by PAUL DE ROOIJ
Source: CounterPunch
One must marvel at the first few paragraphs of Amnesty International’s recent press release:

“The international community’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to protect the people of Syria has allowed parties to the conflict, most notably the Syrian government, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with complete impunity, often with assistance of outside powers, particularly Russia. Every year we think it is just not possible for parties to the conflict to inflict more suffering on civilians, and yet, every year, they prove us wrong…

Right now, in Eastern Ghouta 400,000 men, women and children, who have been living under an unlawful government siege for six years, are being starved and indiscriminately bombed by the Syrian government with the backing of Russia. […] The international community had said ‘never again’ after the government devastated Eastern Aleppo with similar unlawful tactics. But here we are again. Armed opposition groups have retaliated by indiscriminately shelling two villages in Idleb, which they have also besieged since 2014.” [1]

This is an unambiguous call and a justification for war; it seems that AI is calling for a NATO bombing campaign similar to the one staged in Libya in 2011. There is also no ambiguity as to who AI deems to be culpable and ought to be at the receiving end of a “humanitarian bombing” campaign. Before cheering yet another US/NATO war, it is useful to analyse Amnesty International’s record in assisting propaganda campaigns on the eve of wars. It is also worthwhile reviewing AI’s reporting on Syria, and how it compares with that on other countries in the area.

A sorry record
It is not the first time that Amnesty International has played a role in a propaganda campaign in the lead up to a war. A few examples:

Before the US invasion to ouster the Iraqis from Kuwait, president George Bush Sr. appeared on TV holding an Amnesty International report claiming that Iraqi soldiers had dumped babies out of incubators. That was Amnesty International’s willing participation in spreading a hoax — a hoax fabricated by a major American PR company.

In the months prior to the US-NATO attack on Serbia, Amnesty-USA put two Croatian women on a ten city-speaking-tour to project their account of their “rape-camp” ordeal — in reality one of them was a top Croatian propaganda official, a close advisor to president Tudjman, who was also known for her acting abilities.[2] Again, this hoax was pushed by a major American PR company.

AI’s coverage/non-coverage of Israeli mass crimes also deserves to be analysed.[3] In this case, Amnesty plays a role in adulterating and reducing criticism after wars or the misery caused by its continuous occupation and abuse of the Palestinians (discussed below). Amnesty International-Israel served as a propaganda front busy manipulating “human rights” reports to suit Israel’s interests.[4] AI-London has not commented on the manipulation by its Israeli siblings.

In 2012, Amnesty erected advertising posters in the US applauding NATO’s actions in Afghanistan — “Keep the progress going”, purportedly doing something for women’s rights. This was merely crass pro-NATO pro-interventionist propaganda. [5]

Amnesty-France was instrumental in propagating anti-Libyan propaganda prior to the NATO bombing of the country in 2011.[6]

Alas, Amnesty’s sorry record is much longer than these few examples indicate.

Not anti-war
One would expect a human rights organisation to be intrinsically opposed to war, but AI is a cheerleader of so-called humanitarian intervention, and even “humanitarian bombing”.[7] In the past, when queried about its equivocal and lame statements about wars, an AI official stated that “Amnesty International is not anti-war”. Even with this predisposition AI was honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize – yet another undeserving recipient for a prize meant to be given only to those actively opposed to wars. In Syria’s case, AI has given up this phoney “not anti-war” stance for one that is actively advocating war. Notice that it uses a rather dubious argument about “never again” about standing by in the face of mass crimes; in reality this is an appeal to holocaust memes meant to favour this war.

Syria today…
The Syrian government is presently rolling back the jihadis who had managed to establish themselves in an area next to Damascus. No government would tolerate to have a section of their capital city under jihadi control, an area from which the rest of the city is mortared, and an area vital to control the water supply of the city. What would happen if jihadis took over Arlington, VA, and used it to bomb the center of Washington DC? The response would be self-evident. For some reason AI doesn’t bestow this right of self-defence to the Syrian government, but instead refers to an “unlawful government siege [of Ghouta] for six years”. This is laughable.

