Irrefutable evidence that the Syrian government did not conduct chemical attacks on its people


The “evidence” used by the US to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against its own people consisted primarily of photos and videos of dead bodies, predominantly children’s bodies.

Video clips, 35 of them, had been placed on social media by opposition members immediately after the alleged chemical attack at al-Ghouta. You weren’t informed of where these videos originated, but US intel knew they came from the “opposition”. At that time, in 2013, the US was fully backing the Free Syrian Army, and it was members of the Free Syrian Army’s social media staff who uploaded the videos.

When the conflict began in Syria the two main “opposition” groups were al-Qaeda in Syria and the Free Syrian Army. Al-Qaeda in Syria went under the name of Jabhat al-Nusra so that their al-Qaeda affiliation would go unnoticed.

The Free Syrian Army had two primary brigades: the Farouq and the Khalid ibn Walid brigades. The Khalid ibn Walid brigade was funded and armed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and consisted mostly of foreign Islamist mercenaries.

The Farouq brigade consisted of Salafists (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists), who were armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and were affiliates of al-Qaeda. Starting in 2011, the Free Syrian Army’s Farouq brigade often worked in tandem with al-Qaeda in Syria when attacking Christian and Alewite villages in Syria.

The Free Syrian Army’s Farouq brigade, the Salafi group backed by Saudi Arabia, was extremely knowledgeable regarding media and social networking. The group also had experts who produced videos for the television networks of Qatar (al-Jazeera) and Saudi Arabia (al-Arabiya). The propaganda videos they produced were often given to, and used by, Western media.

Thirteen of the 35 videos of the alleged al-Ghouta chemical attack, uploaded onto the Internet by “opposition” affiliates, were presented to a Senate Committee and were presented as “verified and authenticated” – but this was a lie.

Fact: The neighborhoods in question in which the alleged chemical attacks on civilians took place, in al-Ghouta, a district of Damascus, had no civilian residents at the time of the alleged attack.

The reason why there were no residents was because these neighborhoods were “rebel” held neighborhoods. Due to constant missile attacks and barrel bombings from the outskirts of al-Ghouta by the “rebel” groups for many months, the residents evacuated and moved to areas protected by Syrian Armed Forces. Other than the families of the “rebels”, there were no civilians residing in the al-Ghouta neighborhoods in question when the alleged chemical weapon attack occurred (ISTEAMS 2013:5, 9-10).

Fact: The videos that were used as “evidence” by the US were proven to be staged. In particular, the bodies of the children were from an area far from al-Ghouta. The children were from Alewite villages in Latakia, more than 200 miles to the north, in which Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra) had attacked, murdered most of the males, and kidnapped approximately 150 women and children.

Many of the kidnapped children were later killed and their bodies used for filming the staged videos. The children had been listed as missing by relatives. When the videos surfaced, relatives from Latakia recognized the missing children and identified them as the kidnapped children from villages in Latakia (ISTEAMS 2013:13, 43, 45-50).

Fact: All of the videos were staged or manipulated. Some photos of dead bodies allegedly killed in the chemical attack at al-Ghouta were photos from a Muslim Brotherhood protest in Egypt that ended in violence and deaths on August 14, 2013, just one week prior to the alleged “chemical attack” in al-Ghouta (ISTEAMS 2013:20). Those photos were used to show men’s bodies since the creators of the videos had no male bodies to film – only the bodies of the kidnapped children.

This photo, taken after Muslim Brotherhood violence in Cairo, Egypt on August 14, 2013, was uploaded onto the Internet as "evidence" that chemical weapons were used in Syria. This "double" use of photos has been used by opposition in Syria since 2011. 

Noticeably absent in the alleged chemical attack were bodies of females. The opposition claimed the attack occurred at 2:30 a.m. while people were sleeping. Families would have been found together -- women most certainly would be found with their children.

Yet in the rare video that has a woman present, she is seen looking for her child among a display of dead children. If the attack occurred at 2:30 a.m. as the opposition claimed, how is it that the women lost their children in the middle of the night?

The videos were dramatized. The veiled woman looking for her “missing” child was the wife of a “rebel” in rebel-held al-Ghouta.

Fact: When the videos were analyzed it was proven that the same bodies were repeatedly moved and placed in various different buildings and different neighborhoods in al-Ghouta to make it appear as if there were many more dead bodies than there actually were. The opposition social media sites claimed 1465 were killed in the alleged chemical attack. Yet there were only a handful of burials. This is because the same small number of dead bodies were videotaped in different locations to make the numbers appear larger (ISTEAMS 2013:21-35).

