Tag Archives: Chemical warfare

Combat Vet Senator Richard Black Fighting the War Party, by Hunter DeRensis

Most of America’s most ardent proponents of interventionism and perma-war have never been closer to an actual war than a two-day public relations tour of the troops. From Hunter DeRensis at antiwar.com:

Two weeks ago the Virginia State Senate switched hands from the Republicans to the Democrats, another step in the state’s leftward turn. One of the Democratic pick ups was in the 13th district, where incumbent State Senator Dick Black is retiring from public service. Black is a Vietnam veteran and former colonel in the US army, a former delegate in the Virginia House, and he has served in the state senate since 2012.

Senator Black, who has been a vocal opponent of the United States’ overseas wars, spoke to Antiwar.com for an exclusive interview covering his military career, candid rejection of the Washington foreign policy consensus, and his activism against regime change in Syria.

Military Service and the Vietnam War

Black was born in northern Virginia in 1944, and spent his young formative years being raised in Miami, Florida. After attending the University of Miami for one year, Black was compelled to leave due to financial distress. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a “miserable existence” in the aviation cadet program.

Continue reading

The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding. Here’s Why No One’s Talking About It. By Caitlin Johnstone

If you poke holes in one establishment narrative, people might be skeptical, or outright not believe, other establishment narratives. From Caitlin Johnstone at medium.com:

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is now hemorrhaging evidence that the US and its allies deceived the world once again about yet another military intervention, which should be a front-page story all over the world. Yet if you looked at American news media headlines you’d think the only thing that matters right now is indulging the childish fantasy that Donald Trump might somehow magically be removed from office via supermajority consensus in a majority-Republican Senate.

CounterPunch has published an actual bombshell of a report by journalist Jonathan Steele containing many revelations about the OPCW scandal which were previously unknown to the public. Steele is an award-winning reporter who worked as a senior foreign correspondent for The Guardianback before that outlet was purged of all critical thinkers on western imperialism; he first waded into the OPCW controversy last month with a statement made on the BBC revealing the existence of a second whistleblower on the organisation’s investigation into an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.

Continue reading→

Psychic Nikki Haley: If There Is A Future Chemical Weapons Attack, Assad Did It, by Caitlin Johnstone

If you’re making a prognostication about who is going to do something, would you predict the person that has the logical interest in doing that thing, or the person for whom it would make no sense to do it? From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

UN Ambassador and Clairvoyant Prognosticator of the Transmundane Nikki Haley has foreseen that, if there are any future chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian province of Idlib, it will most definitely be the Syrian government that is responsible and not the multiple terrorist factions in the area.

“If they want to continue to go the route of taking over Syria, they can do that,” said Nikki Haley at a UN press conference today, without explaining how a nation’s only recognized government can ‘take over’ the country it governs. “But they cannot do it with chemical weapons. They can’t do it assaulting their people. And we’re not gonna fall for it. If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who’s gonna use them.”

Continue reading

The Real Message Behind Trump’s Syrian Strike, by JP Sottile

The Syrian strike showed us that Donald Trump is no Barack Obama. From JP Sottile at antiwar.com:

We are seeing a lot of hyperbole about the start of “World War 3” and a lot of speculation about how this will play out … so, let me pump the brakes a bit. Here goes …

No, there was no legal or constitutional justification for this strike. Sorry, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, this does not fit neatly into an Article Two-sanctioned use of force to protect America’s invariably internationally-located “national” interests. And no, we still haven’t seen compelling proof that Assad was responsible for the attack in question and, in a throwback to attacks past, the OPCW‘s inspectors didn’t even get a chance to conduct their investigation before Uncle Sam pulled the trigger.

Paging David Kay … come in, David Kay

But, to be clear, this also doesn’t mirror the lead-up to, or start of, the Iraq War … Trump’s unintentionally ironic use of “Mission Accomplished” notwithstanding. Trump’s mission was, in fact, accomplished, because the mission wasn’t regime change or a crippling strike a la John Bolton. Nor was it a “message” to Assad’s “enablers,” as Deep State All-Star Oliver North framed it on Fox News.

No, this limited attack was very much like LAST YEAR’S Tomahawk parade (stock tip: buy Raytheon). It was a Mattis masterpiece of shadowy puppet theater designed to give Trump a way out of his self-painted corner. This was a well-crafted face-saving scenario. And this was a way for Trump to prove that his red line bloviations mean something, unlike the red line sissy-dancing of his predecessor.

To get there, Mattis cut down the target package to THREE … yup, just THREE … facilities that, one can safely assume, the Syrians likely knew would be targeted. And although Chief Of Staff Joseph Dunford claimed there was no “coordination” with Russia (as was the case with last year’s ridiculous strike on an evacuated tarmac), “coordination” is itself a specific term that doesn’t preclude the possibility of artfully telegraphed intentions by the Pentagon as they developed their target list. Add to that the use of well-established “deconfliction” procedures and what you have is a military operation that was designed to give Trump, along with British Prime Minster Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron, an opportunity to put-up instead of shutting-up and, thereby, somehow risking their so-called “international reputations” as leaders.

To continue reading: The Real Message Behind Trump’s Syrian Strike

Kabuki Warfare, by James Howard Kunstler

Well Syria settle into an uneasy quasi-stability? From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

When this chapter of US history is finally written, it will look like a deep dive into a vat of lentil soup. In Syria Friday night, we came, we saw, and we slung 103 cruise missiles into largely symbolic targets, including a supposed chemical weapons plant just outside Damascus, and some other places where we were not likely to kill Russian military personnel. The Russians apparently decided to just suck it up, knowing that the civil war in Syria is nearly over. Then what?

Will the US tolerate what has effectively become a Russian client state in the Levant, with some Iranian sprinkles on top? The Saudi Arabians clearly don’t relish that prospect, and one wonders how much the nominal Saudi leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, put the squeeze on US officials (including the Golden Golem of Greatness) to do something (!) when he paid a call here a few weeks ago. Israel may not like having Hezbolah’s patron, Iran, camped on their doorstep, but there’s reason to believe that Bibi and Putin understand each other well enough, and that Russia will do what’s necessary to moderate the Iran-Hezbolah-Shia axis of maniacs. Israel’s February strike against Syrian air defense installations was a reminder to all concerned that they will act on their own when they choose to. Finally, Russia certainly has no interest in protecting the caliphate maniacs, since the Bear has plenty of restive Islamic factions in its neighboring former soviet republics.

The various moves and statements having been made, the balance of power in Syria may be settling into a sort of freeze. Actually, anything that arrests the process of Syria turning into another failed Middle East state is better than the alternative. Before al Qaeda, Isis, and their many mutant armies showed up, before Russia came on the scene, before the US set this regional meltdown in motion next door in Iraq, Syria was not the world’s problem. But neither, really, was Vietnam in 1963.

To continue reading: Kabuki Warfare

Why Theresa May Must be Impeached, by Rob Slane

To register their horror at the alleged Syrian attack that released chemicals into the atmosphere, May, Trump, and company conducted missile attacks on chemical plants and risked releasing copious quantities of chemicals into the atmosphere. From Rob Slane at theblogmire.com:

So the moment we’ve been holding our breaths for a week finally came. In the end, I am mighty glad that this particular strike seems more like the impotent thrashing of the neocon snake that didn’t dare to attack places where Russian servicemen were likely to be killed, than it does the start of World War III. For the moment, at least, thank God.

But the fact that it was a fairly limited strike — compared to what it might have been — in which the majority of missiles failed to hit their targets, having been eliminated by Soviet-era air defences, does not in anyway absolve those who ordered the strike from the grave and reckless action they have taken and for which they are responsible. Not only did they authorise this action before an investigation had been carried out in Douma, and in fact hours before the OPCW inspectors were due there, they did so without consulting their respective legislative bodies, without knowing how many of their missiles would or would not hit their targets, or — and this is crucial — knowing for sure whether their actions would elicit a response from Russia.

In other words, if you live in Britain, France or America, you now know just how cheaply the leaders of your country hold your life, and the lives of your fellow countrymen. They have taken action which could have resulted — and might still result — in a direct clash with the Russian military, and while you have breath left in you, you must never forget this, and do all you can to hold these people to account for their lawless, reckless and enormously dangerous actions.

You must also remember that they did so not because they cared about ordinary Syrians, but because their diabolical attempts to topple the Syrian Government, by backing Islamic terrorist groups such as Jaysh al-Islam, has been thwarted.

But there is one more thing. Amongst the myriad of mind-boggling and often deceptive remarks made by Theresa May during her statement after the attacks, I was particularly struck by this:

“Together we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. They were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research centre and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks. Hitting these targets with the force that we have deployed will significantly degrade the Syrian Regime’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons.”

So the response to an alleged and unproven chemical weapons incident was to attempt to blow up alleged stockpiles of chemical weapons. I confess that I am not an expert in blowing up chemical weapons stockpiles, but it does seem to me to be a reckless and insane thing to do. If there really were stockpiles of chemical weapons in those places, exactly what guarantee could Donald and Theresa give that such chemicals would not then be released into the atmosphere? As I say, I’m not an expert in blowing up chemical weapons stockpiles — I doubt that there are many in the world who are — but it does seem to me at least possible that an action such as this is potentially catastrophic.

To continue reading: Why Theresa May Must be Impeached

Syria: What Just Happened, by Eric Zuesse

Although it doesn’t have the UN’s blessing, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons will continue investigating the alleged Syrian gas attack. From Eric Zuesse at strategic-culture.org:

What happened right after the second direct US-missiles invasion of Syria, which had occurred on the night of April 13th, could turn out to have momentous implications — far bigger than the attacks themselves.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headlined on April 14th, in the wake of this US-UK-France invasion of Syria that was allegedly punishing Syria’s Government for allegedly having used chemical weapons in its bombing in the town of Douma on April 7th“OPCW Fact-Finding Mission Continues Deployment to Syria”, and reported that:

The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will continue its deployment to the Syrian Arab Republic to establish facts around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma. 

The OPCW has been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Department of Safety and Security to assess the situation and ensure the safety of the team. 

This means that the effort by the US and its allies on the UN Security Council, to squash that investigation, has failed at the OPCW, even though the effort had been successful at blocking UN support for that specific investigation.

The OPCW is not part of the UN, nor of any country; it, instead (as introduced by Wikipedia):

is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997. The OPCW, with its 192 member states, has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.

In conformity with the unchallenged international consensus that existed during the 1990s that there was no longer any basis for war between the world’s major powers, the Convention sought and achieved a UN imprimatur, but this was only in order to increase its respect throughout the world. The OPCW is based not on the UN Charter but on that specific treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was formally approved by the UN’s General Assembly on 30 November 1992 and was then opened for signatures in Paris on 13 January 1993. According to the Convention’s terms, it would enter into effect 180 days after 65 nations signed it, which turned out to be on 29 April 1997.

To continue reading: Syria: What Just Happened

Falsehoods and Lies: Inciting War Is a War Crime, by Strategic Culture

Once upon a time when you made an accusation you had to have something to back it up. That is no longer true as far as the US and it’s allies’ many accusations against Russia and its allies go. From the Strategic Culture editorial board at strategic-culture.org:

The torrent of reckless false accusations against Russia made by the US and its NATO allies is hitting warp speed.

This week saw more baseless allegations of Russian cyber attacks on American elections and British industries.

There were also crass claims by US officials that Russia was behind so-called sonic attacks on American diplomats in Cuba.

Then a Dutch foreign minister was forced to resign after he finally admitted telling lies for the past two years over alleged Russian plans for regional aggression.

Elsewhere, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed this week during a tour of the Middle East that “the primary goal” of his nation’s involvement in Syria is “to defeat” Islamic State (Daesh) terrorism.

This is patently false given that the US forces illegally occupying parts of Syria are launching lethal attacks on Syrian armed forces who are actually fighting Islamic State and their myriad terrorist affiliates.

Meanwhile, US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley accused Russia of blocking peace efforts in Syria – another audacious falsehood to add to her thick compendium of calumny.

Perhaps the most barefaced falsehood transpired this week when French President Emmanuel Macron candidly admitted that his government did not have any proof of chemical weapons being used in Syria.

“Today, our agencies, our armed forces have not established that chemical weapons, as set out in treaties, have been used against the civilian population,” said Macron to media in Paris.

His admission follows that of US Defense Secretary James Mattis who also fessed up earlier this month to having no evidence of chemical weapons being deployed in Syria.

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” said Mattis to reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”

Yet, only a few weeks ago, the French and US government were condemning Syrian President Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces. France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also accused Russia of bearing responsibility because of its alliance with Damascus.

To continue reading: Falsehoods and Lies: Inciting War Is a War Crime

The Real WMD in Syria – West’s Weapon of Mass Disorientation, by Finian Cunningham

The US must be at war in Syria, because truth is the first casualty of war, and it’s been a long time since we’ve heard anything within field goal range of the truth from the US government about Syria. From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.com:

A senior Rand analyst, inadvertently, gave the game away in a recent article inculpating Syrian President Bashar al Assad over the alleged toxic massacre of civilians on April 4. The Rand Corporation, a longtime conduit for CIA propaganda, wrote: «The use of chemical weapons today provokes international condemnation… Those who order their deployment risk being charged with war crimes».

The Western objective, as tacitly admitted above, is therefore to brand the Syrian leader and his government as depraved war criminals, deserving pariah status and excommunication by the «international community».

The alleged use of chemical weapons, a particularly odious weapon of mass destruction (WMD), serves as an effective prop to channel Western public outrage against Assad. Allegedly killing civilians with bullets and bombs just doesn’t have the same psychological power to incite public disgust. Poisoning little children with lethal chemicals is a more effective label with which to demonize the alleged perpetrator.

But the more pertinent WMD issue here is Weapon of Mass Disorientation. And in particular how Western governments, their servile corporate-controlled media, like the Rand Corp, New York Times, CNN, BBC, Guardian and France 24, and so on, and local proxy mercenaries inside Syria are covertly deploying deadly chemicals in a series of propaganda stunts. Not only deploying deadly chemicals against civilians in a most cynical and callous way, but getting away with their crimes of murder through an audacious distortion of reality. All made possible because of the West’s media weapon of mass disorientation.

By massive manipulation of facts and images, the Western public are disorientated to condone the wider criminal agenda that their governments are pushing – that of regime change. Part of that disorientation involves the Western public suspending critical thinking over what are otherwise highly dubious circumstances and claims; it also involves an abject manipulation of perception and emotions, whereby some victims of violence are the focus for Western public trauma, while many other victims in Syria and elsewhere are unseen or overlooked with callous indifference. Those anomalies surely speak of a phenomenal disorientation of Western public intelligence, emotion and morals.

To continue reading: The Real WMD in Syria – West’s Weapon of Mass Disorientation

Did Al Qaeda Fool The White House Again? by Robert Parry

It’s truly amazing how quickly evidence-free assertions become the accepted groupthink in Washington. From Robert Parry at strategic-culture.org:

In Official Washington, words rarely mean what they say. For instance, if a U.S. government official voices “high confidence” in a supposed “intelligence assessment,” that usually means “we don’t have any real evidence, but we figure that if we say ‘high confidence’ enough that no one will dare challenge us.”

It’s also true that after a U.S. President or another senior official jumps to a conclusion that is not supported by evidence, the ranks of government careerists will close around him or her, making any serious or objective investigation almost impossible. Plus, if the dubious allegations are directed at some “enemy” state, then the mainstream media also will suppress skepticism. Prestigious “news” outlets will run “fact checks” filled with words in capital letters: “MISLEADING”; “FALSE”; or maybe “FAKE NEWS.”

Which is where things stand regarding President Trump’s rush to judgment within hours about an apparent chemical weapons incident in Syria’s Idlib province on April 4. Despite the fact that much of the information was coming from Al Qaeda and its propaganda-savvy allies, the mainstream U.S. media rushed emotional images onto what Trump calls “the shows” – upon which he says he bases his foreign policy judgments – and he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the scores of deaths, including “beautiful little babies,” as Trump declared.

Given the neocon/liberal-interventionist domination of Official Washington’s foreign policy – and the professional Western propaganda shops working for Assad’s overthrow – there was virtually no pushback against the quick formulation of this new groupthink. All the predictable players played their predictable parts, from The New York Times to CNN to the Atlantic Council-related Bellingcat and its “citizen journalists.”

All the Important People who appeared on the TV shows or who were quoted in the mainstream media trusted the images provided by Al Qaeda-related propagandists and ignored documented prior cases in which the Syrian rebels staged chemical weapons incidents to implicate the Assad government.

To continue reading: Did Al Qaeda Fool The White House Again?