Red Flags and False Flags: Syria 'Gas Attacks' and the Real Douma Conspiracy - Part 2 | Deep Dives 19

Screenshot_2020-09-07 douma false flag it's a fake at DuckDuckGo.png

This is part 2, exposing the the real Douma conspiracy. If you haven't already, please check out part 1 here, to get the full context of this expose...

Whistleblowers, Wikileaks, and a Whitewashed Report

As documented in part 1, the evidence against the official western narrative that Assad gassed his people in Douma Syria on April, 7, 2018 is flimsy at best, and evidence against that piled up quickly.

As already mentioned, the interim OPCW report released in early July, 2018, contradicted the western claims used as the pretext to attack Syria, that Syrian forces had deployed nerve gas in a chemical attack on Douma.

no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties.

The point of contention over whether or not physical evidence of any chemical weapons had actually been found would arise from the report's reference to lab detection of various “chlorinated organic chemicals” in some samples taken.

Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody

As pointed out by a number of independent journalists at the time, the levels of these chemicals were not given, with this ambiguity raising serious concern as to whether or not they had been present in higher concentrations than the surrounding environment, because a variety of chlorinated organic chemicals are actually quite commonplace, and are not necessarily indicative of a chlorine gas attack.

New OPCW Report, Nail in the Coffin of White House & Western Media Syria Narrative: “No Nerve Agents Were Detected”

The western media nonetheless immediately jumped on this report as if it constituted absolute proof of a chlorine attack, as one would have expected, and their jump to this conclusion appeared to be vindicated when the final OPCW report was published on March 1, 2019, the summary of the findings declaring that a chlorine attack had 'likely' taken place:

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma, the evaluation and analysis of all the above-referenced information gathered by the FFM provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

The findings of the report even appeared to indicate that the only plausible scenario was that the two chlorine canisters had been dropped from the air – implicating Assad and the Syrian Arab Army. The case was settled for the establishment, finally able to put the widely persisting 'conspiracies' about a rebel false flag to rest. But things were not all as they seemed.

Two months after the final OPCW report was published, the first document calling it's findings into serious question was leaked – an internal engineering assessment that had been completed in February, first shared with the Working Group on Syrian Propaganda and Media, and later published by Wikileaks

The 15-page document had been prepared by veteran OPCW inspection team leader, one of the members of the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) who visited Douma, who was assigned as the leader of the investigation into the two canisters located at the alleged attack site. Henderson's detailed assessment based on first hand inspection of the scene and months of analysis had been left out of the final report, and came to a radically different conclusion.

In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.

The engineering sub-team dutifully attempted to recreate every possible scenario in which the cylinders could have been dropped from an aircraft, and was not able to “establish a set of circumstances ...consistent with observations” which could have resulted in the cylinders being dropped from the air, and thus were unambiguous in their conclusion: the “alternative hypothesis” of the cylinders being “manually placed” in both locations “rather than being delivered from aircraft” was “the only plausible explanation.”

After reviewing the engineering report, Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, “The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged.”

8063408D-CBE5-4B65-9A48-931673E564B5.jpeg

It is noteworthy that the very same analyst who had initially concluded, based upon his analysis of the photographic evidence alone, that the cylinders were undoubtedly dropped from an aircraft when communicating with James Harkin; made a complete reversal in opinion after reviewing the leaked report which was based upon detailed analysis, observations and measurements taken by those who had physically visited and personally inspected the scene.

The Working Group on Syria and Propaganda and Media (WGSPM), upon analyzing and comparing the leaked engineering assessment with the two formal OPCW reports and other open source material – noting that numerous eyewitness accounts indicate the hospital scene was staged and the high improbability of a case fatality rate of 100% with no attempt by the victims to escape resulting in any chlorine attack – concluded that:

“Taken together, these findings establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 was staged.”

Which of course again brings up the question of how the dead bodies pictured at the scene had arrived and where they may have come from. That they were murdered by Jaish al-Islam or White Helmets and then brought to the scene and manually placed there along with the cylinders as part of the staging of an attack is certainly a possible scenario. Evidence of bodies being moved about and indication of White Helmets “manipulation” of the scene referenced above supports this theory. In this regard, the working group writes that:

The images of the victims seen at Location 2 show that they were evidently exposed to an irritant gas but were unable to escape. A careful examination of these images leaves little doubt that the victims were murdered as captives. The staining of the victims’ faces by mucus flowing from their noses and mouths shows in at least some cases the mucus flowed up their faces towards the eyes. This implies that they were hung upside down while exposed to the agent. Bizarrely, the eyes of most victims appear to have been masked so that the eyes were not affected by gas or mucus. In a few victims there are visible strap marks suggesting that the eyes were protected by something like swimming goggles. A possible motive for masking the eyes may have been to make it less obvious that the victims had suffered prolonged exposure to an irritant gas.

They subsequently concluded that, “the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of at least 35 civilians to provide the bodies at Location 2. It follows from this that people dressed as White Helmets and endorsed by the leadership of that organization had a key role in this murder,” the group said.

They also noted that: “The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder.”

More evidence would continue to surface, revealing the full scope of the OPCW role and participation in an intentional cover-up employed to suppress all evidence which ran counter to the mainstream narrative, and indeed complicity in a US conspiracy to frame Assad for an attack that there is no evidence he was behind. The final report, it turns out, had been completely whitewashed, and even the interim report had been redacted from its original form. The large body of evidence which has now emerged shows the clear picture of a severely compromised organization working under western pressure and guidance. OPCW top leadership attempted to discredit both Henderson and the engineering report, alleging that Henderson's investigation was unauthorized and that the subsequent report was not a part of the OPCW investigation. A leaked email published by Wikileaks on December 27 reveals that the organization explicitly instructed the engineering document be purged from its records, indicating its initial existence as a part of the official investigation, and that the suppression of its findings was intentional.

Get Engineering Report Out Email.PNG

“Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive]... And please remove all traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA,” instructed Sebastian Braha, who in a previous email claimed the work had been conducted “outside FFM authority” by “someone who was not a part of the FFM.” The author is of course Ian Henderson, very much a part of the FFM team and working with their authorization at the time.

The WGSPM noted, in its summary of the leaked engineering assessment, that it had “confirmed that as the engineering expert on the FFM, Henderson was assigned to lead the investigation of the cylinders and alleged impact sites at Locations 2 and 4.”

In response to an enquiry on 11 May 2019, the OPCW press office stated that “the individual mentioned in the document has never been a member of the FFM”. This statement is false. The engineering sub-team could not have been carrying out studies in Douma at Locations 2 and 4 unless they had been notified by OPCW to the Syrian National Authority (the body that oversees compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention) as FFM inspectors: it is unlikely that Henderson arrived on a tourist visa.

The OPCW press office also attempted to suggest that the report of the engineering sub-team was not part of the FFM’s investigation. This statement also is false. The sub-team report refers to external collaborators and consultants: we understand that this included two European universities. This external collaboration on such a sensitive matter could not have gone ahead unless it had been authorised: otherwise Henderson would have been dismissed instantly for breach of confidentiality. We can therefore be confident that the preparation of the report had received the necessary authorisation within OPCW.

Sure enough, leaked internal OPCW documents later obtained by the Grayzone in early May, 2020 would verify Henderson's role as an officially appointed member of the FFM team sent to Douma, confirming the statements made above. Ian Henderson is listed under PCW “Mission Personnel” as a member of the FFM.

An OPCW communiqué from the Office of the Director General (ODG) said it would be “happy” if the inspections of the cylinders “are led by Ian Henderson.”