Photos of children: The body of the little boy in the red shirt, as well as most all of the kidnapped children's bodies, are shown in several different locations. Obviously moved and placed in these various locations to appear as if there were more dead bodies than there actually were.

​Fact: In a video that was supposedly filmed in the streets during the immediate aftermath of the attack, videos showed al-Ghouta inhabited only by males (something you only see in “opposition” held areas). Many of these males were proven to be members of the Free Syrian Army (ISTEAM 2013:42).

Fact: The UN acknowledged that their investigation in al-Ghouta was fully arranged and directed by “opposition” forces.

The UN’s September 13, 2013 report on al-Ghouta states:

“A leader of the local opposition forces who was deemed prominent in the area that was to be visited by the Mission, was identified and requested to take custody of the Mission. The point of contact within the opposition was used to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission and to control patients in order for the Mission to focus on its main activities” (UN Sept. 2013:13).

In other words: Opposition members, in rebel-held al-Ghouta, were in control and influencing the UN mission’s movements and access to “evidence” and “witnesses” during the time the UN mission spent gathering evidence.

Photos: Members of the UN mission are seen (wearing helmets) gathering "evidence" which was given to them by members of the Free Syrian Army. The streets during the aftermath show only males--unheard of--except in rebel-held neighborhoods. The "evidence" was constructed by opposition.

In the UN's report, under the section titled “Munitions Recovered”, when discussing the weapons allegedly used in the chemical attack, the UN mission states the following:

“The sites have been well-travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team” (UN Sept. 2013:21).

Regarding the al-Ghouta neighborhoods of Ein Tarma and Zamalka, UN inspectors stated:

“As with other sites, the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated” (UN Sept. 2013:25).

Fact: The UN mission collected environmental samples from the Moadamiyah and Zamalka neighborhoods of al-Ghouta (UN Sept. 2013:App.6:27-29). But there were major conflicting lab results.

The UN reported that there was not one environmental sample taken from “impact sites and surrounding areas” in Moadamiyah that tested positive for Sarin (UN Sept. 2013:30-41).

Yet the alleged "victims" of the chemical attack in Moadamiyah tested the highest for Sarin, with a positive result of 93% - 100%.

Fact: It is scientifically impossible that victims would test that highly for exposure to Sarin without any trace of environmental evidence testing positive for Sarin at the impact sites.

Fact: The UN mission’s selection of victims in Moadamiyah and Zamalka were not of their own choice. As mentioned previously, the UN reported that: Opposition took custody of the UN mission and facilitated the access to the most critical cases to be interviewed (UN Sept. 2013:13).

The “opposition” the UN speaks of were the Free Syrian Army, a US-backed Islamist group. The Free Syrian Army chose which “victims” the UN would interview and draw samples from to test for sarin.

Fact: It was confirmed in a UN report that opposition groups used sarin in attacks on the Syrian National Army at Khan al Asal, Jobar, Ashrafiah Sahnaya, and army checkpoints at al-Ghouta (detailed in a moment), in which the UN concluded:

"The various attacks on Syrian soldiers indicate that the opposition were in possession of sarin both before and immediately after the chemical weapon attack at al-Ghouta on August 21, 2013. It would have been impossible for the opposition to acquire chemical weapons so quickly in late August had they not already previously been in possession of chemical weapons" (UN Dec. 2013:23).

But the UN did not release that report until December, 2013, four months after the alleged attacks on civilians. This gave the US plenty of time to convince the public that the Syrian government was to blame.

Meanwhile, interviews conducted by independent reporters with opposition fighters and their families inside al-Ghouta said that rebels were using mosques and vacated houses to sleep while storing chemical weapons in nearby tunnels. Many of these rebel fighters were exposed to, or mishandled the chemical weapons, and died. Also, “some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off explosions” thereby exposing others nearby (Gavlak & Ababneh 2013).

The opposition was leading the UN mission and providing them with evidence and victims, as the UN testified; therefore, it is probable that the opposition gave them the victims of their own chemical weapons mishandling and explosions. This explains why the UN found chemical exposure in “victims” in the Moadamiyah neighborhood, but no environmental evidence of any kind.

Events leading up to the alleged al-Ghouta attack

Fact: On December 9, 2012, eight months before the alleged chemical attack in al-Ghouta, the Free Syrian Army, a known Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist group, in coordination with al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra), attacked and seized the chemical plant in Aleppo (Gerard Direct 2012; see also RT 2013 which reports sarin in the hands of al-Qaeda in Syria).

