discovered in parts of ‘rebel-held Syria’ (RT 2014). Then in 2015 Iraqi Kurds reported the al-Nusra breakaway group ISIS using chemical weapons (Solomon 2015; Ariel 2015). Kurdish fighters seized chlorine             canisters after a suicide bomb attack which left them ‘dizzy, nauseous and weak’ (Akbar 2015).

Anti-Syrian ‘activists’, plus US-based NGOs such as Avaaz, the Syria Campaign and The White Helmets, also repeated and extended their accusations, while urging a Libyan styled ‘no fly zone’ (NFZ Syria 2015; White Helmets 2015), clearly intended to topple the Government in Damascus. By 2014 there seemed little chance that would      happen. Such one-sided campaigns seemed unlikely to do much except help extend the killings. In April 2014 Al Jazeera accused the Syrian Government of using chlorine gas (Baker 2014), while anonymous activists’ accused the Syrian army of a poison gas attack (Mroue and Lucas 2015). In neither case was there any independent verification. Counter-campaigners exposed the financial and political links between Washington and a range of US-based ‘civil society’ groups like Avaaz (Morningstar 2014; Sterling 2015). Nevertheless, media channels repeated the initial claims of the East Ghouta incident, as though they were fact, oblivious to the evidence. An April 2015 article in the UK Guardian, for example, claimed in its backgrounder that the Syrian Government had used chemical weapons and ‘killed up to 1,400 people in August 2013’ (Black 2015).

The smokescreens around chemical weapons have effectively derailed reasonable public discussion about the war in Syria, at least in western circles; and perhaps that was the point. It is sad, though, that reasonable discussion of the evidence should matter so little. Further, the constant stream of fabrications have certainly aggravated and helped prolong the violence. Islamist militia carry out their crimes with relative impunity, often blaming them on the Syrian Government.

Another crime has been buried by the chemical fabrications: the fate of the children kidnapped in Ballouta. Even Human Rights Watch reported this crime (HRW 2013b), if not the link to the children said to have been injured or killed in East Ghouta. This mass kidnapping was just one of many by the Islamist groups. The victims are held for ransom, for prisoner exchanges, or simply slaughtered because they are thought be from pro-government              families. The latter was the case with Alawi families in the Aqrab massacre (Thompson 2012), while a failed             prisoner  exchange was behind the Daraya massacre (Fisk 2012).

However in the East Ghouta incident, several sources (ISTEAMS 2013; Martin 2014; Mesler 2014) now link the      Ballouta children to the photos of the dead or drugged little bodies said to be in Ghouta. That is, their images may have been uploaded from East Ghouta but the bodies were never there. While some of those kidnapped were     released in a 2014 prisoner exchange, many are still held; and this is said to be why many families in north Syria have not yet more publicly identified their children. The want to see them released. Western media sources            continue refer to ‘1,400’ dead, without names, but only eight bodies are known to have been buried. In the fog of war, Mother Agnes Mariam has been right all along to insist on names and details of people killed, and not just a recital of numbers, as though these killings were a cricket match. Back in September 2013 her ISTEAMS group posed one of the most most vital questions of this whole affair: ‘Eight corpses are seen buried’. [The] remaining 1,458 corpses, where are they? Where are the children?’ (ISTEAMS 2013: 41).

==================

Bibliography
Al Akhras, Samir (2013) Interview with this writer, Damascus, 24 December

Al Jazeera (2013) ‘Syria rebels made own sarin gas, says Russia’, 10 July

Anderson, Tim (2015) ‘The Houla Massacre Revisited: “Official Truth” in the Dirty War on Syria’, Global Research, 24 March

Ariel, Ben (2015) ‘United States ‘concerned’ about ISIS use of chlorine gas’, Arutz Sheva, 17 March

Akbar, Jay (2015) ‘More evidence emerges of ISIS using chemical weapons as Kurdish fighters seize chlorine canisters after suicide bomb attack that left them ‘dizzy, nauseous and weak’’, 15 March, Daily Mail

