Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 19, 2018
Syria – Who Is Stalling The OPCW Investigation In Douma?

Why has the fact finding mission (FFM)of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) not visited Douma?

The OPCW inspectors are held up by the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) which has a say about any movement of UN aligned organizations in areas that might be dangerous. The UNDSS is led by an Australian police / intelligence officer. The holdup seems to be intended.

On Sunday April 8 videos were published of an alleged 'chemical attack' in Douma near Damascus. At that time the area was under control of Jaish al-Islam, a Salafi terrorist organization financed by Saudi Arabia. The various videos from terrorist supporters like the 'White Helmets' were unconvincing. They showed obviously arranged scenes of an alleged 'barrel bomb' and manipulated bodies of dead children that had been moved and decorated with shaving foam to superficially fit the claims of a 'chemical incident'. Another video showed people in a hospital being doused with water for no apparent reason.

An often quoted opposition news outlet, the Syrian Observatory in Britain, denied that a 'chemical attack' had happened. It reported on April 8 of suffocation after a shelter collapsed due to bombing:

[I]n among the casualties there are 21 civilians including 9 children and 3 women were killed as a result of suffocation caused by the shelling which destroyed basements of houses as a result of the violence bombardment that stopped about an hour ago on Douma area.

The 'chemical incident' was likely faked. It suspiciously happened just a few days after U.S. President Trump had announced the he wanted the U.S. military to leave Syria. A year earlier a similar incident was claimed to have happened after a similar announcement by Trump. The U.S. had responded to the 2017 incident by bombing an empty Syrian airfield.

A day after the incident the Salafi terrorists of Jaish al-Islam gave up and left the area under a ceasefire deal arranged with the help of the Russian military in Syria. The ceasefire deal does not allow the Syrian army to enter the area, only the Russian military police is allowed.

Russian military police immediately entered the area and investigated the house where, allegedly, people were killed by 'chemical weapons'. They found no evidence that such an event had taken place. The Syrian government asked the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical aWeapons (OPCW) to investigate the case.

Many international news teams have since visited the area where the incident allegedly took place. The also visited the field hospital shown in one of the opposition videos. Doctors at that hospital deny (vid) that any patient of theirs had been affected by a chemical attack. The cases they had seen had breathing difficulties caused by the inhalation of dust thrown up through exploding bombs and artillery. Alleged 'victims' shown in the hospital video claim (vid) they were paid to perform.

The regime-change shills are denying that any claims of the hospital staff working in the now government controlled Douma could be true. Medics are liars, unless they are controlled by Jihadis. See for example this shoddy propaganda piece by the Guardian: Syrian medics 'subjected to extreme intimidation' after Douma attack by Martin Chulov in Beirut and Kareem Shaheen in Istanbul.


bigger

The piece begins:

The head of the largest medical relief agency in Syria claims that medics who responded to the suspected gas attack in Douma have been subjected to “extreme intimidation” by Syrian officials who seized biological samples, forced them to abandon patients and demanded their silence.

Now look at the picture. It shows Syrian Red Crescent personal. The caption is false. It says: "Medics take a wounded man into hospital in Damascus after rockets were fired in Douma on 7 April." The picture is actually from a series published by the Syrian news agency SANA.


bigger

The SANA series is headlined: "Injuries among civilians in Jaish al-Islam mortar attacks on Damascus".

The attack was FROM the terrorists in Douma on civilians in Damascus, not IN Douma as the Guardian insinuates.

The pictured Red Crescent in Syria, founded in 1942, has 1,592 staff and some 6,000 volunteers. It is indeed the "the largest medical relief agency in Syria". But it is not the one the Guardian describes and quotes:

Dr Ghanem Tayara, the director of the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) said doctors responsible for treating patients in the hours after the 7 April attack have been told that their families will be at risk if they offer public testimonies about what took place.

The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations was founded in 2012, works from Reyhanli in Turkey and claims to have 600 staff. It consists of the Syrian American Medial Society (SAMS), which is funded by the CIA front USAID and lobbies for regime change in Syria, the British-Syrian Medical Society which only works in 'rebel' held areas, as well as British and U.S. p.o.-box 'charities' which collect donations. SAMS and UOSSM are said to be Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

The Guardian shows a Syrian Red Crescent/Red Cross picture in the context of ridiculous claims made by an organization on the side of the Jihadis. The Syrian Red Crescent has no relation to that organization. UOSSM is misidentified as the largest relief organization in Syria. Its claims are repeated without doubts by Guardian 'journalists' in Turkey and Lebanon to counter interviews and observations made by real journalists on the ground in Douma. The piece and its presentation is bottom fishing by a once reasonable paper. Jonathan Cook has more to say about that shoddy Guardian piece.

