No airborne chemical attack in Douma: that was the conclusion reached by Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors on the ground in Syria. And that’s the conclusion they passed on to their superiors within the supposedly independent UN organisation.
But the OPCW big wigs (it seems) weren’t interested in mere and somewhat pesky facts – they had a narrative to sell. So they published a fraudulent report that justified the US bombing of Syria.
So far, two experts from the OPCW have broken cover, and as whistle blowers, have probably killed any future prospects they may have had in their field of expertise.
Now, do you remember how Robert Fisk was on the ground in Douma, and how he got smeared and dismissed by ‘all and sundry’ when his reporting questioned the notion of there having been a chemical attack?
Or the boy from the white helmet’s video footage in the hospital…you remember how he spoke at The Hague, and we were told to dismiss what he was saying because he’d obviously been subjected to coercion and it was all just Russian propaganda?
Maybe you were one of those people smeared for not showing appropriate fealty to whatever “truth” was being reported across all western pop media and not a few independent media outlets at the time. Or maybe you were one of those people who delighted in smearing those who displayed skepticism.
I don’t really care at this point which side of that divide you were on. What fucks me off is that we were wilfully ‘played’ in order to garner tacit approval for an illegal military operation that killed people. It’s a repeating pattern I can only put down to the prevalence of a gullible notion that our elected officials and the various permanent state apparatus that sit behind them are essentially benevolent.
But I digress.
Of course the OPCW whistle blower’s revelations aren’t being reported in pop media because, of course, everything is meant to languish down the memory hole. Maybe you’re happy with that state of affairs. If so, the following links aren’t for you. They are extensive (which is why I haven’t attempted a summary) and result from the work of a frighteningly small number of journalists in the western world who still care about their craft, who seek out facts, and who have managed to find some platform to speak from.
This is the Jonathan Steele article referenced in the linked interview from The Grayzone.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress