Syria Chemical Attack Was False Flag, WikiLeaks Drop Suggests

Syria Chemical Attack Was False Flag, WikiLeaks Drop Suggests

Written by  

Another apparent false-flag attack used in an attempt to stampede Western populations into another war is unraveling. And yet, despite the emergence in recent weeks of even more leaked documents exposing the fraud surrounding the supposed chemical attack in Syria, the establishment media has remained almost completely silent about it. The implications are enormous.

It appears that following the alleged “chemical weapon” attack in Douma in April of 2018, Western governments and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) falsely accused Syrian authorities of gassing their own people. Documents released by WikiLeaks late last month, which follow other revelations just weeks earlier, suggest there may not have even been a chemical attack in the first place.

At the very least, according to minutes from an OPCW meeting involving toxicologists specializing in chemical weapons, chlorine gas does not appear to have been used in the alleged attack. “With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure,” explains the explosive document, adding that no other obvious candidate chemical could be identified either.

In short, it seems the whole event was staged, as numerous witnesses on the ground have alleged for years. Indeed, speaking of the event at Douma, one expert quoted in the leaked OPCW documents raised “the possibility of the event being a propaganda exercise.”

And yet, the final OPCW report on the incident, published about a year after it took place, concluded that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that “the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place.” The final report also claimed that the toxic chemical involved was “likely molecular chlorine.” No mention was made of the OPCW’s own experts, who concluded in their key “take-away message” that “the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine.”

At least 20 members of the fact-finding mission involved in the investigation reportedly expressed concerns surrounding the claims made in the final OPCW report. According to a memo about it, the final document, which was scrubbed of all facts that would contradict the official narrative about Assad using WMDs on civilians, “did not reflect the views of the team members that deployed to Douma.” Indeed, just one of the team members actually participated in producing the report, with the others having all been sidelined.

That supposed attack on civilians, of course, was used by Western governments — including U.S. authorities — to launch missiles and military attacks against Syrian government targets. Fortunately for the American people, despite being surrounded by warmongering advisors demanding a full-scale war on Syria, President Trump resisted the pressure to escalate the situation beyond bombing an air-strip with some missiles. But it could have been much, much worse.

This is not the first leak to blow holes in the official narrative. In mid-December, WikiLeaks released other documents casting doubt on the narrative. And in May, another OPCW report was leaked revealing that investigators did not believe the cylinders reportedly dropped by Assad’s air forces had actually been dropped from a plane. Instead, the ballistics expert, Ian Henderson of South Africa, concluded that the cylinders had probably been put there manually by somebody on the ground.

“The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders, and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder being delivered from an aircraft,” Henderson explained in the document. “In each case the alternative hypothesis produced the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.”

His conclusion, based on the available evidence, was that somebody on the ground likely put the cylinders there. “In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft,” concluded Henderson, completely debunking the narrative peddled by the establishment media that Assad dropped chemical weapons from planes.

Of course, even before the leaked documents, there were already plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the claim that Assad gassed his own people. Indeed, there was so much evidence contradicting that narrative that The New American magazine published an article shortly after the attack asking the obvious question: “Was Chemical Attack in Syria a False Flag to Trigger U.S. War?” Prominent lawmakers including Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also openly spoke of their suspicions.

It remains unclear who exactly may have been responsible for perpetrating the false-flag attack in Douma. But the first question to ask is the cliché Latin expression “cui bono?”, or “who benefits” in English. Obviously, Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad did not benefit. In fact, the attack resulted in military strikes by the governments of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, all of which misled the world by accusing the Syrian regime of using chemical weapons to justify the attacks. After all, with Russian help, Assad was on the verge of winning the fight against Sunni jihadists.

That leaves a number of potential suspects, including warmongering Deep State globalists in each of those nations seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. Whistleblowers from within the OPCW have revealed that officials from the U.S. government pressured the organization to ensure that its final report would support the now-debunked narrative peddled by Western globalists and neoconservatives banging the war drums. The name of neoconservative John Bolton, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations who served as Trump’s national security advisor during much of this time, has surfaced repeatedly in connection with the false-flag scandal.

Another possibility is that the Western-backed Sunni jihadists working with al-Qaeda staged the attack hoping to draw more foreign military intervention into their battle against Assad. As this magazine documented extensively, going all the way back to the beginning of the “civil war,” these Islamist movements have been so closely tied to Western governments and Sunni Arab dictatorships in the Gulf that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Lest there be skepticism that Western governments might use false-flag attacks, it should be noted that lies and false-flag attacks have been used repeatedly for generations to trick Americans into war. There is now smoking-gun evidence that the Obama administration and its allies deliberately supported al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria with the goal of creating a “salafist principality” in Eastern Syria, as a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report put it. That entity eventually came to be known to the world as the Islamic State, or ISIS.

While the latest story did get some play in the alternative media, the establishment’s propaganda machine has been almost completely silent on the newest bombshell disclosures from WikiLeaks. “The mass media’s stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself,” wrote journalist Caitlin Johnstone in a widely republished analysis.

Calling it a “conspiracy of silence,” Johnstone gave as an example what happened at Newsweek, where e-mails revealed that editors suppressed the story because other establishment media were silent and because a tax-funded propaganda campaign downplayed the significance. “It remains unknown exactly what’s transpiring in news rooms around the world to maintain the conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal, but what is known is that by itself this scandalous silence is enough to fully discredit the mass media forever,” she added. “WikiLeaks has exposed these outlets for the monolithic propaganda engine that they really are.”

The dangerous con-artists and war criminals responsible for these lies aimed at tricking the American people into another war must be held accountable in a court of law. Instead, the Deep State has WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange locked up in abhorrent conditions like some sort of dangerous criminal for exposing their lies.

It is time for justice to be served. That means truth tellers and journalists must be set free, while liars and warmongers are brought before a jury to answer for their crimes. America needs a serious criminal investigation into these matters. Nothing less will do.

 

Alex Newman is a foreign correspondent for The New American. He can be reached at [email protected] or through Liberty Sentinel Media. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

 

Courtesy of The New American