Ian authorized.PNG

An extract from an OPCW notification to the Syrian government adding Ian Henderson to the FFM team of inspectors in Douma can be seen below:

Ian Sent to Syria.PNG

Top OPCW management had been caught lying with the intent to discredit Henderson and his work – the engineering assessment it had suppressed and omitted from its final report.

Ian Henderson would later personally come forward to authenticate his work and give a detailed summary of its suppression and the surrounding events within the OPCW at the time which led to its ultimate omission from the final report. Meanwhile, the first OPCW whistle blower came forward in October, who presented his testimony and evidence before a panel assembled by the Courage Foundation, a group dedicated to supporting whistleblowers. Among those in attendance was Wikileaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson, and Wikileaks subsequently published a statement made by the panel.

Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.

José Bustani, the first Director General of the OPCW and Ambassador of Brazil, one of the attendees of the panel later spoke out about his concerns over the apparent cover-up.

“The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani stated. “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,” the former OPCW head concluded.

On November 15, former correspondent for the Guardian and journalist Jonathon Steele's article, The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors, was published by CounterPunch, detailing the whistleblower's story about the OPCW cover up and how it had played out. Steele had attended the panel, and obtained the whistleblower's identity, but out of fear of retaliation, the former OPCW investigator preferred to remain anonymous, going by the pseudonym 'Alex'.

“Most of the Douma team felt the two reports on the incident, the Interim Report and the Final Report, were scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent”, he said.

Alex addressed the issue of “chlorinated organic chemical” levels found at the site, reinforcing the suspicions of many independent researchers who had questioned what these levels had been and why they hadn't been included in the interim report.

According to Alex there were huge internal arguments at the OPCW before the Interim report was released. Chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) are present in the natural environment so one crucial point in discovering what actually happened at Douma was to measure the amount in the locations where the two cylinders were found and in the other parts of the two buildings and the street outside. As Alex put it, “if the finding of these chemicals at the alleged site is to be used as an indicator that chlorine gas was present in the atmosphere, they should at least be shown to be present at levels significantly higher than what is present in the environment already”.

But the analysis of these levels in the samples weren't passed on the inspector drafting the OPCW report, but rather kept with the FFM's leader.

The inspector did, however, have the analysis from the samples of blood, hair, and other biological data from eleven alleged victims who had gone from Douma to Turkey. In no case did the samples reveal any relevant chemicals. On this basis he wrote in his report that the signs and symptoms of victims were not consistent with poisoning from chlorine. Instead of an attack producing multiple fatalities there had been “a non chemical-related event”, it said.

“But the implications of implying a non-chemical event were dramatic,” Steele writes. “Like the engineering report, it hinted that the Douma incident may have been staged by opposition activists.”

Alex described this as “the elephant in the room which no-one dared mention explicitly”.

On the eve of the expected publication of the interim report, the inspector who had drafted it “discovered that management was going to issue a redacted version on June 22 2018 without the knowledge of most of the Douma Fact-Finding Mission. Its conclusions contradicted the inspector’s version.”

The inspector then finally saw for the first time the results “which indicated that the levels of COCs were much lower than what would be expected in environmental samples...comparable to and even lower than those given in the World Health Organisation’s guidelines on recommended permitted levels of trichlorophenol and other COCs in drinking water.” But the redacted version of the report conveniently omitted and made no mention of these findings.

Alex described this omission as “deliberate and irregular”. “Had they been included, the public would have seen that the levels of COCs found were no higher than you would expect in any household environment”, he said.
Steele then went on to explain how the furious inspector who had drafted the original report wrote an email of complaint to the OPCW director general.

The DG was Ahmet Uzumcu, a Turkish diplomat but his chef de cabinet, the man considered to have the most power in the OPCW on day-to-day issues was Bob Fairweather, a British career diplomat. (He has since been succeeded by Sebastien Braha, a diplomat from another anti-Assad government, France). In his email the inspector complained that it was wrong for the new report to describe the levels of COCs as high. He insisted that his original 105-page report be published.

