Archives For chemical weapons

An article by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books provides some very interesting information pointing to Turkey as having been the prime mover behind the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta. Continue Reading…

A few comments on the final UN report on alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria are in order.

The report provides evidence which suggests use of chemical weapons against the Syrian army, including on a fairly large-scale in Khan al-Assal and including with the use of Sarin. This has major implications which should give impetus to the peace negotiations in Geneva and ensure that the countries supporting the insurgency think very carefully about the dangers in what they are doing. Continue Reading…

Åke Sellström’s final report on the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria was handed over to the UN Secretary-General today (12th December) at 4.40pm EST. Continue Reading…

Key evidence about the range of the rockets allegedly used by the Syrian regime in the chemical attacks on 21st August in East Ghouta, which was first published by Human Rights Investigations (HRI) yesterday, indicates that widespread statements made by Human Rights Watch (HRW), government officials and the mass media about the attacks are erroneous. Continue Reading…

According to the Swedish Government web site, the long delayed final report of the UN team investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria is due to be presented to the UN on 13th December. Continue Reading…

In the aftermath of the chemical attack in Syria on August 21st, each side naturally blamed the other, with western intelligence agencies providing evidence supporting the opposition, and Russian intelligence supporting the regime. Both sides issued biased reports with cherry-picked evidence, only adding to the confusion. A sadly rushed and deficient interim UN Report by Professor Sellstrom and his team was published, which was interpreted by those favouring US cruise missile strikes as a veiled indictment of the Syrian regime.

To clear a way through the morass of propaganda, a new blog called ‘Who attacked Ghouta‘ (WaG) was set up as an online collaboration platform to investigate who was behind the attack. Since then, dozens of contributors have meticulously documented and analyzed thousands of pieces of evidence. Continue Reading…

In a surprise announcement, following this writer’s prompting of a question from the invaluable Inner City Press, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General has confirmed that the publication of the final UN report on chemical weapons use in Syria, which was to include the alleged attacks in Damascus as well as possible attacks by the rebels in Khan al-Assal and other places, has been delayed until early December. Continue Reading…

As the majority of the world’s media have misinterpreted the UN inspectors report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta, it is necessary to look closely at what the report actually says, to ensure the report is interpreted correctly and dispel the widespread perception the trajectories calculated by the inspectors indicate the rockets were launched from a Syrian government military base. Continue Reading…

The UN Security Council agreement on the destruction of all chemical weapons held in Syria, by both government and rebel forces, and the measures adopted to try to prevent the terrorist groups operating in the country from getting their hands on chemical weapons are welcome. However, these agreements need to be followed up by an overall political agreement, the formation of a non-sectarian government including elements of the opposition committed to human rights and democracy and an end to the illegal support of the sectarian, terrorist insurgency by western countries, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Continue Reading…

Human Rights Watch (HRW) Executive Director, Ken Roth, and New York Times (NYT) journalist CJ Chivers, were quick to argue the UN report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta proved the Syrian regime forces launched the attacks. However, analysis of the report suggests HRW and the NYT’s argument is flawed and illustrates that, as in Libya, where the opportunity for US air strikes presents itself, HRW displays militaristic (“responsibility to protect”) impulses and functions as a willing vehicle for pro-bombing propaganda. Continue Reading…