News »

Syria and Rhetoric on Chemical Weapons

Damascus (Prensa Latina) The rhetoric about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government pushes events toward a possible military aggression which, in the opinion of heads of state and political experts, could ignite the region.

After the so-called armed opposition argued the authorities had used toxic agents on August 21, a virulent campaign was unleashed by the media and some Western capitals and the Middle East against Damascus, with threats preceding an almost imminent attack.

Horns sounds increasingly hard calling for a war that, as the more recent, all of them carried out by the United States from Kosovo (1999) to Libya (2011), through Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), have been made with spurious pretexts.

Still fresh in global collective memory are the maneuvers of Collin Powell, former Secretary of State, showing at the UN plans and evidence “proving” that Saddam Hussein had available mass destruction weapons.

The invasion of Iraq was consummated and the country destroyed, but no trace of such weapons was ever found.

This is not an exception: Washington, London, Paris, Ankara, Riyadh, Doha, Ottawa, among others, report that it is unquestionable that the administration of President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against the population and “should be punished”.

However, they avoid presenting evidence to support those objections.

The axis that seems ready to invade Syria, bypassing the authority of UN Security Council and international law, does not even take into account that in Damascus there is a group of the world body conducting inquiries about the use of toxic gases and his verdict should be listened.

Precisely the hypothetical attack took place three days after the arrival in the country of the delegation led by Professor Ake Sellstrom, head of the UN Office for the investigation of chemical weapons, invited by the government to clarify the many allegations made in advance.

Syria has expressed interest in the survey and offered its collaboration in the process, although the West tries to ignore such support.

Analysts agree that it is unrealistic and almost unbelievable that the authorities conducted such an attack in the midst of these circumstances and a few kilometers from the capital, in the region of Eastern Ghouta.

The area is a point of confrontation where Syrian Arab Army fights against mercenary bands sponsored by the West, seeking to gain control of the capital: an eventual chemical attack would be unwise for the government considering that its own forces could die.

Few also relate that the videos that went around the world and were wielded as a “proof of the atrocities of al-Assad,” were posted on social networking one day prior to the complaint, which, according to experts, reinforces that the images are a great hoax to incriminate the country.

Mass media and politicians arguing that “the Syrian government is the only actor in the armed conflict capable of unleashing a chemical attack”, seem to overlook that in this Levantine nation radical Islamic groups, within which stands Al Qaeda, have been committing atrocities against civilians from the start of the conflict.

The al-Nusra Front, a derivation from the terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, has not hesitated to put car bombs, attack with mortars and rockets and to commit massacres of hundreds of civilians in the name of his orthodox interpretation of Islam and wishes to establish a caliphate.

Similarly, the extremists were involved even in cannibalistic events widely spread through social networks.

In early December 2012, a disturbing video posted on YouTube showed members of the Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar), one of the many mercenary groups in Syria, testing chemical weapons in laboratory rabbits and threatening to use them against Syrian civilians.

At that time several media wondered if this could be the pretext that led some governments to intervene in the Syrian conflict to overthrow al-Assad.

However, few, based on the benefit of the doubt, have questioned: Couldnt be the alleged rebels who released toxic gases to thwart the UN mission, stop the unquestioned offensive advance of Army, provide the pretext for an armed intervention and avoid sitting at the negotiating table of the proposed Geneva 2 and admit their defeat?

Another question: who are the ultimate beneficiaries in such a complex picture?

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. The mandatory fields are marked. *