Friday, 23 August 2013

Syria: William Hague is Dissembling.

The facts are not out yet and UN inspectors have not yet had a chance to get to the site, presuming that they are going to be able to. This has not stopped William Hague coming out with similar innuendos used about Saddam Hussein before 2003 having 'something to hide' and his 'non-compliance'.

Likewise, Hague airily dismissed the notion put forth by Russian Foreign Ministry that the attack could have been a deliberate 'planned provocation' by 'the opposition',
"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."
Evidently, the conspiracy theories are often in force in times such as these, whether the supposed Daily Mail clippings that have suddenly resurfaced now about US intentions to supply Al Qaida with chemical weapons or George Galloway's Press TV rant about his 'theory' that it was Israel that 'gave' them to Al Qaida

Yet TV film footage, most of children suffering the effects of some gas or their dead corpses, is guaranteed to get the Western media and politicians spinning the line of 'something must be done' when the nature of the attacks and who did it is actually very far from clear.

Experts on chemical weapons such as Gwyn Winfield at CBRNe have made it quite plain that it is important to know, 'what percentage of those died from exposure to an unknown chemical' and that the facts are, in reality, rather 'difficult to pin down'. Winfield states ( Reflections on Ghouta 22 August 2013 ),
'The spread of these casualties/fatalities is important, without this information we are forced into the conclusion that the spread of attacks was at the maximum reported - which then presupposes a significant, organised force behind it
If this isn’t the case, and all the chemical casualties come from a single area (and it’s downwind path) then it makes it more likely that a smaller, potentially rogue faction, was behind it. This is certainly the Russian view, as espoused by RT and it is interesting that their comments about a rocket ties in exactly with the suggested analysis from Brown Moses on the munition used (though he makes no claims as to how many devices or who fired them).
Large amounts of munitions, many different sites, makes it more likely that it was a large, organised agency behind the firing; an isolated, small exposure (with a big ol’ ATP45 track behind it) would make it more likely that it is a splinter force.'
The idea that the there no questions as to whether Assad has launched a large chemical weapon attack on one area is pure propaganda. The situation is complicated in East Ghouta with the al Nusra Front being defeated there in early August.

William Hague's attempt to blame the attacks squarely on the Assad regime and to preempt any findings by UN inspectors is in continuity with the ploy used to justify the Iraq War in 2003 and was later found to be based on a tissue of lies and fabrications.

So, apart from which chemicals were used, the other question remains as open as it did when the story first broke on Wednesday-'Who gains?'

No comments:

Post a Comment