It is remarkable to find that in none of the latest press releases or reports does AI discuss the nature of the armed groups fighting in Syria. Even those referred to as “moderates” by Washington are a rather unsavoury bunch. Most of them are foreign jihadis; a good portion of them are Saudis. (NB: Saudis offered political and criminal prisoners a way out of jail on condition of going to fight in Syria.) And they are armed/trained/financed by the US/UK/Saudi/Emirates/Turkey/Qatar… to the tune of at least $12 billion. The former US ambassador to Syria stated that the US contribution was at least $12bn [8]; this figure excludes the funds provided by the Saudis and other regimes in the area. Gareth Porter reports that the quantities of weapons supplied to the jihadis were enough to equip an army. [9] Yet, this armed gang of jihadis is barely mentioned in Amnesty’s assessment of the situation in Syria. In Ghouta, the jihadis belong to the Nusra front (or one of its rebranded versions), that is, a group with an extreme ideology; they are an Al-Qaeda offshoot. AI’s press release doesn’t mention this salient fact.

Amnesty portrays the Syrian government as at war against its own people — and Aleppo, Ghouta, etc., under siege; and not allowing the population to escape. Although AI similarly condemned the liberation of Aleppo, it didn’t interview these victims after the fact. If it interviews someone — invariably anonymous — it intones sinister fears of the government. For all its faults, the government has popular backing, and it stands in the way of a jihadi project to carve up Syria and ethnically cleanse it.

And there is a double standard
When it comes to Israeli mass crimes AI is rather cautious in the language used and in its recommendations. It is rather coy in mentioning “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”, and reference to the latter is virtually non-existent or couched in exculpatory language (favourite cushioning words: “alleged”, “could be construed as”). While it sparingly uses these accusations against Israel, it levels the same accusations against Palestinians — it applies a notion that there are crimes “on both sides”. AI’s harshest admonishment is that Israeli actions are not “proportionate”. There are no appeals to the “international community” which should not stand by, “never again…” One wonders what Amnesty has to say about the Israeli siege of Gaza, where the population has been put “on a diet” causing a dire situation for about 1.8 million people today. In this case, there are no reports, no calls to the “international community” to do anything, no accusations of “crimes against humanity”… AI uses another script altogether.

In the current press release, AI unambiguously states that both Syria and Russia are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. And if this is the case, there is an obligation for other states to act, to intervene. AI is not requesting an investigation, it is urging intervention.

While in the Israeli case AI states that crimes are committed on both sides, when it comes to Syria it is only the Syrian government that is deemed culpable. It is difficult to remove entrenched well armed jihadis who use residents as human shields. Jihadis dig themselves in and around hospitals and schools [10], and when action is taken against them there, the likes of Amnesty utter their clucking sounds.

In its latest statement AI states: “It must also send a strong message that those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity will be held accountable, by referring the situation to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.” Fair enough. In 2002, Donatella Rovera, an AI researcher on the Middle East, was queried about why AI didn’t make a similar demand to hold Israel accountable at the ICC or ICJ, and she stated that AI didn’t make such demands.[11] Another standard applies.

An issue about sources…
Amnesty reports several statements made by residents of Ghouta, all giving harrowing accounts of the conditions on the ground. But all the statements blame the government for their predicament. “Like many Syrians, the humanitarian worker expressed deep distrust of the government.” Or “We hear rumours of reconciliation but that can never happen. The government hates us…” And other such unverifiable statements. And who exactly is reporting this? Does AI have a direct line to the “White Helmets”? All Amnesty has to do is compare the statements made before the liberation of Aleppo and the opinion of the residents now. If the residents are pleased with their condition without the jihadis around, then this should be sufficient to question the dubious statements originating from anonymous sources in Ghouta today.

