The UN Has Had Evidence
That Syrian Rebels Have Been Using Chemical Weapons Since May
By
Michael Snyder, on September 9th, 2013
Did you know that the United Nations has had evidence that the Syrian
rebels have been using sarin gas against Syrian government forces since
May?
This was reported
by Reuters and other major news organizations around the world, but
there has been an almost total blackout of this information by the big
corporate news outlets in the United States. So why are they keeping the
truth from us?
What you are about to read might
really surprise you. The Syrian rebels have been caught red-handed with
sarin gas in their possession, the UN has had evidence that the
rebels have been using sarin gas for several months, and the Syrian rebels
have even admitted that they were the ones that caused the deadly gas attack
that the U.S. government is using as justification to attack Syria.
Please share this article
with as many people as you can, because it is absolutely imperative that
we get the truth in front of the American people.All the way back before
the beginning of the summer, the UN has known that the rebels have been
using sarin gas against forces loyal to Assad. The following is
from a
Reuters report that was published back in May“U.N. human rights investigators have
gathered testimony from casualties of Syrias civil war and medical
staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin,
one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.“‘The United Nations independent
commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of
government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned
under international law,’ said commission member Carla Del Ponte.’Our investigators have been in
neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field
hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have
seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet
incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the
victims were treated,’ Del Ponte said in an interview with
Swiss-Italian television.’This was use on the part of the
opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she
added, speaking in Italian.”But that was not even the first mention
of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian rebels in the international
press. Haaretz
reported back on March 24th that it appeared that the Syrian rebels
were using crude chemical weapons against Assad“The explosion claimed the lives of
Syrian Armed Forces soldiers who are apparently loyal to Assad, and
the Syrian government was quick to demand an international
investigation of the incident. These two facts would indicate that
Assads forces were not behind the attack.“In addition, from what has been
released of the physical and medical evidence, it seems that some of
the injuries were caused by chlorine. While chlorine gas has been
used in the past as a weapon, mainly in the First World War, the
chemical arsenals of nations developing these weapons have for
decades focused mainly on mustard gas and various types of nerve
agents, which, had they been used last week, would have caused
different symptoms that were not observed.“It appears that the target of the
attack was a checkpoint manned by Syrian Armed Forces, which
reinforces the theory that rebel forces, probably jihadists known to
be operating around Aleppo, were behind it. A report by Britains
Channel Four, based on Syrian military sources, claims that the
weapon used in the attack may have been a missile carrying a warhead
filled with chlorine mixed into a saline solution. The Syrian source
also said that a factory that manufactures chlorine is located
nearby.”In June,
Turkish forces actually seized a large cylinder of sarin gas from Syrian
rebels along the border between Turkey and Syria“Russia has called on Turkey to share
its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the
Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of nerve gas sarin.”And there is lots of video evidence that
rebels have been repeatedly using chemical weapons that were
manufactured in Saudi Arabia during the Syrian civil war. If you doubt
this, just check out
this article.That brings us to the horrible chemical
weapon attack which resulted in so many deaths that the United States is
apparently so concerned about.The U.S. claims that the Syrian rebels do
not have the capacity for such at attack and that therefore it must have
been the work of Syrian government forces, but those on the ground have
discovered a whole host of evidence to the contrary.For example, Dale
Gavlak, a reporter that has worked for
the AP, NPR and the BBC, has conducted numerous interviews with rebel
fighters that openly admit that the chemical attack was carried out by
rebel forces“However, from numerous
interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their
families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain
rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the
dealing gas attack.’My son came to me two
weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been
asked to carry,’ said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel
fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.“Abdel-Moneim said his son
and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store
weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was
leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as
having a ‘tube-like structure’ while others were like a ‘huge gas
bottle.’And according to Gavlak, the
chemical weapons had been supplied to Jabhat al-Nusra by Saudi Arabia’They didnt tell us what
these arms were or how to use them,’ complained a female fighter
named K. ‘We didnt know they were chemical weapons. We never
imagined they were chemical weapons.”’When Saudi Prince Bandar
gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know
how to handle and use them,’ she warned. She, like other Syrians, do
not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.A well-known rebel leader
in Ghouta named J agreed. ‘Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not
cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground.
They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary
rebels to carry and operate this material,’ he said.”So if the U.S. truly wants to bomb the
ones that are responsible for the chemical weapon attacks, should they
actually be bombing Saudi Arabia instead of Syria?But of course the U.S. would never do
such a thing. The Saudis are our friends.Sadly, there is a growing body of
evidence that the Saudis actually helped set this whole thing up to draw
the U.S. military into the conflict. At least that is the conclusion
that one
group of former U.S. intelligence analysts has come to“Former U.S. intelligence analysts
claim current intelligence analysts have told them Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for the Aug. 21 poison gas
attack on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, which killed 1,429
people, of whom more than 400 where children.“They claim the growing body of
evidence reveals the incident was a pre-planned provocation by the
Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters.’The aim is reported to have been to
create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into
the war,’ one former U.S. intelligence analysts said.“The analysts referred to a meeting a
week before the Aug. 21 incident in which opposition military
commanders ordered preparations for an imminent escalation’ due to
a ‘war-changing development that would be followed by the ‘U.S.-led
bombing of Syria.’And there is a lot of other evidence that
the Syrian rebels were behind the attack as well. The following is from
a recent article
by Paul Joseph Watson“In addition,
leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year
between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a
plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an
area the size of one kilometer.Footage was also leaked showing opposition militants testing
what appeared to be nerve agents on laboratory rabbits.“On
Thursday we featured a video of an FSA militant apparently
confessing to using chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin
Ladens mantra of killing women and children.”Unfortunately, even though a small
minority of Americans are very passionate about these things, most
Americans dont really seem to care. In fact, most Americans seem to be
far more interested in
Miley Cyrus than what is going on in Syria“Outbrain supplies
‘related links’ modules to a network of 100,000 publishers,
including major news sources like CNN, Fox News, and ESPN. On any
given day, 87 percent of Americans who browse the web will view a
page with an Outbrain module, explains the companys vice-president
of global marketing. They collect traffic data from every site in
their network, which they use in a variety of algorithms to generate
recommendations.“In the three days surrounding
Mileys VMA performance and the Obama administration signaling
its willingness to
bomb Syria, Outbrains network generated 8,104 stories about the
former and 19,568 about the latter. The day after the VMAs, Miley
Cyrus stories accounted for 12 percent of total U.S. page views,
while Syria stories accounted for 1 percent.“Interest in the starlet
significantly outpaced Syria in England, Australia, France, Germany,
and every other nation in Outbrains analysis except Israel and
Russia. Globally, Miley Cyrus stories generated eight times as many
page views as Syria did in the days surrounding the VMAs.”Hopefully Congress will vote not to
authorize a military strike on Syria. Hopefully cooler heads will
prevail.But I wouldnt count on it.
On Monday, the White House once again
made it abundantly clear that Obama believes that he has the authority
to strike Syria even
without the approval of Congress“The White House insisted Monday that
it was legally able to launch a strike on Syria without
congressional approval even as it intensified its courting of
lawmakers to support military action.“White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler
told the New York Times that a strike would be lawful under both
domestic and international law. She told the paper that the
president could strike because of the ‘important national interests’
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, even without Congress or
United Nations approval.“‘Ruemmler contended that while the
Syria situation may not fit under a traditionally recognized legal
basis under international law, it would nevertheless be ‘justified
and legitimate.’Please share this with as many people as
you can.We are about to start a major war in the
Middle East based on a lie. We need to try to stop this while we still
can.
About the author:
Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now
publishes
The Truth.