Home / Opinion / The controversy regarding use of chemical weapons In Syria: 2013-2017
Dr. Mujahid Kamran

The controversy regarding use of chemical weapons In Syria: 2013-2017

“The only reason Muslim terrorism exists is that Washington created it. Washington first used Jihadism against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Then against Gaddafi in Libya. Then when Obama’s plan to invade Syria on the trumped-up chemical weapons charge was blocked by the UK Parliament and Russia, Obama sent ISIS to overthrow Assad. General Flynn, who was the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency stated this matter-of-factly on Al Jazeera. Flynn said it was a “willful decision” of the Obama administration to send ISIS to overthrow Assad. This is why Russia’s hopes of a common front against ISIS never made any sense. Jihadism is Washington’s best weapon with which to destabilize Russia. Why would Washington help Russia to defeat this weapon?” (Paul Craig Roberts)

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them on targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under. (Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld) On June 30, 2017 the OPCW (Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) released its report on the April 4, 2017 Khan Shaykhun incident where allegedly the Syrians used chemical weapons. The report “confirmed that people were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon.” The report, however, did not pin the responsibility of the use of sarin gas on any one.

Does this mean that there was no or insufficient evidence to hold the Syrian government responsible? Or does it mean that the OPCW let the Western and Israeli backed “rebels” off the hook? Had there been the slightest of evidence of Bashar al Assad’s guilt, would the OPCW have avoided mentioning it? OPCW itself
had provided a certificate of clearance to Assad in 2015 – the OPCW had destroyed all stocks of chemical weapons in Syria. So where did the sarin come from? The report was attacked by the alternative media almost within no time. Stephen Lendman called it a “shameful” report. The Syrian government issued a rebuttal calling the OPCW report:


a fabricated and contrived narrative that has no credibility and cannot be accepted in any manner, because it is removed from logic, and is concocted by a twisted imagination that only thinks about weaving conspiracies and about ways to raise the collapsing morale of terrorist groups following the achievements made by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies on the Syrian ground.


In view of the gravity of the situation one must look at the entire sequence of charges and counter-charges dispassionately and by going back in time, place things in context, and then arrive at a conclusion based on facts, proper perspective and analysis, and not on emotion whipped and stirred by the corporate owned mainstream media and by those who want war at all costs. The Zionist control of media that it owns is at its peak in the U.S. and the U.K. In fact, things have come to such a pass that a journalist of the caliber of Seymour Hersch, who incidentally is Jewish, was unable to file his outstanding investigative report on the April 4, 2017 incident in any American or British media outlet. He had to file his story in a German magazine.Based on his extensive intelligence and insider contacts he was able to state that the US intelligence and military had repeatedly told Trump that Syrians had used a conventional bomb and had not used a chemical weapon. Why then did the attack on Syria take place?

For details visit: www.educationist.com.pk/opinion The writer was vice chancellor at University of Lahore, Pakistan. He can be reached at: kamran_m51@yahoo.com

Comment Using Facebook

About Editor

Check Also

Drug companies cheating countries out of billions in tax revenues 

The world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies appear to be dodging an estimated $3.8 billion in tax …