Government is Proven Corrupt Again and Everyone Pretends to be Surprised Again

WikiLeaks Raises Questions Over Syrian Chemical Weapon Attacks

On 7 April 2018, a chemical warfare attack was carried out in the Syrian city of Douma. Governments around the world considered Syria the aggressor. A report by the “independent” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons found that the government of Syria was likely the ones that caused the attack. Everyone believed it. Well, until now.

WikiLeaks just recently released leaks that show a large disagreement within the OPCW internally that question everything the higher ups said in their report. So now the government is proven corrupt again and everyone pretends to be surprised again.

Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

So what exactly happened with this chemical attack?

The rebel forces and white helmets attributed the chemical attack to the Syrian Army in Douma. Meanwhile, the intelligence agencies (read: Deep State) of the US and UK both also said that the Syrian Army committed the assault. The Syrian government asserted that the video showing the aftermath of the attack was staged.

Who else said it was staged? The Russians. Oh boy, the good old cold war is back. Scary Russia. We certainly can’t trust them! But we can trust our own intelligence agencies… which have repeatedly lied to us (/sarcasm).

Anyone versed in the Syria peninsula immediately questioned these attacks just based on common sense. The Syrian government was winning the war against the rebels and finally stabilized parts of the region. What motive do they have in doing a chemical weapons attack that they know would provoke the rest of the world and continue their own internal civil war (that was winding down)? They wouldn’t. It’s stupid. There are literally no reasons for it, whether profit, geopolitical, or anything else. When five giant nations are meddling in your region and an entire civil war is ongoing, it’s generally not the best idea to launch chemical weapons.

Yet, that’s what the Western nations wanted. Paint the head of Syria and Russia as the bad guys so they have a reason to continue to meddle in the region and exploit oil, among other geopolitical issues.

Trump believed his intelligence agencies and bombed Syria in retaliation.

OPCW did an “independent report” about the Syrian chemical attack. Pretty much pointed the finger at the Syrian Army as well and confirmed the chemical attack.

But the reality of the situation was very different. The actual OPCW agents that investigated it found no evidence of a chemical attack. Interesting, right?

But the higher ups doctored the public report prior to release to make it sound like they did. Why? Easy: Russia.

Whenever you’re tasked with a question of why, always follow the money. Did the Syrian Army have a reason to use chemical weapon attacks when they were winning the war already and stabilizing the reason? Any profit motive? No. Any other motive? No.

What about OPCW? Who funds them? The answer is their member states, by size and voluntary contributions. Who contributes most? Western nations (based on UN’s assessment scales). Who has a direct motive for anti-Russia news in Syria? Western nations. Who has the financial and political sway for that OPCW report to be doctored? Western nations. Finally, who has an intrinsic interest in ensuring the Syrian zone remains in conflict? Well, it sure isn’t Russia, that’s for sure. Another one for Western nations.

Now WikiLeaks released information questioning the OPCW report. Which questions the entire basis of the intelligence agencies. The OPCW agents who were on the ground in Syria didn’t agree with the chemical weapons disclaimer. Yet, we are to believe the intelligence agencies know for sure? Yeah, right. Go sell some more crack in the impoverished inner cities, CIA. No one with a (functioning) brain would believe that.

So the government is proven corrupt… again. And everyone is acting surprised and taking political sides instead of being interested in the truth. Who cares if this news is beneficial for the left or the right in either Western country? Look at what happened: We bombed a place based on false intel, given by shady deep state intelligence agencies, to fight in a nation we shouldn’t even be in, that of which is being decimated with thousands of deaths solely for corrupt geopolitical-influence reasons. And a bunch of people in the US and UK are fine with that because it aligns with their political whinings and anti-Russia sentiment. Welcome to the modern West.

So enough talk about how ridiculous everything is and let’s talk about the leak itself from WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks

Here is what trusty old WikiLeaks reported:

Internal OPCW E-Mail

23 November, 2019

OPCW management accused of doctoring Syrian chemical weapons report

Wikileaks today publishes an e-mail, sent by a member of an OPCW fact-finding mission to Syria to his superiors, in which he expresses his gravest concern over intentional bias introduced to a redacted version of the report he co-authored.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons sent a team of experts to investigate allegations that a chemical attack took place in the Syrian city of Douma on the 7th of April 2018. The author of the e-mail was a member of that team and claims the redacted preliminary version of the report, misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground. The e-mail is dated 22nd of June. It is addressed to Robert Fairweather, Chief of Cabinet, and forwarded to his deputy Aamir Shouket and members of the fact-finding mission to Douma.

He says this misrepresentation was achieved by selective omission, introducing a bias which undermines the credibility of the report. Further it is claimed that crucial facts, that have remained in the redacted version:

    “…have morphed into something quite different to what was originally drafted.”