On Friday April 13 the OPCW fact finding mission arrived in Damascus. On Saturday France, the U.K and the United States, (FUKUS), bombed an agricultural and medical research center in Damascus as well as two Syrian army depots. The attack missed its other targets, a failure the U.S. military attempts to cover up. The attack came despite doubts in the Pentagon and elsewhere about what actually happened. High ranking British military generals have publicly doubted the claims of a Syrian 'chemical attack'.

The suburb where the alleged incident happened is only a few miles away from the center of Damascus. Journalists and camera teams walk all over the place without any protection and freely interview hospital personal. The OPCW has yet to reach the area. It claims that the security is insufficient.

Like other organizations aligned with the United Nations the OPCW is relying on the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) for intelligence and protection.

Yesterday the Director General of the OPCW Ahmet Üzümcü, a Turkish career diplomat who was earlier Turkey's Permanent Representative to NATO, issued a statement:

On 16 April, we received confirmation from the National Authority of the Syrian Arab Republic that, under agreements reached to allow the evacuation of the population in Ghouta, the Syrian military were unable to enter Douma. The security for the sites where the FFM plans to deploy was under the control of the Russian Military Police. The United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) has made the necessary arrangements with the Syrian authorities to escort the team to a certain point and then for the escort to be taken over by the Russian Military Police. However, the UNDSS preferred to first conduct a reconnaissance visit to the sites, which took place yesterday. FFM team members did not participate in this visit.

On arrival at Site 1, a large crowd gathered and the advice provided by the UNDSS was that the reconnaissance team should withdraw. At Site 2, the team came under small arms fire and an explosive was detonated. The reconnaissance team returned to Damascus.

(Note: Only about 10% of the population of the Ghouta area to which Douma belongs, the terrorist and their families, were evacuated. Other people have stayed or returned to the now liberated areas.)

No other organization reported of recent shots or explosions in Douma.

Even the New York Times, a staunch defender of the 'opposition' in Syria, wonders about the hold-up but does not bother to answer the question:

[T]he fact that journalists had been able to wander around Douma unmolested raised questions about why it was not deemed safe enough for the investigators to visit.

Why were, allegedly, shots fired at the UN Security team but not on anyone else visiting the area?

If, as the terrorist supporters claim, Chlorine was used in the 'chemical attack', the OSCE investigators are unlikely to find any physical evidence of it. Chlorine dissipates and leaves no unique traces in the dead body. Interviews with local witnesses though could be of value.

One gets the impression that certain circles fear the the OPCW could reach the area, talk to witnesses and confirm the claims made by doctors in the hospital as well as by many journalists that no 'chemical attack' took place. It would expose the attack on Syria as a reckless and unjustified war crime.

The leader of the UNDSS is an Australian police commander:

Mr. Drennan, who from 2009 served as Deputy Commissioner National Security with the Australian Federal Police, brings to the position an extensive career in policing and law enforcement at the community, national and international levels.

Is it possible that a distinguished Australian police commander delays or prevents the OPCW investigation to protect the British and U.S. allies?


Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the 'chemical attack' in Douma and its consequences.

April 8 Syria – Timelines Of 'Gas Attacks' Follow A Similar Scheme (Update II)
April 9 Syria – Any U.S. Strike Will Lead to Escalation
April 11 Syria – A U.S. Attack Would Be Futile – But Serve A Purpose – by M. K. Bhadrakumar
April 11 Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over – It Won't
April 12 Syria – Threat Of Large War Recedes But May Come Back
April 13 Syria – Manipulated Videos Fail To Launch World War III – Updated
April 14 F.U.K.U.S. Strikes Syria – Who Won?
April 16 Syria – Pentagon Hides Attack Failure – 70+ Cruise Missiles Shot Down
Comments

@67 Emily
Indeed and there is a rather interesting book about IBMs role in the holocaust which can be found here-
http://posoh.ru/book/htm/ibm.pdf