Braha is, as we have seen, the OPCW official who falsely stated that Ian Henderson had not been an FFM member authorized to carry out the inspection of the cylinders, and subsequently had his engineering report removed from OPCW files. As it turns out, the omission of such evidence from the final report and the redaction of the interim report appear to have been a direct result of western, specifically US, pressure.

On July 4 there was another intervention. Fairweather, the chef de cabinet, invited several members of the drafting team to his office. There they found three US officials who were cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented. The Americans told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack, and that the two cylinders found on the roof and upper floor of the building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors left Fairweather’s office, feeling that the invitation to the Americans to address them was unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.

Alex recalled that when the interim report was released two days later, “a senior colleague told us: ‘First floor [management] says that for the OPCW’s credibility we have to have a smoking gun”.

Wikileaks would later publish emails supporting Alex's claims, that Douma team members were in serious disagreement with upper management over the choice to release this redacted report, and that members had complained via email about the exclusion of reference to the COC results and their actual levels, which were apparently quite low and not indicative of any chemical weapon deployment at that location. One such series of email correspondences took place on July 5, published by Wikileaks on December 14. In an earlier email dated June 22, 2018, the only Douma team member who had been allowed to read the redacted version of the report expressed “grave concerns,” noting he was “struck by how much it misrepresents the facts,” which in the redacted version had “have morphed into something quite different to what was originally drafted.”

The author of this email also notes the omission of known discrepancies between symptoms of patients with the potential use of chlorine, supported by “three toxicologists with expertise in chemical weapons.”

Email_COC1-1.png
Email COC_2-2.png

Wikileaks would on December 27 publish minutes from this June 6 meeting, confirming both that it took place and revealing its conclusions, which were subsequently omitted from the redacted report. The chief expert at the meeting elaborated on both the possibility that the event had been a chemical attack and also “the possibility of the event being a propaganda exercise.”

With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure.

Then, after the meeting, all the members of the OPCW who were present gathered together and reviewed the points discussed.

It was agreed among all present that “the key take away message” from the meeting was that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified.

Screenshot_2020-09-06 actual_toxicology_meeting_redacted pdf.png
Screenshot_2020-09-06 actual_toxicology_meeting_redacted pdf(1).png

All of this emerging evidence strongly suggests there had been no chemical attack on site at all, and that the entire event had been staged just like the hospital scene.

On January 20, 2020, speaking to the UN at a Security Council session via pre-recorded video statements, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging suppression of his findings by OPCW leadership but maintaining that he did not see himself as a whistleblower.

The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.

The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.

“By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred,” Henderson told the Security Council. This aligns with Alex's testimony, and is documented in leaked internal emails. The final report, far more so even than the redacted interim report, was a completely falsified whitewash of reality.

“The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments,” he said. This is because it was written by an entirely new team which had never even visited Douma – deemed the “FFM core team” - “which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.”

“In my case,” he added, “I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.”

The original first draft/unredacted version of the interim OPCW report has been published by Wikileaks so that it can be compared with the widely available redacted report, to see the changes and omissions that were made.

An OPCW memo from March 19, 2018, subsequently published by Wikileaks, reveals that only one member of the orginal FFM team sent to Douma (“a paramedic”) were retained as a part of the “FFM core team” which drafted the final report, and that 20 inspectors have expressed concern over OPCW handling of the investigation, which led to the total whitewashing of the final report under pressure by western powers.

Screenshot_2020-09-06 DG-memo1 pdf.png

The allegation made by the whistleblower Alex, that the US had pressured the organization to whitewash the reports in favor of its pre-ordained conclusion, is not as outlandish as it may at first seem. And, if this pressure included threats against members of the organization as one might presume, it wouldn't be the first time US operatives threatened OPCW leadership in an attempt to sway the organization's decisions. As the Grayzone recounts, it happened to the first OPCW director general:

In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US government.

