By Danny C. | DCPeriodical | 11/24/19 |
Just as DCPeriodical showed you as part of our Syrian War breakdown, the alleged April 8th, 2018 Assad-launched chemical attacks in Douma were nothing more than a false flag operation to justify an American-British-French missile attack against Syrian government controlled territories.
To quote from that piece:
On April 8th, 2018, it was alleged that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in an attack against rebels in Douma, Syria, leading to the deaths of forty to fifty individuals, while wounding nearly double that. One week later, American, British, and French forces delivered a series of attacks against Syrian government-controlled sites in Damascus.
While Assad asserted he didn’t use chemical weapons, and therefore these responsive attacks on his capital were in violation of international law, an investigation was launched by the international body known as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which concluded chemical weapons were indeed used in the Douma attack, thus justifying the Western retaliations.
However, as time went on, doubts began to arise over the OPCW report. Videos of the aftermath in Douma were released on corporate news programs which were heavily criticized as being faked.
Then the whole narrative was blown to pieces when a whistleblower from within the OPCW came forward to Wikileaks with official documentation showing the report which concluded the chemical attacks in Douma took place was an unreliable fraud.
Wikileaks went ahead and convened a panel—which included, among others, first Director-General of the OPCW, Dr. José Bustani—to debrief the whistleblower.
Following that briefing, Wikileaks published the documents they had received, and OPCW Director-General Dr. Bustani had this to say:
“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.”– Dr. José Bustani, First Director-General of the OPCW, Wikileaks, Oct. 23, 2019.
Days later, the Guardian’s Middle East correspondent Jonathan Steele, who also attended the briefing, spoke about what he witnessed on Paul Henley’s BBC World Service Programme, where he revealed the whistleblower was not only the OPCW scientist tasked with taking samples from the alleged attack site, but he was the second scientist to come forward and expose the episode as a hoax:
“I attended a briefing by a whistleblower from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons… [He] was in charge of picking up the samples in the affected areas, and in neutral areas, to check whether there were chlorine derivatives there…and he found that there was no difference.”–Jonathan Steel, BBC World Service Programme, Oct. 27, 2019.
‘These two scientists,’ Steele reasoned about the whistleblowers later, ‘I think they’re non-political. They wouldn’t have been sent to Douma if they’d had strong political views, by the OPCW. They want to speak to the Conference of the Member States in November, next month, and give their views, and be allowed to come forward publicly with their concerns. Because they’ve tried to raise them internally and been, they say they’ve been suppressed, their views have been suppressed.’
At this point, with multiple whistleblowers coming forward with documented evidence, it should be safe to say the chemical attack narrative in Douma was a propaganda operation to green light the American-led attacks on Damascus, making those attacks, as Assad had submitted, unprovoked, and therefore, an international war crime. But not only that, with the OPCW being exposed to have faked its reports, it calls into question every other supposed chemical weapons attack they’ve ever presented a conclusion on (DCPeriodical 11/16/19).
Well, yesterday another leaked document was released, this one in the form of an email sent from a scientist on the ground at Douma tasked with testing and evaluating the evidence for signs of chemical weapons being used. According to this whistleblower, whose name has not been released as of yet, no chemicals were used. The final report given by the OPCW in no way reflected the findings of the OPCW investigators. It was a fraud.
This is the third leaked piece of evidence to damn the chemical attack narrative in as many months, putting the OPCW and the US, UK, and French governments close to the razor’s edge for the now all-but-proven unprovoked attacks they launched against the Assad government in retaliation, and just more proof that the Syrian war, like the Iraq and Libyan wars before it, is completely based on lies (ie. to ‘fight ISIS’) and truly designed to destabilize and overthrow the self determined government of a foreign country not bowing to Western control.
Sent: 22nd June 2018 08:27
Subject: Grave concern about the ‘redacted’ Douma report
I wish to express, as a member of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) team that conducted the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April, my gravest concern at the redacted version of the FFM report, which I understand was at the behest of the ODG. (Office of the Director General). After reading this modified report, which incidentally no other team member who deployed into Douma has had the opportunity to do, I was struck by how much it misrepresents the facts. Many of the facts and observations outlined in the full version are inextricably interconnected and, by selectively omitting certain ones, an unintended bias has been introduced into the report, undermining its credibility. In other cases, some crucial facts that have remained in the redacted version have morphed into something quite different to what was initially drafted. If I may, I will outline some specific aspects to the redacted report that are particularly worrisome.
The statement in paragraph 8.3 of the final conclusions ‘The team has sufficient evidence at this time to determine that chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical, was likely released from cylinders’, is highly misleading and not supported by the facts. The only evidence available at this moment is that some samples collected at Locations 2 and 4 were in contact with one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include molecular chlorine, phosgene, cyanogen chloride, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen chloride or sodium hypochlorite (the major ingredient of household chlorine-based bleach). Purposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous. It is also worth noting that the term ‘reactive chlorine-containing chemical’ used in the redacted report is, in fact, inaccurate. It actually describes a reactive chemical that contains chlorine which itself (the chlorine) is not necessarily reactive e.g. chlorophenol. The original report uses the more accurate term ‘a chemical containing reactive chlorine’.
The redacted report states that the gas was likely released from the cylinders (in Locations 2 and 4). The original report purposely emphasised the fact that, although the cylinders might have been the source of the suspected chemical release, there was insufficient evidence to affirm this. It is possible the error was simply a typo. This is a major deviation from the original report.
Paragraph 8.2 states that ‘based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives, […] detected in environmental samples’. Describing the levels as ‘high’ likely overstates the extent of levels of chlorinated organic derivatives detected. They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.
The original report discusses in detail the inconsistency between the victims’ symptoms, as reported by witnesses and seen in video recordings. 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. It either supports or detracts from the confidence in the identity of any possible chemical. In this case the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any 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 FFM team but strongly noted by three toxicologists with expertise in exposure to CW (Chemical Weapons) agents.
The original report has extensive sections regarding the placement of the cylinders at both locations as well as the relative damage caused to the impact points, compared to that caused to the cylinders suspected of being the sources of the toxic chemical. These sections are essentially 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.
A feature of this investigation and report was the robust and extensive scientific basis for sampling plans and analysing the data collected. A comprehensive bibliography of peer-reviewed scientific literature was attached to support and enhance the credibility of the work of the mission. This has unfortunately been omitted from the redacted report.
By singling out chlorine above other equally plausible substances containing reactive chlorine and presenting it as a fact in isolation creates, I believe, a level of partiality that would negatively impact on the perceived credibility of the report, and by extension that of the Organisation. I am requesting that the fact-finding report be released in its entirety as I fear that this redacted version no longer reflects the work of the team. The original report contains facts and observations that are all equally valid. The fact that inconsistencies are highlighted or observations not fully understood does not justify their omission. The inconsistencies and observations are based on the evidence and data collected. Further information in the future may help resolve them but the facts as they stand at present will not alter and need to be reported.
If the redacted version is to be released, I respectfully request to attach my differing observations, in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 62 of part II of the Verification Annex of the CWC.
(Key passages emphasised by Mail on Sunday)
Like what you read? As independent media, continuation of this periodical is only possible through the kind support of our readers. Become a patron by donating here, or you can show your support by simply clicking one of the share buttons at the top or bottom of this article.