This is said to have been done at the behest of the Office of the Director General (a post that was held by Turkish diplomat Ahmet Üzümcü at the time, he has since been replaced by Spaniard Fernando Arias).

[Important editor sidenote: Ahmet Üzümcü is Turkish. Turkey is not a big fan of the Syrian regime or Russia being that close. They are a big state sponsor against the Syrian president].

The attack in question was widely attributed to the Syrian Army, based on reports by rebel forces that were present in Douma at the time, and this assertion was backed up by the United States, British and French governments. These three countries carried out air strikes against Syrian government targets in response, on the 14th of April 2018. This was before the fact-finding team had gained access to the site in Douma, the mission there was delayed for nearly two weeks by entrenched rebel fighters and subsequent clashes between the rebels and government forces that moved into the area.

Upon arrival the team found much of the physical evidence, including the bodies of the deceased, was no longer available. It was alleged that 49 had died and up to 650 had been seriously affected by a weaponized chemical gas released in a specific area of rebel-held Douma on that day in April. Rebels claimed the gas came from cylinders dropped from aircraft, clearly implicating Syrian government forces who had complete air superiority.

The redacted report seemed to support these conclusions but the author of the released e-mail outlines some specific aspects of it which he considers: “particularly worrisome.”

Firstly, there is a statement in the redacted report. It states that there is sufficient evidence to determine the presence of “chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical.”

The e-mail points out that this was:

    “likely one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include… the major ingredient of household chlorine-based bleach. Purposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous.”

The redacted report also removed context from a claim in the original draft, which concerned the likelihood of the gas having emanated from cylinders found at the scene in Douma. The original text is said to have purposely emphasised that there was insufficient evidence to affirm this being the case. This is “a major deviation from the original report” according to the author.

He also cites problems with paragraph in the redacted version, which states:

    ”based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives detected in environmental samples”.

This is said to overstate the case. According to the e-mail:

    “They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.”

One piece of evidence, which was shown on news networks across the world, was a video said to show victims being treated in a hospital in the aftermath of the attack in Douma. The symptoms shown were, however, not consistent with what witnesses reported seeing that day. A detailed discussion of this was apparently omitted from the redacted version of the OPCW report.

The e-mail states:

    “Omitting this section of the report (including the Epidemiology which has been removed in its entirety) has a serious negative impact on the report as this section is inextricably linked to the chemical agent identified… In this case, the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any other choking agent is drawn into question precisely because of the inconsistency with the reported and observed symptoms. The inconsistency was not only noted by the fact-finding mission team, but strongly supported by three toxicologists with expertise in exposure to chemical warfare agents.”

Yet another point of contention is the placement and condition of the cylinders reported to have contained the chemical agent. It has been alleged that their condition may not be consistent with having been dropped from the air, compared to damaged in the immediate surrounding area. This was discussed in an unreleased engineering report from OPCW that was leaked and Wikileaks published in October 2019 and indicates it is unlikely the cylinders were air-dropped (see previous release: OPCW Whistleblower Panel on the Douma attack of April 2018)

Sections discussing this are largely absent from the redacted report. “This information was important in assessing the likelihood of the ‘presence’ of toxic chemicals versus the ‘use’ of toxic chemicals,” states the e-mail.

The author ends his letter with an appeal to the management to allow him to attach his differing observations to the document.

WikiLeaks

In addition to this email leak, WikiLeaks also leaked all the supporting documents, which include:

OPCW Whistleblower Panel on the Douma attack of April 2018

23 October, 2019

Today WikiLeaks publishes a statement made by a panel that listened to testimony and reviewed evidence from a whistleblower from the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) last week. To accompany this statement, Wikileaks is also publishing a previously leaked engineering assessment of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th last year. This assessment was omitted in the final report by the OPCW, which does not support its findings.

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson took part in the panel to review the testimony and documents from the OPCW whistleblower. He says: “The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt on the integrity of the OPCW. Although the whistleblower was not ready to step forward and/or present documents to the public, WikiLeaks believes it is now of utmost interest for the public to see everything that was collected by the Fact Finding Mission on Douma and all scientific reports written in relation to the investigation.

We call out to people within the OPCW to leak these documents securely to us via wikileaks.org/#submit” One of the panel members was Dr José Bustani, the first Director-General of the OPCW, who concluded that: “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing”

In support of the OPCW’s original objectives, the panel called upon the organisation to re-establish its credibility and legitimacy by allowing ‘all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention’

WikiLeaks

If you’re interested in the files themselves, you can find them on WikiLeaks or download the main leak right here:

Or you can download the Analytical Points demanded by the Courage Foundation which address all the issues (read: unacceptable practices and inaccuracies) that the OPCW continually fails to address:

It’s a crazy world we live in. Made even crazier by corrupt governments willing to commit false flags and bomb innocent people just to keep their power.