Baker, Graeme (2014) ‘Syrian regime accused of chlorine gas attacks’, Al Jazeera, 17 April

Barnard, Anne (2013) ‘Syria and Activists Trade Charges on Chemical Weapons’, New York Times, 19 March

BBC (2013) UN’s Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels ‘used sarin’’, 6 May

Black, Ian (2015) ‘Former ambassador attacks Cameron’s ‘arrogant’ Syria policy’, UK Guardian, 8 April

Chivers, C.J. (2013) ‘New Study Refines View of Sarin Attack in Syria’, New York Times

Eva Pal (2014) ‘Talk with Lilly Martin and Steven Sahiounie, part 1’, YouTube, May 10

Fisk, Robert (2012) ‘Inside Daraya – how a failed prisoner swap turned into a massacre’, 29 August

Gavlak, Dale and Yahya Ababneh (2013) ‘Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack’, MINT PRESS, August 29

Gerard Direct (2012) ‘Syria: jihadist al-Nusra Front seizes chemical factory near Aleppo’, 9 December

Gladstone, Rick and C.J Chivers (2013) ‘Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas’, New York Times, 16 September

Hersh, Seymour M. (2013) ‘Whose Sarin?’, London Review of Books, Vol. 35 No. 24, 19 December, 9-12

Hersh, Seymour M. (2014) ‘The Red Line and the Rat Line’, London Review of Books, 36:8, 17 April, pp 21-24

HRC (2014) ‘Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/25/65, 12 February HRW (2013a) ‘Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria’, Human Rights Watch, Washington, 10 September

HRW (2013b) ‘You Can Still See Their Blood’, Human Rights Watch, Washington, 11 October

ISTEAMS (2013) ‘Independent Investigation of Syria Chemical Attack Videos and Child Abductions’, 15 September

Lloyd, Richard and Theodore A. Postol (2014) ‘Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013’, MIT, January 14, Washington DC

Malas, Nour (2013) ‘As Syrian Islamists Gain, It’s Rebel Against Rebel’, Wall Street Journal, 29 May

Martin, Lilly (2014) in Deena Stryker ‘The Hidden Australia/Syria Story’, Op Ed News, 22 December

Mesler, John (2014) ‘Combating the Propaganda Machine in Syria: The ‘Moderate Opposition’, the Children from Ballouta, and the Sarin Gas Attack on Eastern Ghouta’, NSNBC, 10 October

Morningstar, Cory (2014) ‘Syria, Avaaz, Purpose and the art of selling hate for empire’, Wrong Kinds of Green, 17 September

Mortada, Radwan (2012) ‘Syria Alternatives (II): no homegrown solutions’, Al Akhbar, 13 June

Mortada, Radwan (2013) ‘The Battle for Qusayr: Decisive Victory or War of Attrition?’, Al Akhbar, May 21

Mroue, Bassem (2013) ‘Syrian forces bomb area of alleged chemical attack’ USA Today, 22 August

Mroue, Bassem and Ryan Lucas (2015) ‘Activists accuse Syrian military of deadly poison gas attack’, 17 March NFZ Syria (2015) ‘Call from Syria: London march 26th April’, 4 April NTI (2013) ‘Syrian militants have access to chlorine gas: plant owner’, 1 April

Parry, Robert (2013) ‘NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis’, Global Research, 30 December

Peace Association and Lawyers for Justice in Turkey (2013) ‘War Crimes Committed Against the People of Syria’, December

RT (2013) ‘Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists – reports’, 30 May

RT (2014) ‘‘Abandoned’ barrels containing deadly sarin seized in rebel-held Syria’, 8 July

SANA (2011) ‘Mother Agnes Merriam al-Saleeb: Nameless Gunmen Possessing Advanced Firearms Terrorize Citizens and Security in Syria’, Syrian Free Press Network, 19 November

