Saturday, 7 September 2013

New York Times' Reuters Article says USA cannot link Assad to chemical attack!

The New York Times has hosted a Reuters article, which I determined to peruse on account of its being linked to by the Small Wars Journal.

Many of the facts in it would largely be a rehash of my own arguments when I said a while ago that Mr 'Obama and Hollande have 'no doubt' and no proof that Syrian government used chemical weapons!'. Though it is thoroughly worth continuing your investigation below, into what the Reuters News agency stated and the New York Times published upon their website.


The Russians claim that the shell used to dispense the gas resembles the improvised shells of a specific rebel group by the name of Bashayer Al Nasr, which it says is operating in the North of Syria, and not the industrially fabricated Syrian government munition type. As Reuters notes and the New York Times publishes, all early American theories have fallen to dust, and early suspects of the West, who they were certain aucun doute ordered the strike, are not culpable by any means of such a war crime. The Vatican also has questioned American claims: Syria: 'Between East and West, misunderstanding seems now total' Vatican slam Western 'biased view', 'its misjudgement'. Arguments that the strike is legal under new ideas of Responsibility to Protect, have been ruled out by International Law experts, whose view I also hold of the illegality of the strike even if R2P were hard law. Similarities with the mistaken entry into Vietnam by US troops are also quite parallel according to experts. Meanwhile Cafod, Red Cross, Islamic Relief and Christian Aid warn of 'catastrophe' of western military intervention in Syria. For a background on the crisis see: 'The world eyes Syria at G20, divided over the destiny of the itself cleaved in two nation, which is in state of ruin.'

Direct Link Between Assad and Gas Attack Elusive for U.S.- Reuters and New York Times

The New York Times publish the Reuters article 'Direct Link Between Assad and Gas Attack Elusive for U.S.', edited by Alistair Bell and Ken Wills, on the 'September 7, 2013 at 12:51 AM ET'.

'The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta.' Reuters states.

'Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.' Reuters unveiled, 'U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.'

'As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.' Reuters makes clear.

'U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.' Reuters makes known, yet the problem as I have noted before is that the government forces were visibly making good progress, and attacking civilian targets does not make strategic sense, especially given US rhetoric.

' U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.' Reuters forewarns, 'No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.'

'The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack.' Reuters notes. Russia has identified a specific rebel brigade, Bashayer Al Nasr, as I noted above.

'Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.' Reuters, 'the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the [Congressional Research Service] analysis [of the USA Library of Congress] said.'

'The findings were partly based on intercepted communications "involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive" which "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime," it said.' Reuters sniffs out, yet the problem here is that the interception seems to be of Hezbolla communications as claimed by seemingly German intelligence faculties, yet Hezbolla has its own secure telephone network and no need to communicate under insecure means, such important information. Again, the details of these allegations are quite sketchy in the least.

'Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said.' Reuters sketches forth, and pens further that claimed oddity that: 'Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.'

No comments:

Post a Comment

No spam, junk, hate-speech, or anti-religion stuff, thank you. Also no libel, or defamation of character. Keep it clean, keep it honest. No trolling. Keep to the point. We look forward to your comments!

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme