Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda

Greetings,

    Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda

Source: RT

The reports of massive chemical attacks in Syria might become the “red line” for the US for active military intervention. But even rudimentary analysis of the story shows it is too early to believe its credibility.

The Middle Eastern newspaper, Al Arabiya, reports that “At least 1,300 people have  been killed in a nerve gas attack on Syria’s Ghouta region,  leading opposition figure George Sabra said on Wednesday…”   The paper went on to claim that the Government of President  Bashar al Assad was responsible for the attacks. If confirmed it  could be the “red line” that US President Obama previously  stated would tip the US into active military intervention in  Syria, using No Fly Zones and active military steps to depose  Assad.

That in turn could erupt into a conflagration across the Middle  East and a Super Power confrontation with Russia and China and  Iran on one side, and the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar  on the opposite side. Not a happy prospect for world peace at  all.

Therefore the story is worth analyzing carefully. When we do,  several things jump out as suspicious. First the newspaper  breaking the story was Al Arabiya, initially saying that at least  500 people have been killed, according to activists. From there  it got picked up by major international media. Making the story  more fishy by the minute were reports from different media of the  alleged number of dead that changed by the minute – 635 then to  800 by USA Today and 1,300 by Rupert Murdoch’s SkyNews.  

A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network shows bodies of children and adults laying on the ground as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo)

Al Arabiya, the origin of the story, is not a  neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the  Saudi Royal Family in Dubai. It is majority-owned by the Saudi  broadcaster, Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). Saudi Arabia  is a major financial backer of the attempt to topple Syria’s  government. That is a matter of record. So on first glance  Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad  allegation might be taken with a dose of salt.

When we examine the printed content of their story, it gets more  suspicious still. First they cite “activists at the Syrian  Revolutionary Command Council said regime fighter planes were  flying over the area after the bombardment, accusing the forces  loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical agents.”   This is doubtful on many levels. First we can imagine that  anti-government (unnamed) “activists” fighting Assad’s  forces would not be exactly neutral.

The story gets even murkier. Further in the text of the article  we read that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said  dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce  bombardment.” Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights  (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against  the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More  curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as  uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a  sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years  named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a  clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly  owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained  mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased.

The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the   “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days  earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, allowed by the  government, to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in  the Syrian war. It begs the most obvious question: What  conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned  chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN  chemical weapons team into Syria?

An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube by the Local Committee of Arbeen on August 21, 2013 allegedly shows Syrians covering a mass grave containing bodies of victims that Syrian rebels claim were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta and Zamalka, on the outskirts of Damascus. (AFP Photo)

They initially were called to investigate evidence of any chemical weapons  used in a March 19 attack in Khan al-Assad and in two other  locations. In May, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN  Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony  gathered from casualties and medical staff in Syria indicated  that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters. They found   no evidence of use by Government forces. That  proved highly embarrassing to the faction of war hawks in the  Pentagon and State Department, agitating for Obama to escalate  direct military intervention including a no-fly zone, de facto an  act of war against Assad’s regime. In 2012 Obama declared that  the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President would cross a   “red line” and change US calculations on whether or not it  should intervene in the conflict.

Finally, the region reported to be the site of the poison gas  attack by Assad forces, Eastern Ghouta, was re-secured from the  Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra jihadist terrorists, by  Government troops in May as part of a major series of rollback  victories against the insurgent forces and is not currently a  scene of any major resistance to Assad forces.

Pending confirmation by genuinely independent judges of the  latest allegations of Al Arabiya, we are well-advised to leave  the reports in the category of war propaganda, in league with  others such as the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. That incident, we  might recall, was faked by the Pentagon to railroad Congress into  giving President Lyndon B. Johnson authority to “assist any  Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be  jeopardized by communist aggression.” The resolution became  Johnson’s legal justification for deploying US forces and the  onset of open war against North Vietnam.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The hiram’s1555 blog.