Fact: On March 19, 2013, five months before the alleged chemical attack in al-Ghouta in August, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian National Army had been attacked in Khan al-Asal by the opposition and that chemical weapons had been used in the attack (UN Dec. 2013:5). The Syrian government requested the UN to establish a specialized, impartial independent mission to investigate the chemical attack in Khan Al Asal (UN Dec. 2013:6).

In the notification to the UN, the Syrian government reported that “armed terrorist groups had fired a rocket that fell approximately 300 meters away from a Syrian army position. Following its impact, a thick cloud of smoke had left unconscious anyone who had inhaled it. This resulted in 25 deaths.” (UN Dec. 2013:5)

Russia presented evidence to the UN proving that Syrian rebels attacked government forces at Khan al-Asal with sarin gas that was produced in "cottage industry" conditions (i.e. homemade weapons). Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had gone to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal and gathered firsthand evidence (Bright 2013; DW 2013).

The samples taken from the impact site at Khan al-Asal of the gas-laden projectile “were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The analysis showed that the rocket that hit the army position at Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard weapon. The samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions. According to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February 2013 by the Free Syrian Army (Bright 2013; DW 2013; al-Jazeera 2013).

A video further confirmed this report of a chemical attack on the army, showing dead Syrian National Army members sprawled on the ground with blatant indications that they were killed by a chemical agent. All bodies were intact, no blood or wounds, and gas masks are seen next to the soldiers in obvious attempts to put the gas masks on (Video: Syrian Perspective 2014).

Fact: In the UN report dated December 13, 2013, the UN stated the following regarding the chemical attack at Khan al-Asal that took place on March 19, 2013: “The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan al Asal on March 19 against soldiers...” (UN Dec. 2013:21)

Fact: On August 22, 2013, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian Army had been attacked at an army checkpoint and that chemical weapons had been used in the attack (UN Dec. 2013:8).

“At 2120 hours on 22 August 2013, several soldiers in Bahhariyeh in the eastern Ghouta region had inhaled poison gases and complained of respiratory and other symptoms. Eighteen of them had been immediately taken to the Military Hospital to receive emergency care” (UN Dec. 2013:8).

The UN later reported that witnesses said the attack “started with a number of objects being fired at the soldiers, one of which fell about 5 metres away from them. The witnesses stated that there had been no explosion, just the release of some blue-coloured gas with a very bad odour, which had moved into the soldiers direction by the wind. The object was collected by one of the soldiers and later seen and assessed by the United Nations Mission” (UN Dec. 2013:17).

Fact: On August 24, 2013 the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian army had been attacked with chemical weapons at another location, this one at Jobar:

“At 1100 hours on 24 August 2013, as a group of soldiers had approached a building near the river in Jobar, they had heard a muffled sound and then had smelled a foul and strange odour, whereupon they had experienced severe shortness of breath and blurred vision. Four of them were immediately taken to Martyr Yusuf Al Azmah Military Hospital to receive emergency care” (UN Dec. 2013:8).

The Syrian government further reported to the UN that: “In its search of the buildings immediately surrounding the above-mentioned site, it had discovered some materials, equipment and canisters, examination of which confirmed that they had contained Sarin. Analysis had confirmed that one of the soil samples taken from that site had also been reported by the Syrian Government laboratory to be contaminated with Sarin.” (UN Dec. 2013:8)

Also regarding the attack on soldiers at Jobar:

“Approximately 10 metres away from some soldiers, an improvised explosive device detonated emitting a low noise and releasing a very bad-smelling gas. A group of 10 soldiers was evacuated in armoured personnel vehicles to the field medical point with breathing difficulties. Four soldiers were severely affected. They were only partially conscious and not able to support themselves” (UN Dec. 2013:18).

After investigating the report and visiting the site, the UN stated: “The United Nations Mission collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons in Jobar on 24 August on a relatively small scale against [Syrian Army] soldiers” (UN Dec. 2013:22).

Fact: On August 25, 2013, the Syrian government reported to the UN that the Syrian army had been hit with chemical weapons at Ashrafiah Sahnaya. The UN investigated and reported:

“Based on interviews conducted by the United Nations Mission, it can be ascertained that there were around 15 military personnel deployed at one of the Government checkpoints controlling entry to rebel-held areas near Ashrafiah Sahnaya in the Damascus Rif. At the entrance of Sahnaya the opposition side started to throw objects with a catapult around 1800 hours. At approximately 2000 hours, an object was thrown at a group of five soldiers and landed about 10 to 15 metres away. Something with a bad smell was released, but no explosion was heard. Symptoms such as blurred vision and difficult breathing started to develop in the victims. Forty-five minutes later, they were evacuated by a rescue team and taken to Martyr Yusuf Al Azmah Military Hospital” (UN Dec. 2013:8,20).