Other examples
Amnesty International doesn’t want you to respect the Syrian government. Reviewing its press releases about Syria, it is all one-sided; the jihadis hardly merit a meaningful rebuke. But no report was as distorted as its multimedia presentation of the purported abuses in the Saydnaya Prison. Here Amnesty’s methodology was on show: accept hearsay, magnify it melodramatically, extrapolate and exaggerate [12]. This is not human rights reportage, it is crass propaganda. The timing of all these so-called reports is also dubious. On the eve of major reconciliation talks or negotiations, Amnesty publishes a report portraying the Syrian government as beyond the pale. Would anyone want to negotiate with such a party? The timing of several other AI reports coincide with attempts to resolve the conflict via negotiations. The timing of its latest press release coincides with a major Syrian government offensive into Ghouta — and portraying it as criminal in nature.

Human rights are not neutral
Harvey Weinstein, the sexual predator, made Amnesty International USA possible — he provided the funds necessary to establish the organisation. [13] Weinstein didn’t put up the funds because he fancied AI’s lovely researchers. People put up funds for such organisations to shape the way abuses and crimes are reported. In Weinstein’s case, his ardent devotion to Israel might explain his financial contribution to Amnesty USA. Amnesty is also a conduit to push propaganda desired by those who foster such organisations. The very nature of “human rights”, its very flexible nature, lends itself to prime manipulation.

A Syrian furniture salesman based in Coventry, a small city in the UK, runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). Sitting in his living room, he produces reports about the latest atrocities, chemical attacks, and every other sordid detail to tarnish the Syrian government’s image. He reaches his mysterious sources by phone, invariably someone hostile to the Syrian government. The output of this one-man-band is then used by the BBC, CNN, The Independent, The Wall Street Journal,… and major media outlets to report on the situation in Syria. It is expensive for news organisations to have correspondents on the ground, it is dangerous; so what is better than “human rights” reports obtained for free! And does Amnesty International rely on SOHR? At least they should footnote their reports.

The main playbook
The US and some of its sidekicks have for decades been engaged in regime change in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America… The usual formula for this is to create civic organisations, e.g., Journalists’ union, Lawyer and Jurist guilds, select Labour unions… and human rights organisations. These people are then trained to exercise political power effectively by staging mass demonstrations, manipulating the media, spreading rumours, disrupting the government — all the way to the take over of parliaments. These are the so-called “colour revolutions”. They tried this in Syria, but opted primarily to arm and organise jihadis. The jihadis are backed by a propaganda machinery, and the US is conducting the largest disinformation/propaganda campaign in Syria today [14]. The essence of the campaign is to tarnish the image of the Syrian government, robbing it of its international legitimacy and support. Human rights reportage is essential to this campaign. By analysing Amnesty International reportage, it is evident that it is part of this campaign; it has weaponised human rights.

Currently there is a major buildup of US warships in the Mediterranean; and the Russian general staff fear that Syria will be the target of a major cruise missile attack.[15] Possibly, Russian forces will also be targeted. Couple this with the unprecedented black propaganda campaign against Russia in the US and the UK, and it seems very likely that a major shooting war is in the offing. Given that AI has lent itself in previous propaganda campaigns on the eve of wars, one finds that the latest Amnesty International report is merely a leading indicator for such a war. Amnesty International is embedded in a propaganda campaign — it will be cheerleading with blue and white pompons when the humanitarian bombs fall.

Paul de Rooij is a writer living in London. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com