Smith-Spark, Laura and Tom Cohen (2013) ‘U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons’, CNN, 15 September

Solomon, Erica (2015) ‘Iraqi Kurds claim ISIS used chemical weapons’, Financial Times, 14 March

Turbeville, Brandon (2014) ‘New video evidence points to al-Nusra chemical attack against Syrian soldiers’, 5 May

Stack, Liam and Hania Mourtada (2012) ‘Members of Assad’s Sect Blamed in Syria Killings’, New York Times, December 12

Sterling, Rick (2015) ‘Humanitarians for War on Libya’, Syrian Free Press, 5 April

Thompson, Alex (2012) ‘Was there a massacre in the Syrian town of Aqrab?’, 14 December: Today’s

Zaman (2013) ‘Detained al-Nusra members say chemicals not for making sarin gas’, 13 September

UN (2013) United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, December

UNMIAUCWSAA (2013) ‘Final report’, United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, 12 December

White Helmets (2015) ‘It’s time to stop the bombs’, March




Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria

By Dr. Christof Lehmann
Source: nsnbc
Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.
The Strategic Situation, leading up to the Use of Chemical Substances in the Eastern Ghouta Suburb of Damascus on 21 August 2013.

On 21 August 2013, the Syrian Arab Army launched a major military campaign in Damascus. The campaign, called “Operation Shield of the Capital”, was the largest military operation of the Syrian Arab Army in the Damascus region since the beginning of the war in 2011.

Although U.S. Intelligence reports repeatedly stressed that the opposition was incapable of launching a major, well coordinated attack, the Syrian Army was confronted with an organized fighting force of 25.000 men under arms.

The Saudi Arabia backed Jihadist front had amassed 25.000 fighters, organized in 13 battalions or kitab, to to launch a major assault against the capital Damascus. Most of the brigades belonged to Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam. The other brigades, which took part in the campaign, were Abou Zhar al-Ghaffari, al-Ansar, al-Mohajereen, Daraa al-Sham, Harun al-Rashid, Issa bin Mariam, Sultan Mohammad al-Fatih, Syouf al-Haqq, the Glory of the Caliphate, the Jobar Martyrs.

During the night of 20 to 21 August and during the early morning hours of 21 August, the Syrian Arab Army broke through the insurgent lines in the area near the Jobar entrance. The breakthrough resulted in a collapse of the jihadists defensive positions, leading to a crushing and decisive, strategic defeat of the Jabhat al-Nusrah led brigades.

The Strategic Significance of the Jobar Entrance and the Defeat. Cutting off the Insurgents Logistical Life-Line to Al-Mafraq and U.S. – Saudi Supplies.

The significance of the Jobar Entrance was that it both enabled the insurgents to launch attacks against the center of Damascus and that it was the sole remaining logistical supply route.

From Jobar, the insurgents could launch attacks. From Jobar they could infiltrate operatives, bombs and car bombs into the heart of Damascus. Loosing the Jobar Entrance also meant that the insurgents lost their last remaining route through which they could receive reinforcements and U.S. and Saudi supplies from Jordan.

Loosing Jobar effectively cut off the insurgents connection to the Jordanian border town of Al-Mafraq, the most important logistical base for the insurgents as well as for Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Al-Mafraq was already used as a major staging ground for the two failed attempts to conquer the city of Homs in June and July 2012. In 2012 al-Mafraq became the staging ground for some 40.000 fighters; more than 20.000 of them fought under the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was under the command of Abdelhakim Belhadj and his second in command, Harati.

The CIA maintains a station, US Special Forces train insurgents, and several other US institutions are present in al-Mafraq. The point is of particular importance with regards to the visit of the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Jordan, which will be detailed below. Al Mafraq has been the major transit point for Saudi and U.S. arms shipments since 2012, and the delivery of advanced Saudi and U.S. weapons to the insurgents since early August 2013.

