Global Research, June 15, 2013
U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’A few days later they pulled the article.
What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:
There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:
See scan of complete deleted article below:
One day later, on January 30, a moderated news board thread was created, which is still online, at Mail Online about that article. “Thread: Syrian WMD False Flag – Are False Flags a way of life now?“
In their initial article Mail Online refers to an Infowars.com article (dated January 28, 2013), that’s where they probably found the information on the leaked e-mail and other documents.
CapitalBay (who published the wrong areal pictures of the school in Sandy Hook), Mail Online, Infowars, Yahoo News India, News Track India, Whale.to, Philippine Times, Uganda News, LiveLeak, Truth Media TV and others all claim in their mirrored articles that the alleged e-mail from Britam’s David Goulding to Philip Doughty was dated December 25, 2012.
However, at Neftegaz.ru (translated with Google) there also exists another version of the alleged e-mail. There the e-mail is dated December 24, 2012.
Whether the content of the alleged e-mail is correct, that’s open for debate. Fact is that PressTV has an article online which supports the claims in the alleged e-mail. And RT‘s article from last year (June 10, 2012) still claims that “Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons,” to then blame Assad for it. Those weapons came from Libya, according to RT. This begs the question: Did Christopher Stevens know about those weapons when he died in the CIA villa in Benghazi last year?
But why was the article pulled by Mail Online?
Why do there exist at least 2 versions of the same alleged e-mail?
And what about Britam admitting that they were hacked, according to Ruvr.co.uk (The Voice of Russia)?
But there’s also this, according to Mail Online it was a Malaysian hacker who got to the alleged e-mail(s), while Infowars claims that the e-mail was “obtained by a hacker in Germany.”
Either way, whoever initiated the Britam e-mail escapade did a good job at fooling both mainstream and alternative news outlets because it’s a real mess and few know what really happened and why.
Yet it’s ironic that Mail Online did not delete their other article where they wrote about the UN’s Carla Del Ponte who claims that Syrian rebels are responsible for “sarin gas attacks, which had been blamed on Assad’s troops.” The same rebels who now receive resources from the EU and the U.S., since the EU is buying oil from those “rebels” and the US is arming them for a proxy war as the Washington Post describes it.
Earlier it was reported that Israel had granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
Global Research, May 08, 2013
Del Ponte’s comment, based on an investigation including extensive interviews by UN officials, tore to shreds the lie with which Washington has tried to justify its drive to war—namely, that it is attacking Syria to protect the people from Assad’s use of chemical weapons. (See also: “UN says US-backed opposition, not Syrian regime, used poison gas”).
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney summarily rejected del Ponte’s report without offering a shred of evidence to refute her statement. “We are highly skeptical of any suggestions that the opposition used chemical weapons. We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime. And that remains our position,” Carney stated.There is every reason to believe, in fact, that the opposition has used chemical weapons, as it has apparently received training on such weapons from the US or allied forces. According to a CNN report in December, the US has dispatched contractors and mercenaries for the purpose of training the rebels to “secure stockpiles and handle [chemical] weapons sites and materials.”
Opposition forces have received numerous shipments of weapons and equipment overseen by the United States and allied regimes such as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Last December, opposition fighters posted a video on YouTube showing them testing chemical weapons and declaring their readiness to use them.
Taking their lead from Carney, US lawmakers issued calls for a full-scale attack on Syria. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (Democrat of New Jersey) submitted legislation that would officially authorize the Obama administration to arm the so-called “rebels.”
“The Assad regime has crossed a red line that forces us to consider all options,” Menendez said in a written statement, treating as fact the completely unsubstantiated claim, refuted by del Ponte, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against the opposition.
Over the weekend, Senator John McCain (Republican of Arizona) asserted that Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons use has been crossed and that the time had come for a “game-changing” escalation against Syria.
Senator Bob Casey (Democrat of Pennsylvania) asserted the existence of a “broad consensus” in favor of the US and its allies creating a “safe zone” inside Syria. This would involve large-scale air strikes against Syrian air defenses and the carving out of a significant portion of Syrian territory under the control of the imperialist powers.
Senator Robert Corker (Republican of Tennessee), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, stated on Tuesday: “I do think we’ll be arming the opposition shortly.” Corker went on to say that “we do have to change the equation… The moderate opposition groups we support are not as good at fighting.”
The senators’ calls for war come amid stepped-up military planning against Syria. On Monday, the New York Times reported that the US, Britain and France are secretly discussing coordinated air strikes for the purpose of imposing a no-fly zone over Syria. The newspaper also reported that the US military, which has been working out plans to attack Syria for months, has been told by the Obama administration to step up its planning and coordinate it with key American allies.