Endnotes
[1] AI, “Syria: Seven years of catastrophic failure by the international community”, 15 March 2018.
[2] Diana Johnstone, Fools Crusade, 20 Sep 2002. Johnstone documents the curious case of Jadranka Cijel. NB: AI was alerted to the fact that the accounts by the two women were questionable; it proceeded with the tour anyway.
[3] I have written quite a few articles about Amnesty for Counterpunch. The latest: Amnesty International: Whitewashing Another Massacre, CounterPunch, 8 May 2015.
[4] Uri Blau, Documents reveal how Israel made Amnesty’s local branch a front for the Foreign Ministry in the 70s, Haaretz, 18 March 2017. Neve Gordon, Nicola Perugini, Israel’s human rights spies: Manipulating the discourse, Al-Jazeera Online, 22 March 2017.
[5] Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley, Amnesty’s Shilling for US Wars, ConsortiumNews, 18 June 2012.
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RnxJ6TvFZ0&feature=youtu.be Also: Tim Anderson, The Dirty War on Syria, Global Research, 2016.
[7] Alexander Cockburn reports that Amnesty was present during a US State Department briefing seeking to justify “humanitarian bombing”. How the US State Dept. Recruited Human Rights Groups to Cheer On the Bombing Raids: Those Incubator Babies, Once More? CounterPunch, April 1999.
[8] Ben Norton , US Ambassador Confirms Billions Spent On Regime Change in Syria, Debunking ‘Obama Did Nothing’ Myth, RealNews.com, 9 February 2018.
[9] Gareth Porter, How America Armed Terrorists in Syria, The American Conservative, 22 June 2017.
[10] Robert Fisk has reported on this fact in several of his articles. In “the Syrian hospital siege that turned into a massacre”, The Independent, 5 June 2015 there is a reference to tunnels under a hospital. In another article, the same, but at a school.
[11] Israel hasn’t joined the ICC, and thus ICC cannot bring any action against Israel. ICC is only meant to harass African tinpot dictators.
[12] John Wight, The Problems With the Amnesty International Report, Sputnik News, 15 February 2017. Important discussion with Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Also, Tony Cartalucci, Amnesty International admits Syria’s ‘torture prison’ report fabricated entirely in UK, Sign of the Times, 9 February 2017. And, Rick Sterling, Amnesty International Stokes Syrian War, ConsortiumNews, 11 February 2017.
[13] Thomas Frank, Hypocrite at the good cause parties, Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2018
[14] Tim Anderson, The Dirty War on Syria, Global Research, 2016.
[15] TASS, US preparing strikes on Syria, carrier strike groups set up in Mediterranean, 17 March 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQFUA5Zf7U

Source: SANA
Damascus – “Syria’s Mona Lisa”, this is the name some media gave to the “emaciated”, “starving” and
“homeless” girl of the “besieged” Madaya city, adding a further lie to their record of falsification and disinformation.

In their search for a hero for their new misleading campaign -this time about Madaya city-the Saudi al-Arabiya and
the Qatari al-Jazeera TV channels had only to go back to their photo archive, pick a photo of a beautiful little girl and pose her as a victim of what they call “a siege of the city”.

There are of course many other “homeless” and “starving” heroes and heroines in the Syria stories of these two
channels and other Arab and foreign terrorism-advocating media outlets, who come to be of various non-Syrian
nationalities and whose pictures have been collected from different places of the world.

All of a sudden, pictures of “Syria’s Mona Lisa”, who is actually a Lebanese national and whose name is “Maryana
Youssef Mazeh”, went crazy viral on the internet, being used to elicit condemnation of the alleged siege of Madaya,
located to the northwest of Damascus.

Surprised and shocked by what happened, Maryana’s family expressed their rage and annoyance to the various Lebanese media outlets that visited them at their home in Teir Falsiyeh town in southern Lebanon where Maryana lives.

It was however not their first experience with this sort of falsification, nor was it Maryana’s.

The same trick was used in 2013 when al-Arabiya channel and other websites presented the 7-year-old girl as a
Syrian homeless pretty little girl selling chewing gum in the Jordanian al-Zaatari Camp for displaced Syrians.

What really happened back then, the uncle explained, was that on her way back from a nearby shop after buying a gum pack, Maryana posed to her family who took pictures of her and later posted them on Facebook.

Mazeh told the Lebanese TV channels that the family were disturbed and informed those websites that the context of the photo had nothing to do with what it was meant to look like by al-Arabiya.

He went on saying that now, two years from that incident, the family were surprised to see the picture used once
again, but this time intended to show Maryana as a girl purportedly from Madaya, attached to a photo of a supposed
skinny replica of Maryana after the siege.

“We once again stress that this is not the case,” Maryana’s uncle was quoted as saying.

H. Said

By Eric Draitser
Source: FaceBook
I strongly disagree with the article: [“Syrian Regime is going down in flames” appeared in New Eastern Outlook]…
————————————-
I don’t think this article has a full grasp of the complexity of the situation, and I think it puts far too much faith in the cohesion of the terrorist alliances. I would raise a couple of key points:

1. The battle in Qalamoun is strategically very significant. Not only is it an attempt to corner a significant portion of the terrorists and cut off their long-time safe havens on the Lebanese side as “refugees,” but perhaps most importantly, it is cutting the terrorist elements in two in the mountains, in terrain that will make any significant breakout nearly impossible. Not only does this mean a strategic victory for Syria’s armed forces, it allows breathing room for Hezbollah elements to regroup, continue resupplying and reinforcing their contingents, and generally buys them time. Making inroads in this direction means a genuine push towards West Bekaa and the other regions populated largely with Sunni elements loyal to the terrorists. It is essentially taking the fight away from Syria’s softer defenses, and putting it right back in the lap of the terrorists. This is critical because it is about initiative…whoever has the initiative has the upper hand.

2. Much depends on the situation of recruitment and training in Turkey, Jordan, and Libya. This is essential. It is far beyond just the bases at Adana or elsewhere in Turkey. It is now also about Libya which has a very high per capita terrorists recruitment rate. Couple that with the horror of what Libya has become will undoubtedly drive many young, desperate men to join the ranks of terror organizations that can pay their families. If the terrorists are going to lose their haven in Bekaa, then that means they’ll be all the more dependent on the Turkey-Jordan connections. This is important.

3. I believe there is a misunderstanding of US policy in the author’s analysis. I think Obama is perfectly willing to let this conflict fester in a more or less status quo scenario until he leaves office so as not to exacerbate the conflict and leave office without it staining his legacy. And there is simply no way that the Saudis and Turks are able to do anything on their own…all they are able to do is provide the weapons and fighters, they don’t have the political capital to be able to sway public opinion in favor of aggressive action, that would require US leadership. I’m not sure that’s in the cards at the moment.

4. It is very irresponsible in my view to assume that whatever conflicts may or may not exist within the military/intelligence bureaucracy in Damascus necessarily amount to an irreparable split. I recall back in 2013 when the defense ministry building was bombed and multiple ministers were killed. I recall the propagandists at the Washington Post rejoicing as if this was the crowning victory and that it meant the government would flee Damascus. It only strengthened the resolve of Assad and his close confidants. I don’t see whatever conflicts there may be as being anything more than conflicts – certainly not death knells of the government.

5. There is a huuuuge underestimation of the importance of battle-hardened veterans vs green combat rookies. The idea that because the Saudi degenerates and Turkish filth are scrounging up some poor sods to come to Syria and fight and die, that somehow this is going to change the calculus on the ground. I don’t believe it. Most of them are fighting for money, they’re fighting for promises, they’re fighting out of stupidity. The Syrian heroes are fighting for their homes, their towns, their families. This should not be underestimated. After 4 years of combat, these soldiers are not going to lay down for a bunch of rats from Libya, Chechnya, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.

6. There is only one way in which the calculus on the ground in Syria truly changes, and that is the implementation of a No Fly Zone and “humanitarian corridors” and this will not happen without a massive change in the position of Russia and China which, to this point, seems unlikely. The Syrian military knew they were not simply going to be allowed to destroy the terrorists and win this war outright, they knew a counteroffensive was coming. And oif this is it, then it is weaker than I thought it might be.

7. There is another flawed interpretation in this analysis that, from what I can tell, totally skews how the author is understanding this battle in Qalamoun. This was NOT initiated by the terrorists, but by the SAA; they have the initiative, they have the numbers, they have the strategic position, and they have the luxury of time. The SAA is playing for status quo more or less in the North, concentrating forces in South-West, this tells us quite a lot about how important this region is for Damascus. A victory here would send the terrorists on their heels, as it would give Damascus a chance to destroy the entire command and control structure of these terror groups from the Lebanese border.

8. The article treats Iran as one monolithic entity politically, which it most certainly is not. There is the neoliberal capitalist faction led by Rouhani and the more anti-imperialist side led by Khamenei. From what I hear, Khamenei is not happy at all with the negotiations process and is unlikely to simply dump Syria for the illusory goal of detente with the West. From a principle standpoint he won’t do it, and even from a purely practical standpoint too.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

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.