Reality Check: No Sarin gas used by Assad in Syria?

7
Rate Article (3 / 2)

It was a stunning announcement, stunning because of what was said and maybe equally as stunning because it was honest.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its own people.

It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The statement is getting very little media coverage but it is a very big deal.

According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own people.

Here is exactly what Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon:

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.”

“We do not have evidence of it.”

“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions.”

Mattis insists that he wasn’t refuting the claims. But in a sense, he did.

According to Newsweek, in 2017 a White House memorandum was quickly produced and then declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.

The justification used was that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people. Then President Trump himself insisted that there was no doubt that Syrian President Assad had killed his own people with banned chemical weapons.

ALSO READ  Jihadist rebel drones attempt to bomb Russian Hmeymim Airbase (video)

truth in media

At that time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were demanding congress approve use of force against Assad. Obama said this from the rose garden as he said American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles were on standby in the Mediterranean Sea.

But Mattis also didn’t qualify the statement to just the Syrian airbase strike. That means that the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta also was not proven to be Assad.

“I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Congress did not approve that use of force, but then applauded Trump for his use.

For his part, in this latest statement, Mattis says that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence of the Syrian government using sarin.

But as I have extensively reported over the past few years, there is much evidence that the so called Syrian freedom fighters are actually ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters. And there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons.

Other problems with the claims of Assad using sarin: in the 2013 Ghouta event, the sarin came from home-made rockets, which were favored by insurgents.

Also, according to Newsweek:

“In the 2013 event, the White House memorandum seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian white helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.

“Carla del Ponte was unable to fulfill her U.N. joint investigative mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by ‘rebels’ who are actually jihadis, allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of sarin by anti-Assad rebels).”

According to the Times of London:

“Carla del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas – a deadly nerve agent.

“‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”

It was the involvement of those jihadis posing as Syrian rebels that made then-candidate Trump state emphatically that he wouldn’t intervene and help oust Assad as Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

Candidate Trump pushed back heavily against intervention. He warned that ISIS was likely to take over Syria if Assad were ousted, just as they have in Iraq and Libya.

ALSO READ  Syrian Army eliminates scores of ISIS terrorists attempting to escape strategic mountain

And yet the U.S. is only escalating fighting.

Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials—that according to the New York Times.

Russia says that no members of the Russian armed forces were killed and that any Russians fighting alongside the Syrians were mercenaries.

So what you need to know is that candidate Trump was clear when he pointed to the bush policy in Iraq and the Obama/Clinton policies in Libya and Syria that have only strengthened the creation and spread of ISIS and jihadism.

Candidate Trump rightly pointed out that these policies had failed and that it was insanity to keep pursuing those policies and expecting a different outcome.

So why is President Trump now embracing those insane policies that if continued will undoubtedly leave another power vacuum in the Middle East which will be filled with jihadis?

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it tonight on Twitter and Facebook.

Advertisements
Share this article:
  • 620
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    620
    Shares

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
transio
Guest
transio

Mathis says “They used it in the past“ – if he was referring to having no evidence for all reported Sarin attacks that are being blamed on Assad, what does his reference to past usage by “them” mean then?

Member
Regular
Commenter
Upvoted
Rudy Verbuyst

MY HUMBLE CONCLUSION IS THAT WENN TERRORISTS USED SARINGAS ON OWN POPULATION AND WENN THESE TERRORISTS ARE ON THE PAYROLL, TRAINING AND COMMAND ( Syria is a case of regimechange organized by US, ISraeHELL, NATO and GCC) FROM US CIA AND PENTAGON then Langley and the Pentagon should be bombed together with Tel Aviv, Brussels Nato HQ Qatar and Ryadh !

Daeshbags Sux
Member
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Daeshbags Sux

No traces of Israel in the pot, it’s even deeply against their interests. NATO ain’t implied too. It’s actually a pipeline war as Assad refused the transit of the Qatar/KSA/Turkey pipeline and this “axis” sought the US/UK help through donations to the Clinton Fundation as pay to play and US/UK companies were supposed to build the pipeline… Yup, it’s not about politics, it’s about a shitload of money and competing Russian gas sales to the EU! BTW, look at the EU gas pipeline maps : SHTF in Ukraine, Poland wanted to cut gas transit between Russia and EU as US… Read more »

Someone
Guest
Someone
Fedup
Guest
Fedup
Rate Article :
     

Ben is outlining the truth as best he can without getting ‘censored’ and taken down. Quite simply we are aware that all these chemical attacks are the result of terrorists – sponsored by the usual suspects. If we want to see an end to it – withdraw the support of these terrorists – name the White Helmets for what they are – a CIA asset supporting and carrying out terrorism. Let the US concentrate on the US and get the f out of everywhere else.

Bel Suave
Guest
Bel Suave
Rate Article :
     

As disjointed, confused, and generally pointless an exercise in gibberish-speak as has ever appeared on these pages. Ben Swann?

Did al Masdar get ‘hacked?’
Oh… and I clicked on the ‘truth in media’ link … got “Dash is Cash” official website.
“Daesh is Cash”???? Some stuff you just can’t make up!

Journalism
Guest
Journalism

Could have been written better, sure, but not gibberish. It sort of lists, summerises the evidence showing that Assad didn’t use chemical/sarin.
The ‘truth in media’ link worked as it should although that article has nothing to do with this subject. This type of cross advertisement is called upstaging and frowned on by ethical journalists.