The foreign-backed mercenaries defeat during the night from 20 to 21 August and the early morning hours of 21 August frustrated any hope for a successful, large-scale, CIA-U.S. Special Forces-led military campaign against Damascus.

The insurgents also suffered a decisive, strategic defeat on 17 – 18 August, when a brigade was encircled and fought down near the Syrian Israeli border in the Golan, while they were en route from the Ramtha Airbase in Jordan to Damascus. It is very likely that much of the newly delivered advanced weaponry from Saudi Arabia and the USA was destroyed there. That includes, among others, advanced Konkurs anti-tank missiles.

The road is also used for weapons and troop transports from the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan, where Israeli Intelligence and the insurgents, according to an Austrian UNDOF officer, maintain a joint operations room.

Liwa-al-Islam and Jabhat al-Nusrah Elite Troops to Hold Jobar At Any Cost.

The collapse of the insurgent front prompted the front commanders, most of which work in liaison to U.S. Special Forces, to deploy an elite force that should prevent the Syrian Army, at all costs, from gaining access to the Jobar Entrance, and from gaining control over the Jobar area. The majority of the insurgent crack forces came from Liwa-al-Islam with some additional troops from Jabhat al-Nusrah.

The commanding officer of the elite forces was a Saudi national who is known by the name Abu Ayesha, whom eyewitnesses from Ghouta later identified as Abu Abdul-Moneim. Abdul-Moneim had established a cache of weapons, of which some had a tube-like structure, and others which looked like big gas bottles. The cache was located in a tunnel in the Eastern Ghouta district of Damascus.

Reports about this tunnel and the weapons cache emerged in international media, after the son of Abdul-Moneim and 12 other fighters lost their lives there, because they mishandled improvised chemical weapons and caused a leak in one of them.

Besides Abu Abdul-Moneim, the supreme leader of the Liwa-al-Islam and commander of their chemical weapons specialists, Zahran Alloush took personal charge of the elite troops, along with chemical weapons specialists who were operating under his direct command.

Liwa-al-Islam has, along with other al-Qaeda brigades, the capability to manufacture and launch primitive, but none the less very deadly chemical weapons. The chemical weapons which Zahran Alloush had delivered to Damascus were most likely from al-Qaeda´s chemical weapons stockpiles in Iraq.

In early September 2013, Iran´s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated, that Iran had sent a memo to the White House via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, in which Tehran informed the USA, that handmade articles of chemical weapons, including Sarin gas, were being transferred to Syria. The White House failed to respond.

Having to hold the Jobar Entrance and the Jobar district of Damascus “at any cost to maintain any hopes of launching a successful, major military assault on Damascus”, the insurgent commanders decided to launch a chemical weapons attack to halt the advance of the Syrian Arab Army.

The political and military opposition and core members of the international alliance behind them had already decided that chemical weapons should be used in August – September. The large scale use of chemical weapons should justify renewed calls for a military intervention. Intelligence about this decision transpired in June. nsnbc international issued several reports in late June and early July, warning that the insurgents would use large scale chemical weapons attacks in August or September.

The decision to launch the chemical weapon on 21 August was most likely based on two considerations. That the use of chemical weapons was already planned. That the Jobar Entrance should be defended at all costs. The final decision, made by Zahran Alloush may in fact have been predetermined together with his U.S. – Saudi liaison officers.

Launching a chemical weapons attack would allow the USA, UK and France, to call for military strikes against Syria and to turn the tide. Also Russian and Syrian intelligence sources described the weapons which were used in the attack as rockets, which were altered so as to carry chemicals, launched by Liwa-al-Islam. The projectiles were most likely fired from a flatbed.

Saudi and U.S. Involvement. Political and Military Responsibility.

There is a growing, substantial amount of evidence that indicates direct U.S. and Saudi involvement in the chemical weapons attack. To begin with, one merely has to answer the fundamental question “Who Benefits”, and the answer is definitely not “the Syrian government”.

In fact, the Federal German Intelligence Service (BND) claims that it has intercepted phone calls between Syrian officers and the Syrian High Command. The BND is convinced that none of the Syrian forces have used a chemical weapon. Leaving alone any moral considerations, the domestic and international repercussions were foreseeable and there would not have been any strategic benefit for the Syrian Army or the government.

In the end, it was the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel who achieved a major strategic and political victory by forcing the Syrian government to put its chemical weapons under international control for destruction.

The USA benefits from UNSC resolution 2118 (2013), which calls for measures under the UN Charter´s Chapter VII in the case of non-compliance by the Syrian government.

Moreover, UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) paved the way for a presidential statement by the Security Council which for the first time introduced the “Responsibility to Protect” principle in the conflict.

Also the involvement of Saudi Arabia ultimately points towards Washington and the White House. The involvement of Liwa-al-Islam in the chemical weapons attack establishes a strong chain of circumstantial evidence to the Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

The supreme leader of Liwa-al-Islam and commander of the groups chemical weapons specialists, Zahran Alloush, has been working for the then Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Turki al-Faisal in both Afghanistan and Yemen in the 1980s.

Since the 1990s, Alloush was involved in the Salafist – Wahabbist terrorist networks in Syria which led to his arrest by Syrian intelligence. He was released in early of 2011, when the Assad administration granted a general amnesty. Immediately after his March 2011 release from prison, Zahran Alloush began receiving substantial funds and weapons from Saudi intelligence, which enabled him to establish Liwa-al-Islam as a de facto Saudi Arabia sponsored mercenary brigade under the auspices of the Saudi Interior Ministry.

Liwa-al-Islam is not the only al-Qaeda brigade which the Saudi Interior Ministry has deployed to Syria. Russian and Syrian intelligence services reported already in late 2011, that intercepted internet chatter indicated that Saudi Arabia had deployed al-Qaeda´s Omar Brigade to Syria. The Omar Brigade is specialized in high level assassinations and large scale bombings.

Saudi funding enabled Alloush to establish the Liwa-al-Islam as a major fighting force in Syria. The group gained fame due to risky, high-profile attacks. On 8 July 2012, the group carried out a bomb attack against the headquarters of Syria´s National Security Council in Rawda Square, Damascus. The group succeeded in assassinating several high profile members of Syria´s security establishment, including the Deputy Minister of Defense and brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad, Assaf Shawkat, Defense Minister Dawoud Rajiha, Hassan Turkmani, a former Defense Minister and military adviser to then Vice-President Farouk al-Sharaa.

Weakening Qatar, Strengthening the U.S.-Saudi Axis.

After the defeat of the predominantly Qatar-backed Muslim Brotherhood and Free Syrian Army forces, which were reinforced by Libyans, in June and July 2012, the U.S. Saudi Axis were strengthened. Uncooperative Qatari brigades which rejected the new command structure had to be removed.

The influx of Salafi – Wahhabbi fighters to Syria was documented by the International Crisis Group in their report titled “Tentative Jihad”. The CIA and Saudi Interior Ministry man, Zahran Alloush, and Liwa-al-Islam, should also play a lead role in this development.

In June 2013 Alloush withdrew his Liwa-al-Islam troops during a major battle with the Syrian Arab Army without announcing the sudden withdrawal to the Qatar-sponsored First Brigade and the Liwa Jaish al-Muslimeen. Both brigades were literally wiped out by the Syrian Army.

Qatar-backed forces have not made a significant recovery in the Syrian theater since the June 2013 defeat, and the primary fighting forces today are Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam. Both of them receive weapons from the USA and Saudi Arabia. The development has also weakened the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which in the middle of 2013 had become a minor player in the Syrian theater.

The influx of Saudi backed mercenaries and the prospect of Syria being “Balkanized” into any number of infighting Caliphates causes many patriotic FSA commanders, to consider a realignment with the Syrian Arab Army and the government. The Syrian government encourages these commanders’ decisions and offers reasonable and honorable conditions.

In conclusion; the primary, foreign-backed “opposition forces” in Syria since July 2013, are U.S. – Saudi – backed al-Qaeda brigades. Most prominent among them are Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam, while the FSA still receives some support, which is primarily granted for the purpose of giving the White House the possibility to maintain a narrative about supporting “moderate forces”. Another aspect is, that the FSA is the last representative of Qatar´s, Turke´s and Libya´s Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrien theater.

Both the USA and Saudi Arabia cooperate closely with Jabhat al-Nusrah, Liwa-al-Islam and other al-Qaeda brigades, including the brigades which were responsible for launching the chemical weapon on 21 August to change the tide during a catastrophic, strategic defeat.

U.N. Inspectors protected by Perpetrators of Chemical Weapons Attack in East Ghouta, Damascus, on 21 August 2013.

he U.S. – Saudi hand is also clearly visible with regards to the inspection of the scene of the chemical weapons attack by U.N. Inspectors.

Before looking at the details at the scene of the crime, however, it is necessary to note that the U.N. Inspectors only agreed to accept Syria´s invitation after considerable diplomatic pressure from Russia, and after Syrian troops seized massive stockpiles of chemicals from the insurgents. The seizure of 281 barrels of chemicals from terrorists in the city of Banias prompted the Syrian U.N. Ambassador, Bashar Jaafari to announce:

“The Syrian authorities have discovered yesterday, in the city of Banias, 281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials, capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country”.

In late August, when U.N. Inspectors prepared to inspect the scene of the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta, the convoy was delayed because an “unidentified sniper” fired at the U.N. Inspector´s vehicles.

Moreover, the “opposition” insisted that Zahran Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam would escort the U.N. experts, and provide security for them while they investigated the use of chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta. Zahran Alloush delegated the actual, on the ground “security escort” for the U.N. experts to his close ally, the Liwa al-Baraa brigade from Zamalka. The U.N. inspectors, who gathered evidence in Eastern Ghouta, were thus in the custody of those who perpetrated the chemical weapons use.

The renown and arguably world leading expert on chemical weapons, Dr. Abbas Forouthan, sharply criticized the U.N. expert´s report, pointing out sharp irregularities. Dr. Forouthan´s statements about the report were published in an article by Sharmine Narwani, titled “CW Expert Opinion on UN Report on Syria”. Dr. Forouthan concludes, that

Overall in my view this report should be received/accepted medically with great caution and should be observed again by a team of international expert clinicians. My intention is not the denial of sarin but at least from the clinical point of view, the evidences of this report are not enough to prove the existence of a nerve gas [sarin] in this incident.

Russian and other experts have repeatedly stated that the chemical weapon could not have been a standard issue Syrian chemical weapon and that all available evidence, including the fact that those who offered first aid to the victims were not harmed, indicates the use of liquid, home made sarin. This information is corroborated by the seizure of chemicals in Syria and in Turkey.

Zahran Alloush receives Orders directly from Saudi Intelligence.

Several commanders of al-Qaeda brigades in Syria have stated that Zahran Alloush receives his orders directly from Saudi Intelligence. Russian diplomatic sources stated among others, that many, even opposition members, were appalled by the use of chemical weapons in Syria and that people of many different political observances have provided information to Russian diplomats.

Statements to the effect that Zahran Alloush receives his orders directly from the Saudi Intelligence are corroborated by the fact that both Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam are financed by the Saudi Interior Ministry. The group was literally established with Saudi money after Alloush was released from prison in 2011. According to international law, this fact alone is sufficient to designate Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam as Saudi mercenaries.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has acceded the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (Mercenary Convention) on 14 April 1997 (with reservations). Whether these reservations are sufficient to exempt Saudi Arabia from the provisions of the convention or not in this case would be for experts in international law to determine.

