There are evidently no limits to attempts by certain Western governments to attain their “interests,” in this case, as in others, regime change, by “all necessary methods.” (Including fraud)
In a recent “Arria- Formula” meeting at the United Nations, Ambassador to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Alexander Shulgin exposed the fraudulence of the “investigation” into the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7, 2018.
The credibility of the OPCW is damaged by revelations of “unacceptable practices,” including intimidation of inspectors whose conclusions differed from the biased “official report.” “Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal e-mails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.” “We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigations whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments—a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.”
In May, 2019 an engineering report written by Ian Henderson, an OPCW official, reached a conclusion antithetical to the conclusion of the official OPCW report. This engineering report was finally “leaked.” Henderson was among the members of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) who were subjected to intimidation, and his documents, among other supporting documents were excluded from the final report, thereby severely discrediting the report’s reliability and any claim to impartiality.
Although the “White Helmets” released a video alleging that the Douma Hospital had suffered a chemical weapons attack on 7 April, 2018, interviews with doctors actually working at the Douma Hospital completely refuted these allegations of chemical attacks, and the doctors confirmed that there was no evidence of chemical poisoning suffered by any of their patients. Although the “White Helmet” video showed dead bodies in the Douma area where it alleged there had been a chemical weapons attack, interviews with 300 residents of that precise area confirmed that none of the residents recognized or could identify the corpses shown in the “White Helmets” video, and the residents who were at home on April 7, 2018 when the chemical weapons attack was alleged to have occurred stated that they did not suffer any chlorine injuries whatsoever. Witnesses stated that they saw dead bodies being brought into their neighborhood and placed there by “White Helmets” who militantly guarded their staging of the video, which completely fabricated the incident. The dead persons shown in the video were brought into the area for the express purpose of fabricating victims of a chemical weapons attack which, in fact, never occurred.
Of course, the Syrian government was blamed for this bogus chemical weapons attack on civilians. Who would make such a preposterous effort to create a falsified picture of victims of a chemical weapons attack which never, in fact occurred?
And, above all, why would such a preposterous effort be made? I asked this question of Ambassador Alexander Shulgin at his press stake-out after the meeting, and he replied: “The West wants regime change.” This falsified attack on Douma, an attack which had, in reality never occurred, served propaganda relentlessly determined to demonize President Assad and his allies. Ambassador Shulgin’s answer raised staggering questions. It raised the possibility that not only was the West determined, after eleven years of warfare to destroy the Syrian government, as it had the governments in Iraq and Libya, but that the extent of fraud, duplicity and propaganda verging on insanity had no limits. No lies were beyond bounds. And the global danger became obvious and inescapable. Further, this bastardization of the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ultimately cast suspicions on all other supposedly impartial and objective investigations and inquiries produced by the United Nations and any or all other organizations, however distinguished or impeccable their credibility had been.
The letter written in protest of this grotesque perversion of the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, dated 18 November, 2019 was signed by luminaries of great integrity, including John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and Senior Investigator, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Kiriakou disclosed that the CIA was using the most barbarous tortures, and he himself witnessed one prisoner waterboarded 189 times;
Kiriakou was imprisoned for revealing this truth to the American people); Katherine Gun, former GCHQ (UK GOV) investigator, who revealed that Tony Blair was lying to the British people to attempt to justify the Bush administration’s criminal invasion of Iraq, using fake information;
Katherine Gun was threatened with prosecution under the “Official Secrets” act, and her case was dropped when it was obvious that the enormity of treachery committed by Tony Blair’s government would inevitably be exposed if her prosecution proceeded; Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel, 9-11 Whistleblower;
Marcello Ferada de Noli, Professor Emeritus, former head Research group Cross-cultural Injury Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Chair Swedish Doctors for Human Rights – SWEDHR, and twenty other distinguished signatories.
The duplicity of other “official reports” must, inevitably be exposed, including the UN Commission of Inquiry into the DPRK – the infamous Kirby report. The UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, Ivan Simonovic stated that the Kirby report did not meet the standard of proof required to be admitted as evidence in a court of law.