— seems to be the agenda of ‘The Guardian’, if today’s offering on Syria is a guide:
In a report whose length one might expect to indicate thorough coverage of its subject – the imminent UN visit to Syria to look for evidence of Sarin use – there are some extraordinary and unforgiveable omissions. But because this vital information is completely absent, most readers will not realise they are reading propaganda, or that the basic premise of the article is false.
We learn early on about Khan al Assal, where a Sarin gas attack evidently took place in March:
“The breakthrough ends months of negotiations that began when the regime invited the UN to investigate an attack at Khan al-Assal, a village near Aleppo on 19 March. The government and rebel forces blame each other for using chemical weapons in the attack.”
But this is all we learn. As detailed recently on this site, Russian investigators travelled to Khan al Assal and did some thorough research, finding both samples of Sarin that was crude and apparently home made, as well as remains of the delivery rocket. That this was an attack by ‘rebels’ on a soldiers and civilians was made quite clear when Russia presented its evidence to the UN last month. At the time the attack was used to try to frame the government, and provide a pretext for intervention, and this was why the Syrian government asked the UN to investigate it. But the UN had refused until Russia’s discoveries – which could not be refuted as easily as the US and UK claims – forced it to concede. The compromise is to allow it to look at two other cases of alleged use of CWs against rebels.
You might think that details of the Russian investigation and damning findings would feature in this report, which mentions the US/UK allegations:
“The US, Britain and France have already said that the nerve agent sarin has been used in the war; samples smuggled from Syria, with security services’ help, have been analysed. In June the Obama administration moved to arm Syrian rebels, citing conclusive evidence that the regime had used sarin against the insurgents.”
But you would be mistaken; the details do not get a mention because the occurrence of the investigation itself does not get a mention. This is such an extraordinary omission that it can only be intentional, with a motivation revealed in this sentence:
“The investigation will look only at whether chemical weapons have been used, not who used them.”
Apparently the UN has no interest in discovering any evidence that might show that Chemical Weapons were used by rebel groups, as this would destroy the pretext for intervention that the US has now contrived to use. But this is where the second little detail relevant to the report goes missing. Last week rebel groups attacked Khan al Assal, and overran it; in fact they committed an atrocity – massacring over 120 soldiers and civilians in cold blood following their surrender; you can see it on the internet,(1*) but you didn’t see it in the Western press. By the time the Syrian army regained control of the village, and discovered the carnage, any remaining evidence for Sarin use must have been destroyed, and likely some of the witnesses too.
More disturbing even than this, is that the timing of the rebels’ attack coincided with news that the UN was going to investigate their previous atrocities in Khan al Assal; their intention was evidently to destroy any remaining evidence, as well as to put off the UN visit by making the village unsafe.
We learn a lot in this article about Sarin symptoms, and the difficulties of finding it and proving it; all of this is quite irrelevant, like radar chaff thrown up to put us off the scent of conspiracy. So we must ask, why are we only told half the story, and the wrong half? The Syrian army has NOT used Sarin, but the rebels have; the UN knows this, and the US government MUST know it, and so the Guardian knows it. Carelessness or Complicity?
(1*) warning, graphic video, from Syrian girl: