Transcript by Rawan Mahmasa:
The Syrian government has been blamed for the twenty eighteen Saraqib chemical attack, but this time around, India isn’t buying it. This was pointed out to me by Kit Clarenbach, who wrote this op …., and it’s about how diplomats, including India, are starting to draw parallels between what the OPCW is doing now to Syria, to what the US did to Iraq in the lead up to the 2003 invasion.
That’s making up lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify military intervention.
The article also does a good job poking holes into the OPCW investigation and to show you how strained their logic is throughout the report. Here’s a good example to try to prove that the militants weren’t the ones who staged it. They said they took samples of various household chlorine based products commonly used in Syria and readily available on the market. And they compared that with the samples that were handed to them from the alleged incident. They compared them and they said, nope, they don’t match.
So it couldn’t have been the militants. But this assumes that the militants only had access to these chlorine based products in Syria and to no other form of chlorine, which which is an absurd conclusion to draw. These are militants who are receiving anti-tank missiles, rocket launchers, anti aircraft, missiles, vehicles, construction material from over the border with Turkey.
Are you telling me that it is impossible, inconceivable that they might have access to other forms of chlorine other than what you would find in household products? This goes to show you how illogical, deliberately so the OPCW methodology was. And if you go to the report itself and by the way, they’re claiming that at least one cylinder was dropped by the military in Saraqib, one cylinder in the middle of a field didn’t even kill anybody. This is what they’re claiming the Syrian military did they admit in the report itself their inability to access the site of the incidents. They also talk about the lapse of time between the date of the incident and the investigation. And they admit that entity is willing to provide information included Syria’s civil defense, also known as the White Helmets. And they never talk about the white helmets, how they’re associated with al-Qaida, how they’re in violation of the Geneva Conventions because they are violating medical neutrality, because they are a political organization using rescue and medical aid as cover for their political activities.
None of that is mentioned. So this would be like a police station getting a call for a murder, waiting a year to open up an investigation, not even visiting the crime scene and then taking evidence from potential suspects who are motivated to frame someone else for the crime. And here’s another perfect example of their strange logic. So they’re saying this cylinder was found further away from Crater one with no clear explanation, but they’re saying that that is not an indication that it was staged.
And they say that if it was staged, why would they video tape this this cylinder so far away from the crater? Why wouldn’t they have placed it closer to the crater? So they’re extending this benefit of doubt to al-Qaida. Why don’t they extend the same benefit of doubt to the Syrian government, to the Syrian military? They said it’s hard to comprehend why someone one was placed and video recorded so far away from Crater one.
Isn’t it equally hard to comprehend why the Syrian army would just drop one cylinder of chlorine in the middle of a field, having no strategic or tactical impact on the battlefield and only implicating itself in using chemical weapons to attract international scorn and to justify US military intervention? Why would they do that? And just one more note to make here. This is a twenty seventeen article that I wrote, and I cited a paper titled Lessons Learned The Iran Iraq War that was put out by the US Marine Corps and under Appendix B chemical weapons.
They talk about how chemical weapons are really used on the battlefield, volleys of chemical munitions. That means multiple guns firing multiple rounds containing chemical weapons. You don’t just shoot one round into the middle of a field and that’s it, because it has absolutely no impact on anything. They also talk about how chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. But then they also admit that chemical weapons have a low kill ratio, just as in World War One, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was two to three percent.
That figure appears to be. Borne out again in this war, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as a poor man’s nuclear weapon. But isn’t that what the Western media and the OPCW is trying to convince the public that the Syrian government can just drop one cylinder of chlorine in the middle of a field and potentially wipe out an entire village? That’s what they make it out to be like. And yet, if we look at how chemical weapons are actually used in war, they have to be used in large quantities and even then, they are not that effective.
Conventional weapons are much more effective. You use chemical weapons when you lack precision weaponry and Syria’s military does not because they have the Russian air force there that can drop a bomb anywhere with precision in Syria, anywhere, at any time. They have no reason to use chemical weapons, not strategically, not tactically, and certainly not politically. This isn’t just about the OPCW and Syria war propaganda justifying sanctions and military aggression against Damascus. This is about a pattern of international organizations like the OPCW being abused by the West to advance their foreign policy objectives.
They did it in Libya. They’re doing it in Syria, as we just seen. And they’re going to do it in Myanmar. They’re going to approach these international organizations. They are going to manipulate and abuse their platforms, and they’re going to drag the world into yet another regime change crisis. Please, if you thought this video was useful, like it and it help get the word out, subscribe to the channel. It’s free to do and it helps the channel grow.
Check out the video description for the link to this excellent op ed and all of the supporting documentation, as well as to ways you can help support my work so that I can continue making videos like this. And as always, thank you for watching.