Monday, December 16, 2013

"U.N. Syria Report Inconclusive on Chemical Weapons" ??? Actually, No.

OK, back to Syria- chemical weapons and acrimonious UN meetings
The headline is from Wall Street Journal. It is the usual obfuscation spin from the lying corporate war mongering, zionist media.  Playing  fast and loose with the truth. The report is anything but inconclusive.
Obviously, I hold the opinion there are a great many conclusions that can be reached about just who used chemical weapons in Syria. And who was on the receiving end. We can all use our brains. That is what we have them for All one has to do is read. And think. Keep in mind the Sy Hersh report from last week mentioned in this post. Along with a bunch of other useful, necessary, vital  background info.
Whose Sarin? Ghouta and Obama's big lie  Obama’s BIG LIE.
cute imagery and oh so accurate

I will highlight the important points. WSJ

UNITED NATIONS—The final U.N. investigation into alleged chemical weapons use in Syria has found that chemical weapons were conclusively used in one incident and were likely used in four other alleged attacks, including three in which government troops were the victims of sarin gas.
It was the first time the U.N. has reported that Syrian military personnel may have been the target of a chemical-weapon attack in the course of the 33-month-old conflict. But the report doesn't say who was responsible.

Because the U.N. team wasn't given the task of assigning blame in the attacks, its findings remain open to interpretation. The fact that the report names government soldiers as victims raised the possibility that rebel groups may have had access to sarin gas, which the Syrian government, and its allies Iran and Russia, have long maintained.

May have had access to Sarin. Puhleez!

Ake Sellstrom, the head of the U.N. team, said it was "wise" for the investigators not to assess blame.
Wise for who? Which party was this wise for? This not assessing blame worked in the favour of the US and Israeli backed killers and against Syria. Who was this wise for?

"To go from the step from where we are to confirm the use to assessing attribution requires more effort and resources," he said at a U.N. news conference. "We we were there to find facts, and these facts could used by others to pursue the issue of attribution."
Except for the widely reported sarin gas massacre in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people, the language of the report is steeped in uncertainty.

The U.S. and its allies have blamed the government for that attack, and Russia, Syria and Iran say rebels were responsible in an attempt to provoke Western military intervention.

In one of the three incidents that involved government troops, at Jobar on Aug. 24, the investigators said they had "collected evidence consistent with the probable use of chemical weapons."

The team studied the fragments of an improvised explosive device that the government said had sickened five of its soldiers with sarin. The team was able to positively identify traces of sarin in the blood sample of one soldier.
Improvised explosive. Victim- Syrian soldier
In a reported attack in Khan al Assal in March, the investigators said there was credible information that gas was used against government soldiers and civilians.

But it added that the release of chemical weapons at the alleged site could not be independently verified in the absence of "primary information on delivery systems" and of "environmental and biomedical samples collected and analyzed under the chain of custody." The team was unable to visit the site because of ongoing fighting.
There are a number of posts here at the blog regarding the hired killers attack on civilians and soldiers in Khan al Assal.

The U.N. team "collected evidence that suggests that chemical weapons were used" in Saraqueb on Aug. 24, where one woman was killed. But investigators "could not establish the link between the alleged event, the alleged site and the deceased woman," the report said.

Investigators collected "evidence that suggests that chemical weapons were used" in Ashrafiah Sahnaya on Aug. 25 on a small scale against soldiers. The team was unable to corroborate allegations that chemical weapons were used in Bahhariyeh on Aug. 22 or at Sheik Maqsood on April 13.

The three-month probe examined blood, urine, soil and air samples, studied munitions fragments and interviewed survivors, witnesses and medical personnel.
Well, well well. IED's and civilian and soldier victims. And Sy Hersh exposes information that has been covered here over and over and over. 

One last bit of news. Apparently there was an acrimonious exchange at the UN today

After the talks, Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin accused opposition rebels of staging an attack at Ghouta near Damascus on August 21 in a bid to provoke a US military strike. He also blamed rebels for a chemical strike near Aleppo on March 19 during which Syrian government troops were among the victims.

"It is absolutely obvious that on August 21 a widescale provocation was staged" by Syrian rebels "to provoke foreign military intervention," Churkin told reporters.

He said a government strike on Ghouta would only "invite a missile strike upon itself."

Churkin said Russian requests for US detail on Syrian government involvement in chemical attacks were "ignored" by Washington.

Of course the US ignored Russian requests for details. They didn’t have anything credible or factual to share. Just fabrications, fixed intelligence or more plainly, LIES

1 comment:

  1. fresh doubts about both GHouta sarin AND HRWs reliability:

    'A United Nations analysis of samples taken from one of the two sites of the alleged Sarin attack outside Damascus, Syria, on Aug. 21 found zero chemical weapons agents, and one UN laboratory backed off its earlier claim to have found a residue that can result from degraded Sarin on the remnants of the missile, according to revisions in a new UN report.

    This failure to find Sarin anywhere in Moadamiyah, a suburb south of Damascus, undercuts analyses by Human Rights Watch and the New York Times that relied on a vectoring of the two attack sites – the other in Zamalka/Ein Tarma to the east where Sarin was detected – to conclude that an elite unit of the Syrian military must have been responsible for the attacks that brought the United States close to war in Syria.

    There were already problems with the analyses by HRW, which has long pushed for a U.S. military intervention in Syria, and the New York Times because of doubts about the flight paths of the missiles and their maximum range. UN inspectors only had a rough idea of the trajectories because the projectiles may have deflected off buildings as they crash-landed.'