0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,061 $

“Rinse, Lather, Repeat”: False WMD Accusations as a Tool of Foreign Policy


"Rinse, Lather, Repeat": False WMD Accusations as a Tool of Foreign Policy


Recently, rumors and provocations have become the main, if not the only, instrument of the so-called US-led bloc to justify its aggressive and two-faced policy around the world.

Douma chemical attack

Early in the morning on April 9, a missile attack hit the T4 air base in Syria. According to the Russian military, the attack was conducted by two Israeli F-15 warplanes. Eight missiles were launched: five were shot down, three reached the air base.

This missile strike was a logical continuation of the media hysterics around the alleged chemical attack in Douma on April 7.

According to mainstream media (MSM) quoting local “activists” and “rescuers” linked to Douma militants, about 50-70 people were killed and more than 500 (up to 1000 in some reports) were injured in the alleged attack.

“We are currently dealing with more than 1,000 cases of people struggling to breathe after the chlorine barrel bomb was dropped on the city. The number of dead will probably rise even further”, Al Jazeera quoted, Moayed al-Dayrani, a resident of Douma and alleged medical volunteer, as saying.

At first, the so-called “international community” blamed Iran, Russia and Bashar Assad’s “regime” in the alleged attack without providing any evidence confirming this claim. As always, all the accusations were based on reports from pro-militant sources.

“The Assad regime and its backers must be held accountable and any further attacks prevented immediately. Russia, with its unwavering support for the regime, ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks, targeting of countless civilians, and the suffocation of Syria’s most vulnerable communities with chemical weapons. By shielding its ally Syria, Russia has breached its commitments to the United Nations as a framework guarantor”, the US Department of State said on April 7.

On April 8, Israeli officials publicly appealed the US to strike at and finish with the Syrian “dictator”. The Israeli Minister of Construction, Yoav Galant even claimed that “[Bashar] Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him”.

According to MSM reports, Pentagon prepared for Trump a list of targets to strike in Syria.

Thus, the Israeli April 9 strike could be only the first of those, which the US-led block may carry out in response to the Douma “chemical weapons” story.

It sounds like a bad joke, but the entire chain of events was triggered by a series of unconfirmed social media messages and allegations of pro-militant sources blaming the Syrian government.

Who needs credible evidence if there are such usefully timed posts in the social media and “local media outlets” affiliated with militants?

An interesting fact: On April 7, when the alleged attack took place, Douma was already completely encircled and besieged by the Syrian Army. Jaish al-Islam, which was the main militant group in Douma, and its allies had no chance of winning the battle for the town. On April 8, the militants officially accepted an evacuation agreement and agreed to withdraw from the area to other militant-held parts of Syria.

First, “regime forces” attacked “Douma’s defenders” with the toxic gas. Second, these “defenders” agreed on the evacuation.  Apparently they were not afraid that the “Assad regime” would poison their evacuation buses with some toxic agent.

On April 9, the UN Security Councils is set to hold a meeting to discuss the reports on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma. It is clear in advance, who will blame and who will be blamed.

But there is a remarkable coincidence here.

On April 3, the US President Donald Trump was going to pull the American troops out of Syria saying:

“I want to get out — I want to bring our troops back home”.

“We were successful against ISIS”.

The president’s words were at odds with the rest of Washington. The MSM and the establishment made no bones of its opposition to this plan.

However, after the Douma incident, the US military will obviously recall its “moral obligations” to stay in the occupied territories in northern and eastern Syria to defend them from the regime, which constantly uses chemical weapons.

Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack

About a year ago, almost the same scenario was observed over the Khan Sheikhoun incident.

On March 30, 2017 US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stated that the regime change in Syria was no longer the goal of the US foreign policy:

“You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out”.

A few days later, on April 4, the “bloody dictator” Assad allegedly committed the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, killing at least 74 people and injuring more than 557, according to “local activists” linked to militant groups operating in the area.

Without conducting any investigation, the so-called international community concluded that “the Assad regime” had been behind this attack.

On April 7, the US struck the Syrian Air Force’s Shayrat Air Base with cruise missiles. According to Washington, the “Assad regime” had used this airbase to conduct its Khan Sheikhoun attack.

An interesting fact: Like the Douma incident, the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun took place when militants were in full retreat, this time in northern Hama. However, the “dictator Assad” broke bad and decided to use the chemical weapon in the eyes of all the international community.

The “international investigation” of the Khan Sheikhoun incident was mainly based on pro-militant sources and “open-source research”. UN-OPCW investigators did not visit the place of the alleged attack and disregarded almost all the inconsistencies in the “Assad did it” version. The UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Syria concluded:

“All evidence available leads the commission to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe Syrian forces dropped an aerial bomb dispersing sarin in Khan Sheikhoun”.

To sum up: Assad’s “bloody regime” committed two chemical attacks against civilians within a year. Both times the chemical weapons were used without any military purpose, amid or ahead of the important diplomatic or military events related to Syria.

Skripal chemical attack poisoning

There is one more story.

On March 4, the Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in the UK by the alleged nerve agent Novichok. London rushed to accuse Russia of being behind the poisoning, but refused to provide any evidence besides “Russians did it”.

The initial claim of the UK Foreign Office that the nerve agent’s origin was identified as Russia was just revealed to be a pure lie.

Despite this, the UK, the US and their “allies” used the incident to expel Russian diplomats and to increase a diplomatic and media pressure on Moscow.

An interesting fact: the poisoning happened just after the presidential election in Russia, convincingly won by Vladimir Putin. Pro-Western opposition was not able to put forward any competitive candidate, nor instigate any anti-government protests. According to the UK, exactly in this moment, Putin was keen to rub out with the long-forgotten and useless double-agent Sergei Skripal.

However, in early April “deadly poisoned” Sergei Skripal revived after this incredibly powerful chemical agent.

As usual, it is a foregone conclusion who would be “highly likely” blamed in this “international investigation”. It’s as if the US-led bloc is satisfied to take the British “gentlemen” at their word.

Repeating the narrative

The МSM narrative says that this is just a chain of coincidences, which only unmasks the “evil” face of the West’s opponents at the international scene. But there is a clear pattern in all three cases:

  • A “horrible” accident using the “chemical weapon” occurs. Always when it is absolutely unprofitable for the alleged attacker;
  • The so-called international community rushes to apportion blame without any evidence and investigation;
  • Diplomatic and economic measures or direct aggression are launched against the accused party;
  • A non-transparent and biased investigation based on rumors and fabricated “evidence” takes place;
  • Additional pressure is exerted on the accused parties regardless of the procedure and the results of the investigation.

Rinse, lather, repeat…



Do you like this content? Consider helping us!