Regardless the answer to this question however, Saudi Arabia is sponsoring an internationally banned terrorist organization and is issuing direct orders to a terrorist organization´s supreme commander, Zahran Alloush. Al-Qaeda commanders in Syria have also, repeatedly stated that the Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar, considers Liwa-al-Islam as his personal brigade in Syria. If proven in a court of law, this would have severe implications for Bandar, Saudi Arabia as well as for U.S. Officials with regard to the political responsibility for the attack.

Political Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack in East Ghouta, Damascus, on 21 August, arguably, at the highest level of the White House.

Even though no evidence has yet transpired, that would tie Prince Bandar directly to the chemical weapons attack on 21 August, his role in the attack could place the political responsibility for the attack directly with the President of the United States, Barak Obama and other top-U.S. Officials.

Moreover, it is likely that a thorough investigation within the framework of an international court of law would produce the evidence. Leaving the question whether to investigate or not to the ICC, knowing that it is unlikely that the ICC would investigate, let alone charge Saudi or U.S. Officials, it is necessary to suffice with the now available evidence which is circumstantial, but sufficient to warrant further investigation. It is also sufficient to approach the ICC to demand that action be taken.

To begin with, it would be sufficient to look into the many documented and admitted cases in which the Saudi Interior Ministry either admitted, or in which it has been proven that Saudi Arabia supports al-Qaeda brigades. With regards to the chemical weapons attack in East Ghouta, there is one point that stands out, which is Bandar´s threats during a meeting with Russia´s President Vladimir Putin. The minutes of the meeting clearly suggest Bandar´s direct involvement, at least with regards to political responsibility, and Bandar also implies political responsibility of top-U.S. Officials.

The Bandar Putin Meeting.

On 2 August Prince Bandar met Russia´s President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. Putin and Bandar spoke, among others, about the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta and the future of Syria´s President, Bashar al-Assad.

Bandar tried to bribe Putin with weapons and oil deals in order to gain the Russian President´s support for ousting the Assad government. Bandar supposed that the Syrian government should be replaced with the Saudi-backed and sponsored opposition.

Bandar guaranteed that Russia´s interests in Syria would be preserved by this Saudi-backed government if Russia supported the regime change. While Bandar attempted to gain Putin as a potential ally for regime change in Syria, he also delivered a thinly veiled threat, saying among others:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the direction of the Syrian territory without coordinating with us. These groups don´t scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria´s political future”.

Putin responded, saying that the Russians know that the Saudis have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade, and that the support which Bandar just had offered was utterly incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism.

Bandar continued discussing Syria, saying words to the effect that the Assad government has no future and that Saudi Arabia would not allow Assad to remain at the helm. Putin stressed that the Russian position is that the Syrian people are best to speak for themselves, rather than those liver eaters. Putin referred to an al-Qaeda commander who had cannibalized the liver of a slain Syrian soldier.

Bandar resorted to threats again, warning Putin that their dispute over the future of Syria led him to conclude that there is no escape from the (U. S. -led) military option, because the political stalemate would leave the military option as the only available choice to end the stalemate. The most important statement Bandar did however, was that he said, that he expected such a U. S. -led military intervention to come soon, and that Bandar made this statement almost three weeks before the chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta.

The Statement indicates Foreknowledge. CIA Chief Brennan and Washington have most likely been informed.

Bandar´s statement strongly suggests foreknowledge, and given the close relations between Bandar and the U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, John Brennan, one must imply that top-level White House executives, including President Obama have been briefed and have had the same foreknowledge. The implications warrant an in depth investigation by an international prosecutor.

Another strong indication of foreknowledge at top-White House level is that Bandar, during his Moscow visit insisted, that his initiative and his message had been coordinated with the highest authorities in the Obama administration. Either Prince Bandar lied to Putin, or top-White House officials were informed. Bandar said:

“I have spoken with the Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any understandings that we may reach, especially if we agree on the approach to the Syria issue”.

Foreknowledge – U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey visit to Jordan.