Posted by: TJ | Apr 20 2018 17:17 utc | 201

Emily 183
You left out a line item to the effect that the U.S. claimed to have won WWII while ignoring the great cost in blood and treasure by the CCCP.
And another ditto here.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Apr 20 2018 17:36 utc | 202

Apologies if this is already posted:
Coming after the RF Military spokesmen suggested Syria should be allowed S-300 air defense, Mr Lavrov joins:
Lavrov: After US-led strikes, Russia has ‘no moral barriers’ on S-300 deliveries to Syria
RT

Following the US-led bombardment of Syria last week over an alleged chemical attack by Damascus, Russia says it has no reason to not supply its S-300 missile system to Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
Moscow agreed with its international partners about 10 years ago to not deliver the S-300 to Damascus. “We took into consideration their argument that this would destabilize the situation, despite the missile systems being a purely defensive system,” Lavrov said in an interview to RIA Novosti.
But given the latest spiraling of the crisis – in particular the use of the alleged Douma chemical attack as pre-text for striking Syria – things may take a U-turn. While around a decade ago, Moscow “heeded” the calls of its partners and put the deliveries on hold, the Russian foreign minister said it now has “no such moral obligation.”
In the wake of the US-led operation on Syria, Russia said it may consider sending supplies of S-300 missile systems to Damascus. Moscow believes it is “possible to return to mulling over the issue, and not only with regard to Syria but also to other states as well,” Russian General Staff Spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy stated[.]

And in other news, DNC today filed $multi-million lawsuit against Russia, Trump and Wikkileaks for conspiring to defeat Hillary in 2016.
ZH link
Guess they filed this action without knowing Rudy Guiliani has just joined Trump’s legal team.
First question for Plaintiff: Why was the FBI denied access to the hacked servers?
His name was Seth Rich
Oh, and good luck collecting from Russia and Wikkileaks.

Posted by: likklemore | Apr 20 2018 17:38 utc | 203

Noirette 196
AP 189
James 200.
Thank you.

Posted by: Emily | Apr 20 2018 17:43 utc | 204

I love the few exchanges I have read between b and Lang because, while they often disagree, and notwithstanding Lang’s sometime curtness, they strike me as mutually–if critically–engaged with each other’s views, and they both represent a much higher level of political-military analysis than you can find most anywhere else, and they are both certainly far superior to anybody writing in the corporate press or for one or another of our foreign policy shit tanks. Imagine how much improved our public intellectual culture would be if the views of b and Lang framed our discussions of US statecraft rather than those of Thomas Friedman and Jeffrey Fucking Goldberg.

Posted by: WJ | Apr 20 2018 17:46 utc | 205

@204,
Cf @194 @195.

Posted by: WJ | Apr 20 2018 17:48 utc | 206

@206 wj… i agree! – ps – pat explains ‘his’ reason for my being banned.. “Too many pointed remarks.” – fair enough!

Posted by: james | Apr 20 2018 17:52 utc | 207

Christian Chuba @198
I may have been a bit imprecise there because the OPCW process is extremely murky. But basically, after Russia vetoed the JIM report at the UN, the U.S. made a proposal to the OPCW Executive Council to condemn the Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons. I’m not positive, but my understanding is that if this proposal had succeeded, it would have essentially adopted the JIM report as an official OPCW document. There’s very little reporting on this maneuvering around this, but here’s what the AP said:

Members of the OPCW’s Executive Council were scheduled to meet later Friday to debate their response to the report.
A draft decision put forward by the United States, Colombia, Estonia and Saudi Arabia is expected to be discussed.
It calls for the council to demand that the Syrian government immediately stop using chemical weapons and to express “its strong conviction that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,” according to a copy of the draft text seen by The Associated Press.
Executive Council decisions are generally adopted by consensus, but with the United States and its allies at loggerheads with Russia and its supporters, it is likely to be put to a vote.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-11-24/opcw-chief-unfortunate-that-syria-probes-mandate-blocked
The U.S. was forced to withdraw its proposal. Again, the specifics of this are murky, but you can read Sputnik‘s brief report on that here. Russia doesn’t have veto power on the OPCW-EC, meaning, I assume, that the resolution was going to fail in the EC by a vote.: https://sputniknews.com/world/201711241059415284-us-syria-rejection-opcw/
The upshot of all this is that Mulet’s JIM Report is not an official document of either the UN or the OPCW. Its official status now is essentially just the opinion of its authors.

Posted by: Gumby | Apr 20 2018 18:15 utc | 208

By the way, regarding the UN, it’s obviously true that Russia exercised it’s veto power against adopting the JIM report. And they also used their veto power to strike down the proposal to extend the JIM’s mandate (which, thanks to the U.S., was voted on before the JIM’s report was even released). However, it’s worth noting that the U.S. has a comfortable built-in majority at the UN, which essentially necessitates a veto to combat. Even many of the states that backed the U.S. on both of these proposals agreed with Russia that the JIM was flawed. Russia further argued that its work had become completely politicized. Which is not surprising given Mulet was head of it
Here’s a summary of the UN debate on extending the JIM: https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13040.doc.htm
Note for example, the comments by the Ethiopian ambassador:

TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia) expressed regret that the Council had not been able to adopt the draft resolution since the Mechanism had been created on the basis of consensus. Ethiopia had voted in favour of the text because there remained credible allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, he said, adding that renewing the mandate should ensure continuity of the Mechanism’s work. Despite today’s outcome, Ethiopia was hopeful that the Council’ unity would be restored and compromise found, because failure to renew the mandate would be send the wrong message to the perpetrators. However, today’s outcome should not be interpreted as an a priori endorsement of the Mechanism’s report, he cautioned, emphasizing that its final version was expected to establish clear responsibility for the two incidents mentioned. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons should be punished on the basis of robust and conclusive evidence, he said, underlining, however, that it was impossible to overlook the concerns of the Russian Federation and Bolivia, which was the reason why politicization must be avoided.

Posted by: Gumby | Apr 20 2018 18:17 utc | 209

Occasionally, some humor arises from the darkness. Partisangirl deeply thrusts the dagger:
“If British intelligence can’t even confirm the fact I’m not a robot, how can we believe anything they say about #Skripal #Syria or #Russia?”

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 20 2018 18:46 utc | 210

Follow on to my 211–
Been reading many twitter feeds where the topics of conversation are the UK’s rapid descent into a quasi-totalitarian condition given collusion between clearly fascist Tories and media and the total abandonment by UN leadership of its mandated mission to facilitate peace–the two topics actually intersect. I recall at the end of the Arab Spring’s launch the boasting done by Gene Sharp about social media’s importance in facilitating the protests for which Sharp falsely claimed total credit. Well, social media does seem to work to undercut the narrative manufactured by Western governments and their Propaganda System allies, which the latter try to destroy by further descending into totalitarian entities. People must arrive at the understanding that those in charge of the English speaking nations only serve the extremely rich–the Billionaires, sorry mere millionaires–as do their vassal nations, are 100% anti-democratic, and will do absolutely anything to keep their hold on power. Furthermore, what these slowly awakening people must also realize is that reformation of their nations and political systems cannot be done within the confines of the current system.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 20 2018 19:32 utc | 211

Nice to see at least one person in Canada speaking clearly; preferable to our feckless Prime Minister.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/04/20/the-stench-of-imperialism-the-statement-of-theresa-may/

Posted by: Bakerpete | Apr 20 2018 20:49 utc | 212

Hey James @201
Don’t take that personally. Col. Lang is a wonderful analyst who brings to bear his vast experience as a warrior, military intelligence officer and defense department official at the highest level to his view on current events. But this happened over there yesterday:
A commenter made reference to an old quote from Paul Wolfowitz. Col. Lang asked if she had a citation for the quote, and she answered, “quote is in your article,” and she included a link back to his article. He then asked, “Being cute?” And she responded, again, with a link to his article, this time with the quotation he had cited highlighted in yellow.
Lang’s work is valuable and he is a wonderful source for good information and opinion. He is also an irascible old man, at times sensitive to perceived slights. Which is fine, I fit that description as well. His site, his rules, his way or the highway; not a thing wrong with that. In the past he has been less than cordial at times to b, but they currently enjoy a polite relationship in their internet exchanges.