Then-Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick “Cheney wants you out.” Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you… We know where your kids live.”

A third OPCW whistleblower has in fact now come forward suggesting this very type of threat-based scenario played out during the Douma investigation to force the desired results via whitewashing and suppression of evidence. A former senior OPCW official who contacted the Grayzone in January of this year, disagreed with how they and other team members had at the time been “excluded from the decision making process,” and expressed their fear of those in the upper positions of power.

“I fear those behind the crimes that have been perpetrated in the name of 'humanity and democracy', they will not hesitate to do harm to me and my family, they have done worse, many times, even in the UK,” the senior official wrote. “I don’t want to expose my self and my family to their violence and revenge, I don’t want to live in fear of crossing the street!”
The whistleblower also noted: “My ethical behavior, which I made clear from day one at the OPCW, turned me into someone not useful to the group.”

THIRD WHISTLEBLOWER.png

This sidelining of objective investigators with moral integrity seems to have been the case for all but one of the original Douma FFM team members, who would be entirely excluded from contributing to the final report, replaced by an entirely new team who had never been to Syria to investigate, but had instead visited 'Country X'. Country X is quite possibly Turkey, where a number of witnesses (White Helmets and 'opposition activists' who had fled Douma along with the terrorists) and alleged victims were interviewed. Those who were not useful in helping to formulate findings and a conclusion compatible with the predetermined outcome decreed by the US, would not be allowed to take part in the imperialist sham.

Proof of a Conspiracy

The scope of this criminal conspiracy to suppress and discredit any and all evidence challenging the imperial narrative extended far beyond the western governments and the OPCW, to the whole of western corporate media.

Those who wished to cover both sides of the story, particularly any news about the OPCW scandal suggested by the whistleblowers, could either bite their tongues and keep their mouths shut, or start looking for another job outside the establishment media.
A year after the alleged attacks took place in April of 2019, Tareq instead opted to give up his cushy mainstream media career to blow the lid on what he described as the “mafia” that runs editors.

“Until several days ago, I was a journalist at Newsweek,” Tareq Haddad, one rare journalist who simply wasn’t willing to to stay silent any longer wrote. “I decided to hand my resignation in because, in essence, I was given a simple choice. On one hand, I could continue to be employed by the company, stay in their chic London offices and earn a steady salary—only if I adhered to what could or could not be reported and suppressed vital facts. Alternatively, I could leave the company and tell the truth.”

He chose to tell the truth, even though it meant facing unemployment and the likely inability to ever find a job in the industry again, not to mention bringing the entire wrath of the establishment media and their rabid smear campaigns down on him. He knew the cost, and took the high road anyway, blowing the whistle on the controlled corporate propaganda construct known as the media and publishing his story - Lies, Newsweek and Control of the Media Narrative: First Hand Account

In doing so, he would expose the corporate media’s monopoly on the Douma narrative and their orchestrated war on the truth, shedding much light on the true scope of the western conspiracy to frame Assad and their efforts to suppress, even erase, all evidence threatening that narrative - no matter the cost.

Those who wished to cover both sides of the story, particularly any news about the OPCW scandal suggested by the whistleblowers, could either bite their tongues and keep their mouths shut, or start looking for another job outside the establishment media.

A year after the alleged attacks took place in April of 2019, Tareq instead opted to give up his cushy mainstream media career to blow the lid on what he described as the “mafia” that runs editors.

“Until several days ago, I was a journalist at Newsweek,” Tareq Haddad, one rare journalist who simply wasn’t willing to to stay silent any longer wrote. “I decided to hand my resignation in because, in essence, I was given a simple choice. On one hand, I could continue to be employed by the company, stay in their chic London offices and earn a steady salary—only if I adhered to what could or could not be reported and suppressed vital facts. Alternatively, I could leave the company and tell the truth.”