The braying for war from Congress and the media follows Israeli air strikes against Syria last Thursday and Sunday. There are reports that 42 Syrian soldiers were killed by Israeli strikes near Damascus.
A Hezbollah representative claimed that the Israeli attacks were launched in support of the opposition groups: “This shelling is an attempt at giving a morale boost to the terrorists and takfiris [extremists] and all those who are fighting to destroy Syria from within,” he said.
One purpose of the Israeli strikes was to test Syria’s air defense capacities amid preparations for massive air strikes by the US, France and Britain. According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Israel’s success does indicate that the purely military risks in enforcing some form of no-fly or no-move zone are now more limited than when the fighting in Syria began.”
Cordesman made clear that imposing a so-called “no-fly zone” would involve large-scale war: “It would take a massive US air and cruise missile attack… difficult for even two carrier groups to carry out and sustain.”
A May 7 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “The Non-Intervention War,” made the case for a major war against Syria. The Journal wrote, “The US could still steer this conflict toward a better outcome if Mr. Obama has the will. At this stage this would require more than arming some rebels. It probably means imposing a no-fly zone and air strikes against Assad’s forces. We would also not rule out the use of American and other ground troops to secure the chemical weapons.
“The immediate goal would be to limit the proliferation of WMD, but the most important strategic goal continues to be to defeat Iran, our main adversary in the region. The risks of a jihadist victory in Damascus are real, at least in the short term, but they are containable by Turkey and Israel.”
The US is preparing for yet another imperialist war on the scale of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though cynically advertised to the American public as an extension of the so-called “war on terror” against Al Qaeda, the goal of such a war will be to consolidate US imperialism’s control over the entire Middle East and its vast energy resources. The US ruling elite is not concerned about defeating “the terrorists,” who are in fact its allies.
The ease with which the Obama administration dismissed reports of Al Qaeda-linked opposition forces mounting attacks with chemical weapons is particularly significant, especially as lies about Al Qaeda acquiring WMD were a major pretext for invading Iraq. This underlies the long-running and continuing alliance between US imperialism and the most reactionary Islamist forces.
Starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, during the Soviet-Afghan war, US intelligence oversaw the arming of Islamist forces, including Osama bin Laden, who went on to fight as shock troops in US-backed wars in the Balkans and the Caucasus in the 1990s. While certain elements of Al Qaeda were targeted by the US after the September 11 attacks, Washington’s political connections with these forces were maintained during the 2000s.
For its 2011 Libyan war and now in Syria, the US mobilized Al Qaeda-linked forces of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and, in Syria, the Al-Nusra Front.
Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Moscow on Tuesday, attempting to gain Russian support for US regime-change efforts in Syria. Together with China, Russia has vetoed three separate UN resolutions condemning Assad for his government’s crackdown on the US-backed “rebel” groups.
“The United States believes that we share some very significant common interests with respect to Syria—stability in the region, not having extremists creating problems throughout the region and elsewhere,” Kerry declared.
The United States and Russia reportedly agreed to organize a conference on the war that both the Assad regime and the opposition would attend.
Nevertheless, Kerry received a chilly welcome from Putin, who kept him waiting for hours and reportedly fiddled with his pen distractedly while Kerry spoke. The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement, implicitly critical of US policy, that declared: “The further escalation of armed confrontation sharply increases the risk of creating new areas of tension and the destabilization of the so-far relatively calm atmosphere on the Lebanese-Israeli border.”
Global Research, May 03, 2013
Hawks Desperate to Drum Up an Excuse for WarIt is likely that Al Qaeda rebels – and not the Syrian government – carried out the chemical weapons attack which the hawks in Washington are trying to use as a reason to invade.
Haaretz reported on March 24th, “Jihadists, not Assad, apparently behind reported chemical attack in Syria“.
Te Syria Tribune released a video in December allegedly showing Syrian rebels killing rabbits with chemical weapons, and threatening to use them against supporters of the Syrian government. (It is impossible at this point to say whether this is genuine or propaganda).
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson – the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell under President George W. Bush – said yesterday that the Syrian chemical weapons could be a “Israeli false flag operation”.
Wilkerson said that he had been told by his sources in the intelligence community that evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons was “really flaky” and that President Barack Obama should think twice before intervening.
“This could have been an Israeli false flag operation,” he said. “You’ve got basically a geo-strategically, geo-political — if you will — inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.”
Indeed, Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria – and throughout the Middle East and North Africa – 20 years ago.
And carrying out acts of violence and blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change – i.e. false flag terror – was discussed over 50 years ago by British and American leaders.
And the “rebels” in Syria that the U.S. has been supporting are Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the New York Times s reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorist,
But that doesn’t matter … war is sold just like toothpaste, and once there is a sufficient excuse for war – real or made up – we can march forward.