Fact: The UN concluded this regarding the attack on soldiers in Ashrafiah Sahnaya: “The United Nations Mission collected evidence that suggests that chemical weapons were used in Ashrafiah Sahnaya on 25 August 2013 on a small scale against [Syrian Army] soldiers” (UN Dec. 2013:23).

Fact: The UN stated in their final report: "The various attacks on Syrian soldiers indicate that the opposition were in possession of sarin both before and immediately after the chemical weapon attack at Ghouta of August 21, 2013. It would have been impossible for the opposition to acquire chemical weapons so quickly in late August had they not already previously been in possession of chemical weapons" (UN Dec. 2013:23).

The UN did not release their report on the alleged chemical attack on civilians at al-Ghouta until September 13, 2013 which gave the Obama Administration 23 days to bombard the western public with lies and propaganda. Moreover, the UN did not release their reports on the chemical attacks on Syrian soldiers at Khan al-Asal, Jobar and Ashrafiah Sahnaya until December 13, 2013, four months after the attacks at al-Ghouta!

No facts of any kind were given to the western public that the Syrian National Army had been attacked by opposition groups who used sarin gas. This gave the Obama administration time to lay the foundation of lies and propaganda campaign.

John Kerry lies repeatedly to the American people:

On the day of the alleged chemical attack at al-Ghouta, supposedly conducted by the Syrian army on it own people, “opposition” social media sites released the 35 opposition-created videos. The US, French, and the British governments immediately began to claim that there was a “massacre conducted by the Syrian government” – without any evidence of any kind as to “who” actually conducted the attacks. The US, French and British governments had no confiscated weapons or other factual evidence at that time.

There was only the “opposition” created videos.

Western media incessantly showed video clips of dead children to gather sympathy, formulate outrage, and to create unjust condemnation towards the Syrian government. The authenticity of the videos was never verified, nor were the “sources” of the videos investigated by mainstream media.

Neither the US government, nor its allies Britain and France waited for the report by the UN inspection team. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry dismissed the UN inspectors’ presence in Syria as “irrelevant”. The US pronounced a verdict of guilt based on the opposition-created videos and on information it said was supplied by Intelligence agencies. But their Intelligence sources were not on the ground inside Syria at the time. And only “opposition” sources were on the ground in al-Ghouta -- opposition sources that consisted of the US-backed Free Syrian Army, whose members consisted of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

On August 30, 2013, just eight days after the alleged attack, the U.S. Government published its “Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons” (US Government 2013). And using that report, John Kerry bumped up the lies to the American people in his press conferences.

Please note: I have highlighted in bold the untruths Secretary of State Kerry said to the American people, followed by my own comments as “notes”.

Kerry: “Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack, and I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves.

Note: These words were deliberately used to fool people into thinking they were given “facts”. This was a lie: the American people were not given any of the facts.

Kerry: “We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.

Note: Every word in this statement was a lie, most especially that the rockets came “only from regime-controlled areas”. This was proven to be untrue by many, including a UN weapons inspector (Lloyd 2014) and is detailed in the next section.

Kerry: “In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.

Note: It was not “common sense” to conclude that the Syrian government conducted the attack, nor was there any evidence or facts leading to this conclusion.

Kerry: “By the definition of their own mandate, the UN can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you. And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the UN Security Council, the UN cannot galvanize the world to act as it should.”

Note: Kerry wanted Americans to distrust Russia because as detailed earlier in this report, Russia produced verified evidence that the chemical weapons were produced in a “cottage industry” – homemade chemical weapons by the opposition.

Regarding the missiles the US claimed as evidence in the al-Ghouta attack and where they were launched from:

Fact: “The caliber of the missiles suggests that a Soviet-made, BM-14 series 140mm. multiple-rocket launcher was used to shell Eastern Ghouta. This launcher, designed in 1951, was previously part of the Syrian Army’s inventory until it was replaced decades ago by the newer BM-21 (Grad, 122 mm. caliber, designed in 1963) and Chinese-made Type 63 (107 mm. caliber) launchers. However, the old-fashioned BM-14s are widely available in the region and were used, for example, by the Algerian rebels in the 1990s and the Taliban in 2000s. They are very compact and could easily have been brought in to any location on that night. Therefore, the presumed location of the launch pad is insignificant, as any deserted suburb of Damascus that lies within range could have been used.” (Global Research 2013; New Eastern Outlook 2013)

Fact: Mikhail Barabanov, an expert with the Russian Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies stated that the label on a warhead found at the site matches those on missiles produced in 1967 in Novosibirsk (Russia). “One might justifiably wonder why the Syrian Army would launch a 46-year-old missile when it holds abundant stockpiles of far more reliable modern weapons. … If the date of a missile’s production does not match the production date for its chemical agent, it stands to reason that the warhead was filled in an underground laboratory or was homemade. This is fully in keeping with earlier evidence regarding the use of homemade chemical weapons by rebels in Syria.” (Global Research 2013)

Fact: British Intel later obtained a sample of the sarin used in the August 21 chemical attack at al-Ghouta. Analysis at Porton Down, the defense laboratory in Wiltshire, UK concluded the sarin used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal (Hersh 2014).

On September 3, 2013 John Kerry continued to manipulate public opinion:

Excerpts from Kerry (2013):

Kerry: “We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information. And we ask the American people and the rest of the world to judge that information. We have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.

Note: This is a lie, as proven by Lloyd (2014), detailed in the following section.

Kerry: “We have a map, physical evidence, showing every geographical point of impact – and that is concrete. We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the heart of regime territory.

Note: These statements are lies as detailed previously and by UN weapons inspector Lloyd (2014) detailed below. The opposition did indeed have the weapons and the capacity.

Additionally, the UN report of September 13, 2013 states that the rockets appeared to have been “moved to al-Ghouta”. There was no evidence as to where exactly the weapons were fired from. Kerry lied when he said that the strike was conducted from “the heart of regime territory”.

UN Weapons Inspector proves US claims “cannot possibly be correct”

FACT: Richard Lloyd, UN Weapons Inspector, after evaluation of all US claims in their Intel report, stated:

“The US Government’s interpretation of the Technical Intelligence it gathered prior to and after the August 21 attack cannot possibly be correct” (Lloyd 2014:11).

“Indigenous chemical munition could be manufactured by anyone who has access to a machine shop with modest capabilities. The claim is incorrect that only the Syrian Government could manufacture the munition” (Lloyd 2014:12-26).

The UN Weapons Inspector then detailed how the rocket motor was removed from a “soup can” type of rocket and was “improvised” (Lloyd 2014:12-26). Lloyd concludes: “It could be manufactured by anyone who has access to a machine shop”.

Lloyd goes into several pages of technical data as well as how the maximum range of the improvised chemical munition’s range was estimated (Lloyd 2014:28-36). He concluded:

“Our estimated range for the Improvised Munition is close to its upper possible range. It means that the US Government’s interpretation of the technical Intelligence it gathered cannot possibly be correct.”

On page 36 of Lloyd’s report, he states:

“The Improvised Chemical Munitions that were used in the August 21, Nerve Agent Attack in [al-Ghouta] Damascus have a range of about 2 Kilometers. This indicates that these munitions could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the “Heart” or the eastern edge of the Syrian Government controlled area depicted in the Intelligence Map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.

“This faulty Intelligence could have led to an unjustified US Military action based on false Intelligence.”

“A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data.

“Whatever the reasons for the egregious errors in the Intelligence, the source of these errors needs to be explained.”

“If the Source of these errors is not identified, the problems that led to this Intelligence failure will go uncorrected, and the chances of a future policy disaster will grow with certainty.”

From August 21 through September 3, 2013, almost everything John Kerry said in press conferences were lies. Kerry told the American people:

Kerry: “The United States government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children.”

~~ A lie: there were only a handful killed, and many were dead before the alleged attack. The children seen in the videos were kidnapped in Latakia by Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and the “Free Syrian Army” (ISTEAMS 2013). Additionally, if 1429 died, why were there only eight burials in al-Ghouta after the alleged attack?

Kerry: “With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs.”

~~ A lie: the same bodies were moved to different locations to make it appear as if there were 11 different sites (ISTEAMS 2013).

Kerry: “Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.”

~~ If Kerry had indeed watched the videos as he stated, he would have noticed it was the same children in the same clothing, only appearing in different locations. These words were well-calculated to manipulate the emotions of the American people.

Kerry: “As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head … the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound … human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.”

~~ Not one video showed a family, let alone a family in their beds, because there weren’t any.

Kerry: “At every turn, the Syrian regime failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night.”

~~ A lie, as detailed previously. The UN reported that the Syrian government was the first to submit detailed reports of chemical attacks on the days that they occurred, and also gave detailed hospital reports and results of those exposed or dead. The Syrian government also immediately requested a UN mission to come to Syria and investigate the chemical attacks when they occurred.