He chose to tell the truth, even though it meant facing unemployment and the likely inability to ever find a job in the industry again, not to mention bringing the entire wrath of the establishment media and their rabid smear campaigns down on him. He knew the cost, and took the high road anyway, blowing the whistle on the controlled corporate propaganda construct known as the media by publishing his story - Lies, Newsweek and Control of the Media Narrative: First Hand Account

In doing so, he would expose the corporate media’s monopoly on the Douma narrative and their orchestrated war on the truth, shedding much light on the true scope of the western conspiracy to frame Assad and their efforts to suppress, even erase, all evidence threatening that narrative - no matter the cost.

“When the facts presented are utterly ignored and the messengers themselves are crucified in this way, it signals to right-minded people who the true perpetrators of lies are and where the the truth in fact lies.”

And the truth lies somewhere within the ever ridiculed ‘conspiracy theories’ about Douma, not with those who punish and suppress absolutely everyone who dares to report the facts of the case.

Let me be clear: there is evidence that a United Nations body—whose jurisdiction was established after the world agreed to never repeat the horrors of World War I and World War II, such asGerman forces firing more than 150 tons of chlorine gas at French colonial troops in Ypres—is being weaponized to sell the case for war.

After summarizing the internal OPCW disagreements between Douma team members and the leadership ignoring their conclusion and omitting their findings from the published reports, Tareq went on to explain:

Real OPCW scientists have met with real journalists and explained the timeline of events. They provided internal documents that proved these allegations—documents that were then confirmed by Reuters. This is all I wanted to report.

Meanwhile, OPCW scientists were prevented from investigating Turkey’s alleged use of white phosphorus. This flagrant politicization of a neutral body is opening the world up to repeating the same horrors we experienced in those two devastating wars.

“This is unacceptable and I resigned when I was forbidden from reporting on this,” the journalist concluded.

There can be no doubt where the true conspiracy lies, and who the true conspirators are.

A massive study based upon extensive enterviews with former-White Helmets and Syrians would fully expose the truth and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the April 7 event had been a staged false flag. Maxim Grigoriev, presented the 250-page study “White Helmets: Terrorist Accomplices and a Source of Disinformation,” on April 25th, 2019.

As summarized by SouthFront, which did an excellent report on this including numerous testimonies from Syrians and White Helmets, and I highly recommend reading for yoursel :

Furthermore, the report concluded that the White Helmets had special units that were primarily engaged in producing fake news and staged footage. The White Helmets leaders and staff misappropriated the funds allocated by the Western countries, plundered shops and flats, as well as stole valuables from the dead and wounded.

In total, 15 witnesses from Douma at the site of the April 7th, 2018 incident were interviewed. 40 members of the White Helmets who provided a detailed description of the methods commonly used by the organization to carry out staged footage.

Furthermore, more than 25 people who witnessed the White Helmets stage the chemical attacks were also interviewed.

Early this year, Henderson also submitted to the OPCW a detailed written account that was distributed among participating UN member states (available here, no doubt the the most extensive and detailed account of the internal OPCW dispute. There are even more Douma documents released by Wikileaks that I didn't have time or space to cover, as well, all supporting the imperial conspiracy to frame Assad and suppress the truth.

The verdict is in, and anyone willing to accept the incredibly large body of evidence countering the imperial narrative can see just where the truth lies, and it's not with the empire. There is still to this day no credible evidence that Assad or the Syrian Arab Army were responsible for either the alleged chemical attacks of April 4, 2017, or April 7, 2018. As Tucker Carlson said from the very beginning, they were clearly lying to us, and the whole story was a vile crock of propaganda, just like so much of what they say...

The western war machine marches on, but their lies are getting easier to see through every day. There are always red flags, when false flags are in process, and very often they can be spotted well before the evidence proving such is made fully known. Such was the case in this event. Let us hope Americans have learned their lesson, and will not blindly trust the government and media at face value the next time such an event goes down.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Replies
Sort Order