Another strong indicator of foreknowledge by top-U.S. Officials can be deducted from the visit of the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey to Jordan and a statement he made prior to the Jordan visit.

On 18 July, Dempsey said at a hearing at the U.S. Senate´s Armed Services Committee, that the Obama administration is preparing various scenarios for a possible U.S. Military intervention in Syria, and considering whether the USA should use “the brute of the U.S. Military, and kinetic strikes”. “The issue”, said Gen. Dempsey, “is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government”.

Already on 7 July however, nsnbc international published a report, based on information from a Syria-based, Palestinian intelligence expert, who stated that the armed and political opposition, along with the international alliance behind it, is preparing a large political and military campaign in August – September.

The report mentions specifically the chemical weapons use and the Jordanian city al-Mafraq, where U.S. Special forces train insurgents.

Dempsey in Jordan only Days before Chemical Weapons Attack and while Saudi / U.S. Weapons Deliveries begin flowing across the Border from al-Mafraq.

On 15 August 2013, the website of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) informed, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey is visiting troops in Jordan. Dempsey´s visit came against the backdrop of major weapons deliveries to the Syrian opposition, including advanced weapons like the Konkurs anti tank missile.

On the agenda in Jordan was, among other, the “Team Jordan”. The DoD informs, that “The team Jordan also includes liaison officers linking them to the services, special operation forces, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan, USAID, Britain, Canada and France. Its primary focus is planning for Syria”.

It is inconceivable that U.S. Special Forces and the CIA would have given the green light for the use of chemical weapons – for example in a situation where the insurgents lose their hold on the Jobar Entrance – without the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the very least being informed about it.

As stated before, U.S. Special Forces in al-Mafraq were training insurgents in special operations, including the securing of captured chemical weapons. A Palestinian intelligence expert stated to nsnbc that informants have claimed that U.S. Special Forces were training insurgents in chemical weapons use.

Shortly after Dempsey arrives, on 17 August, the insurgents suffer a major strategic defeat en route from al-Mafraq to Damascus. On 21 August, shortly after Dempsey´s departure, the Liwa-al-Islam brigade launches the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta because the insurgents could, despite the delivery of new, advanced weapons not hold the Jobar Entrance and Jobar district of Damascus.

Criminal Charges on the Basis of the Nuremberg Principles.

Even though the Prince Bandar´s statement in Moscow does not directly involve the U.S. President in the chemical weapons attack, the implied threat along with the statement that he is authorized by the highest level at the White House, places political responsibility with the U.S. President.

The guilt of Prince Bandar is sufficiently documented even in this article. It is unlikely that CIA Chief Brennan and Bandar did not coordinate the Moscow visit as well as the use of chemical weapons. It is inconceivable that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not informed about the planned use of chemical weapons in August – September. The involvement of the above mentioned mercenaries could be corroborated, arrests need to be made. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has more than sufficient material to warrant an investigation into the alleged guilt of all of the above.

Additional articles and the Need to Establish an International Commission for the Prosecution of the 21 August Chemical Weapons Attack and Related Crimes:

The following articles support top US, Saudi, and other core NATO and GCC member states as well as top Libyan officials political and command responsibility for the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta on 21 August 2013, as well as related crimes.

The articles are divided into the categories 1) UN Report, 2) Falsification of Evidence, and 3) Evidence.

The total body of information contained in these articles establishes a solid foundation for the initiation of in depth investigations by international prosecutors.

I strongly suggest the establishment of an international commission to produce a report to be styled to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Should the ICC fail to investigate and prosecute, the commission would be tasked with establishing other mechanisms for the prosecution of the 21 August chemical weapons attack and related crimes.

Witnesses experts and representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations who are in a position to further the establishment of such a commission are invited to contact me at dr.christof.lehmann@gmail.com .

UN Report:
CW Expert Opinion on the UN Report on Syria

Dr. Forouthan, who is quoted in this article, is one of the world´s leading experts on the medical aspects of chemical weapons.