Kerry: “I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria.”

~~ These statements were lies. Doctors Without Borders did not have any staff in al-Ghouta at that time. Doctors Without Borders did NOT produce first-hand accounts because they were not there. The Doctors Without Borders website stated at the time: “Due to significant security risks, staff members have not been able to access the facilities.” Additionally, opposition forces have never allowed humanitarian or medical aid into their captured areas.

Regarding the other organization Kerry mentioned, Syrian Human Rights Commission, this is an opposition propaganda site that continuously reports “massacres conducted by the Syrian regime”, yet investigations into these claims finds that the massacres were conducted by “opposition” groups, not the Syrian army. I will detail on this group in another report, but will add here that this group has never reported the genuine massacres that have taken place in Syria. Opposition groups have continuously massacred Christian and Alewite communities beginning in 2011, in which many thousands have been killed. If this was a valid humanitarian organization, those massacres would have been reported, but they were not. This is a propaganda organization promoting the Islamist agenda.

Conclusion: There was never any evidence pointing to the Syrian government. The event in al-Ghouta was created to place blame on the Syrian government in order to oust the government and replace it with an Islamic government.​



Abouzeid, Rania. Syria’s Revolt, how graffiti stirred an uprising. Time: March 22, 2011.

Al-Jazeera (2013). Syria rebels made own sarin gas. July 9, 2013.

Al-Shaqfa, Muhammad Riyad. Muslim Brotherhood statement about the so-called Syrian Revolution. General supervisor for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, statement of March 28, 2011.

Anderson, Tim. Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise. Global Research: March 16, 2016.

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

Bright, Arthur. Russian report says sarin used in Syria by rebels. Christian Science Monitor: July 10, 2013.

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Department of Defense Information Report: Not Finally Evaluated Intelligence, Country: Iraq. DIA: May 19, 2012.

DW. Russia delivers report to UN citing chemical weapons use by Syrian rebels. DW: July 2013.

Gavlak, Dale, and Yahya Ababneh. Syrians in Ghouta claim Saudi-Supplied rebels behind chemical attack. Mint Press: August 29, 2013.

Gerard Direct. Syria: jihadist al-Nusra Front seizes chemical factory near Aleppo. December 9, 2012.

Global Research News. The Ghouta chemical attack: Kidnapped by al-Nusrah. Where are the Missing Children? September 20, 2013.

Heinrich, Mark. Syria says seizes weapons smuggled from Iraq. Reuters: March 11, 2011.

Hersh, Seymour M. The Red Line and the Rat Line. LRB vol. 36, no. 8:21-24. April 17, 2014.

Human Rights Investigations. John Kerry’s war-mongering speech on chemical weapons in Syria. August 27, 2013.

ISTEAMS (2013). Investigation of Syrian chemical attack videos and Child Abductions. September 15, 2013.

Kerry, John, Secretary of State. Opening Remarks Before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Testimony from John Kerry, Secretary of State. Washington, DC: September 3, 2013.

Lloyd, Richard, UN Weapons Inspector. Report showing US Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013 was “faulty”. Tesla Laboratories, Arlington, VA. January 14, 2014.

McAdams, Daniel. US-backed rebels committing Christian genocide in Syria. Assyrian International News Agency: June 15, 2012.

MEMRI TV (2011). Syrian Sunni Cleric Threatens: We Shall Mince The Alawites in Meat Grinders. YouTube: July 13, 2011.

Mezzofiore, Gianluca. Syria Attack Debate: “Is Assad Mad?” asks Respect MP George Galloway. August 29, 2013.

Narwani, Sharmine. Syria: The hidden massacre. RT: May, 7, 2014.

New Eastern Outlook. Syria: Chemical Attack or Provocation? September 20, 2013.

Oriental Review. The Gouta chemical attack: Where are the missing children? September 20, 2013.

Queenan, Gavriel. Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings torched in protests. Israel National News: March 21, 2011.

RT. Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists – reports. May 30, 2013. Note: Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

Seale, Patrick. Assad: the struggle for the Middle East. University of California Press: Berkeley, California 1988.

Syrian Perspective (2014). Published April 29, 2014:

UN General Assembly Security Council. Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013. September 13, 2013.

UN General Assembly Security Council. United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic: Final report. December 13, 2013.

US Government. Official Statement on Syria. John Kerry, Secretary of State. Treaty Room, Washington, DC: August 30, 2013.


Chris Hedges Best Speech In 2017

Chris Hedges has taken Noam Chomsky's critique of corporate capitalism, celebrity culture, and the philistine nature of the United States and has endowed it with emotion and a call to action. 
A must-listen speech. 

Source  |

When food is used as a weapon

[While the “60 Minutes” highlights #Saudi Atrocity in #Yemen, it conveniently Ignores the #US Role in it.]


This month Saudi Arabia tightened a stranglehold on the neighboring country of Yemen and 7 million people face starvation. The Saudi blockade is an escalation in Yemen's civil war. The United Nations says the war has now become a "man-made catastrophe." You've seen very little of this because the Saudis prevent reporters from reaching the war zone. Recently, we were ordered off a ship headed to Yemen. Days later the Saudis gave us permission to fly there but, after our equipment was loaded and our boarding passes issued, the Saudis closed the airspace so the plane couldn't take off. Even so, we have managed to get pictures out of Yemen to show you what the Saudi government does not want you to see. This will be hard to watch, but 27 million people in Yemen pray you will not turn away.

A child in Yemen

Hungry children cry. But there are no tears at the limits of starvation. Wasting bodies cannot afford them. This is the Al Sabeen Hospital in the Yemeni city of Sana'a. Ibtisam is two and a half. She weighs 15 pounds. Haifa is seven. She weighs 11 pounds. The images, and stories from the hospital, were sent to us by people that we hired inside Yemen. One child dies every ten minutes in the country according to the U.N..
David Beasley: It's just desperation and death. It is as bad as it gets. I don't know if I've ever seen a movie this bad.
Scott Pelley: We were headed into Yemen with the World Food Programme, the Saudis gave us permission to come, and then when we arrived they wouldn't let us into the country. What do you think they didn't want us to see?
David Beasley: I don't understand why they won't allow the world to see what's taking place. Because I think if the world sees the tragedy of this human sufferin', number one, the world will step up and provide the support financially for innocent children to eat. But when you get on the ground and see what I see, you see is chaos, is starvation, is hunger, and it's unnecessary conflict strictly man-made. All parties involved in this conflict have their hands guilty, the hands are dirty. All parties.

"We're on the brink of famine. If we don't receive the monies that we need in the next few months, I would say 125,000 little girls and boys will die."

In essence, the fight is between the two main branches of Islam. The Shia branch occupies much of the West, the Sunnis most of the South and East. Saudi Arabia, leader of the Sunni world, began airstrikes against Shia rebels, more than two years ago. The rebels, who are known as Houthis, are supported by Saudi Arabia's arch enemy, Iran, the leader of the Shia world.
Houthi rebels have plenty of blood on their hands, including the deaths of 1,000 civilians. But the U.N. says the Saudi coalition has killed more than 3,000 civilians; bombing schools, hospitals and Al Kubra hall, scene of a funeral last year. 132 Civilians were killed, nearly 700 wounded. Still, the deadliest weapon in Yemen is a blockade holding up food, fuel and medical aid.
David Beasley: We can't get our ships in. They get blocked
Scott Pelley: Who blocks the ports?
David Beasley: The Saudi coalition.
David Beasley told us the Saudis bombed the cranes that unload ships. The U.S. sent replacement cranes. But the Saudis won't let them in.
David Beasley: We ask any, any parties engaged in this conflict to respect humanitarian law, respect the rights of innocent people and give us the access that we need to provide the help that's needed.
Scott Pelley: It sounds like the Saudis are using starvation as a weapon.
David Beasley: I don't think there's any question the Saudi-led coalition, along with the Houthis and all of those involved, are using food as a weapon of war. And it's disgraceful.

A child in Yemen

The U.N. World Food Programme is the largest humanitarian aid agency. The U.S. is its biggest donor, so the director is most often an American. Beasley was once governor of South Carolina.
David Beasley: We're on the brink of famine. If we don't receive the monies that we need in the next few months, I would say 125,000 little girls and boys will die. We've been able to avert famine, but we know three things that are happenin'. We know that people are dying. We know that people are wasting. And we know that children are stunting. We have a stunting rate in Yemen now at almost 50 percent. That means they're smaller, the brains are smaller, the body's smaller because they're not getting the food or the nutrition they need.
The World Food Programme's Stephen Anderson is trying to move millions of pounds of food to Yemen from an African port in Djibouti.
Stephen Anderson: The World Food Programme is mobilizing food for seven million people. Now what that looks like is a 110-pound bag of wheat flour. We're aiming to provide two million of those every month to the people of Yemen.
Scott Pelley: How long can you keep that up?
Stephen Anderson: Well, we're desperately praying for peace. Because that's the only sustainable way of really rebuilding the situation our stated objective is to try to prevent a famine from occurring.

