Video: Experts Skeptical of Claim that Syria Carried Out Chemical Weapons Attack
By Washington's Blog
Global Research, April 12, 2018

Url of this article:

Numerous experts have expressed doubt that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack.

The former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, told BBC Radio Scotland regarding the alleged Douma chemical weapons attack:

  • The Syrian government is probably not guilty
  • The sources claiming there was a chemical weapons attack are pro-Islamist jihadi propaganda outlets
  • The incident was probably staged, and it is likely that no one actually died

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter – who correctly said before the Iraq war that Iraq did not possess any WMDs – writes:

The United States is threatening to go to war in Syria over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided.

The former U.N. weapons inspector in Syria, Åke Sellström, is also skeptical (original Swedish):

“With great criticism from the international community, Assad and Russians bombard Ghouta bit by piece, and that they would add the opportunity to be criticized for using chemicals – it feels strange. They do not need it, their tactics are already successful, says Sellström.

The attack can come from Assad’s regime, but you may as well have other explanations.Toxic substances can be dispersed in many ways, for example through marx explosions or smoke.

– There are many poisonous substances in circulation during the battle.


If the UN were to investigate the attack, it is not enough to see recordings or hear testimony, says Sellström.

“We would have to meet people and doctors themselves and, in particular, need samples from the environment and poisoned persons.  


This article was originally published on Washington’s Blog.

Featured image is from Sputnik International.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.