Posted by: howard in nyc | Apr 20 2018 20:55 utc | 213

Laughable Formerly T-Bear diggin h’self deeper and deeper into the pit.
The points that Emily, AP, cdivision and others have made about GB being held to every last penny of the USA loan plus interest are entirely correct. It was finally paid off this century. These facts are not disputed anywhere (oh, I’m sure, with the exception of the Exception. Wonder why that would be.).
I believe one or two others of the Allied states were held in similar hock to the USA’s usurists. After the War, never one to miss a business op, the Axis trio of Germany, Italy and Japan received beneficent gifts from USA. Italy was converted into a theme park, woe that they still not recovered, although something is stirring deep. Germany would have suffered the same fate but for the serendipitous and extremely intriguing exercise in partition.

Posted by: Plod | Apr 20 2018 21:04 utc | 214

@214 howard in nyc… thanks! i agree with you on all of that and like your example with the poster yesterday!
he’s a bit of an odd ball and his interpersonal dynamics have gaps in them as i see it.. i am too, but i’m not running a comment board while making public arbitrary decisions that defy logic from time to time… your example is a fine example.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Apr 20 2018 21:31 utc | 215


Lang’s work is valuable and he is a wonderful source for good information and opinion. He is also an irascible old man, at times sensitive to perceived slights. Which is fine, I fit that description as well. His site, his rules, his way or the highway; not a thing wrong with that. In the past he has been less than cordial at times to b, but they currently enjoy a polite relationship in their internet exchanges.
Posted by: howard in nyc | Apr 20, 2018 4:55:55 PM | 214

Well, that was at least debatable, until he spelt out his (swashbucklers) Ivory Tower manifesto in ‘Commenter Delusions’ April 20, 2014. He could’ve saved some space by calling it simply ‘Delusions’ which would more accurately reflect the tone and content, although not quite as poignant as ‘Competing Delusions’.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 20 2018 21:47 utc | 216

Editorial Hygiene..
..until April 20, 2018.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 20 2018 22:05 utc | 217

Dear Emily,
Just read that unpleasant exchange between you and Formerly T-Bear. Can’t believe how thick that commenter’s remarks were. You rightly identified the loan as a post-war loan. You also acknowledged the Soviets as Britain’s true allies. Oh well, we learned something about that particular MoA barfly.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 20 2018 22:32 utc | 218

Emily et al
The important point about the war loan was the wider issue: that it was part of the US determined attempt to use WW2 end the British Empire and to bankrupt the UK

Posted by: cdvision | Apr 21 2018 0:47 utc | 219

170 @Formerly T-Bear
“The British debt to the U.S. was cancelled, by agreement just about time of VE. What the British internal debt did is entirely different”.
What is “the British internal debt” presumably you mean to the USA. I don’t understand – a simple explanation much appreciated.
Earlier you mentioned a USA/UK Loan made 1946, as WW2 ended 1945 you said it was, therefore, not a war loan. Might it not have been a consolidation of funds etc loaned during the war?

Posted by: kweladave | Apr 21 2018 15:23 utc | 220

@ 221 kweladave | Apr 21, 2018 11:23:12 AM
The internal debt originated out of the funds the British government borrowed (or withheld in some cases) from the British economy. War bonds are good examples, they have to be paid off eventually. External debt would be funds or credit extended by outside the British economy such as credit from the U.S: Check out the financial history of that period about what was taking place, sorry I have no title to offer but there are doubtlessly several titles on offer by now. John Maynard Keynes was involved and kept correspondence of the period.
The arrangements for cancelling the British debt to the U.S. was agreed concurrently with the beginning negotiations between the U.S. and Britain about hat would become Bretton Woods. Without wiki-ing this would be end of 1944 from memory. So the 1946 loan from the U.S. is U.S. assistance towards British recovery. It wasn’t until about 1948 that the Marshal Plan was effected to assist European recovery. The Marshall Plan was funded with something like $12 Billion contemporaneous dollars (about $104 Billion current dollars). Out of the Marshall Plan, Britain received about 25%, France going 30%, Germany some 20% and the rest distributed throughout other European war damaged countries. Wikipedia can give the details. Curiously one observation held that after the European war finished, the European financial elite began withdrawing their funds as they were able. The Marshall Plan replenished those funds to finance rebuilding. Once the European elite saw who would end up owning the repaired infrastructure, they returned their funding to economic developments and that is when the Marshall Plan was wound down. I have no idea how true that was.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 21 2018 18:04 utc | 221