Stephen Anderson distributes food

While facing imminent famine, the people of Yemen are also suffering one of the biggest cholera epidemics in history. Nearly a million have been infected with the bacteria which inflicts diarrhea, dehydration and sometimes death. The disease thrives in dirty water. And water treatment and sanitation have collapsed in Yemen's cities.
Scott Pelley: What do you have to have to stop the epidemic?
Nevio Zagaria: We should have peace. This is what we need to stop this epidemic. So we cannot solve the problem of cholera if we do not have a proper safe water supply, if we do not have proper sanitation. If we do not have the sewage treatment plant in the main town functioning and stop because it runs out of fuel as it happened at the beginning of this epidemic in the north of Sana'a for three or four months.
Scott Pelley: The main sewage plant in Sana'a ran out of fuel and didn't run for three or four months?
Nevio Zagaria: Yes. So 3 million people, huh?
About two million Yemenis have been forced from their homes by the war and there's been a big exodus of refugees that the world doesn't know very much about. Many of them have come 25 miles across the Red Sea to a refugee camp in the African nation of Djibouti. It is a testament to how bad things are in Yemen that the refugees believe that this place is so much better.
We've seen a few refugee camps in our time but this may be the most desolate with a drought of life and flood of sun. One worker told us we were smart to come in fall when it cooled off to 110.

Scott Pelley: How long have you been here?
Ali Shafick: Unfortunately 28 months.
Ali Shafick was once an architect in the Yemeni capital. His home was destroyed. He's alone here. And his despair was almost like madness.
Ali Shafick: To be jobless in this camp is very sad. The time is going slowly, very slowly.
Scott Pelley: The heat must be unbearable.
Ali Shafick: Heat? Yes, boiling. Starting from June, July and August. Three months. You cannot live, you cannot live here, three months. It's impossible to live.
Scott Pelley: And yet you do.
Ali Shafick: I have to be patient. I have to be patient.

Djibouti refugee camp

This mother, Ameena Saleh, told us her family left after Saudi led airstrikes killed more than 70 people in her town.
The planes would fly above us and fire rockets and missiles she told us. At night there was no sleep, they were holding the young ones. She said that her older son was saying 'we are going to die.' She told us we saw people die right in front of us.
Scott Pelley: A little while ago we heard a rumble from the direction of Yemen. That's the bombing, isn't it?
Yes, her husband said, it's near.
Scott Pelley: What do you think when you hear that?
Strong fear, she said. She said the terror is still inside us from the rockets, missiles and planes.
Scott Pelley: What lies ahead for these people, given where we are today?
Ayman Gharaibeh: Remember, the conflict is going into a third year, some people has been displaced for literally three years or going into their third year.  I honestly do not see any silver lining anywhere on the horizon that this is gonna end soon. And I'm afraid the humanitarian situation will continue to deteriorate. And we would go from a displacement to a famine, as happened, to cholera, and God knows what's next.

"All the children are gonna be dead. It's terrible."

The Saudi intervention in Yemen began with the rise of 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, he's the son of the king and he's the defense minister. Salman is quickly reforming the kingdom's fundamentalist society. Recently, he lifted the ban on women drivers. This month, he arrested 200 Saudis including princes and media owners. He says it's a crackdown on corruption. His critics believe he's silencing his rivals. Salman's campaign in Yemen has now landed Saudi Arabia, for the first time, on the U.N.'s blacklist of nations that disregard the safety of children in war.
The Saudis have pledged $8 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen, but they've delivered very little of that. The head of the Saudi humanitarian agency says that its aid to Yemen is, quote, "way beyond any damage caused by any attacks."

Scott Pelley: You met with some government officials involved in all of this, what kind of dialogue did you have with them?
David Beasley: Well we met with officials on all sides. They said all the right things. And we come back, everything that they agreed to on visas and access, so that we can get the equipment we need in, so we can deliver the food where we need to deliver it, and the technology and the health product -- you know -- terrible. The conditions are deteriorating in an unprecedented way and none of the commitments that were made, by any and all sides, have been fulfilled.
Scott Pelley: What future do you see for Yemen?
David Beasley: I don't see a light at the end of this tunnel. There's gotta be a big change. As the World Food Program, I've got my mandate to feed people. But also as a U.N. leader, I call upon the leaders of the world to bring the pressure to bear whatever's necessary to get the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis and all involved to the table and end this thing. You keep goin' like you're goin', there's not gonna be anybody left. All the children are gonna be dead. It's terrible.
Produced by Nicole Young and Katie Kerbstat