I don't think Obama will sleep well tonight.
Case Against Syria’s Assad Falls Apart
Evidence for Government Use of Chemical Weapons Fizzles
(Posted on December 23, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog)
Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently destroyed America’s claim that it was clearly the Syrian government which carried out the chemical weapons attacks.
Now, the U.N. weapons inspectors have quietly retracted one of their main claims implying that Assad we behind the attack.
Former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter – Robert Parry – notes:
A United Nations analysis of samples taken from one of the two sites of the alleged Sarin attack outside Damascus, Syria, on Aug. 21 found zero chemical weapons agents, and one UN laboratory backed off its earlier claim to have found a residue that can result from degraded Sarin on the remnants of the missile, according to revisions in a new UN report.
This failure to find Sarin anywhere in Moadamiyah, a suburb south of Damascus, undercuts analyses by Human Rights Watch and the New York Times that relied on a vectoring of the two attack sites – the other in Zamalka/Ein Tarma to the east where Sarin was detected – to conclude that an elite unit of the Syrian military must have been responsible for the attacks that brought the United States close to war in Syria.
There were already problems with the analyses … because of doubts about the flight paths of the missiles and their maximum range. UN inspectors only had a rough idea of the trajectories because at least one of the projectiles appears to have deflected off a building as it crash-landed.
Also, if the two missiles had been fired from the elite military base of the 104th Brigade of the Republican Guard northwest of Damascus, they would have had to fly about nine kilometers though independent experts have suggested that the improvised missiles probably could go no more than three kilometers.
Plus, the Moadamiyah missile – with its supposedly lethal payload of Sarin – would have had to pass over the presidential palace and other sensitive government sites, a highly risky undertaking if the alleged vectoring were correct.
But the revised UN analysis, attached to a new report on several other alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria, punched a new hole in the notion that the Republican Guard fired a Sarin-laden missile into Moadamiyah. The UN inspectors found no chemical weapons agents on the remnants of the crudely made missile that landed in Moadamiyah (or for that matter no Sarin anywhere else in the area).
In the earlier UN report about the Aug. 21 incident, one of two UN labs had detected on a metal fragment what the lab thought was a chemical residue that can be left behind by degraded Sarin. But the new analysis withdraws that finding, an indication of how fragile the chemistry can be in getting false positives on derivative chemical residue.
The two UN laboratories are now in agreement that there was neither Sarin nor possible derivatives of Sarin on the metal fragments from the Moadamiyah missile.
In other words, if the only Sarin attack on Aug. 21 was in the Zamalka area, the certainty that the Syrian military carried out the assault has been seriously undermined. The vectoring cited by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch would become meaningless since there would be only one flight path of a Sarin-bearing missile, the one landing in Zamalka.
In the Zamalka/Ein Tarma neighborhood, where a crudely made missile apparently did deliver poison gas, the inspectors stated that “the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. … During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.”
The inspectors also said their visits were in the “custody” of rebel forces who guided them to the sites and to alleged witnesses.
Parry also notes that the U.N. report strongly implies that rebels have – and have used – chemical weapons:
The new UN report, released Thursday, also assessed other cases of possible chemical weapons use in Syria, including claims by the government that rebels have used Sarin and other chemical agents to inflict casualties on government soldiers and civilians.
UN inspectors said they “collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan Al Asal (near the northern city of Aleppo) on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians,” but the inspectors said they were unable to undertake a complete study because of time delays and security concerns.
The UN inspectors also examined a few incidents in the days after the Aug. 21 attack in which the Syrian government claimed its soldiers were targeted with chemical weapons, including an Aug. 25 incident at Ashrafiah Sahnaya, a town southwest of Damascus. The UN inspectors said they found evidence suggesting a small-scale attack was made against soldiers but were unable to establish the facts definitively.
***
Still, the totality of the new UN report suggests that Syrian rebels have developed a capability to produce at least crude chemical weapons and delivery systems, further adding to the possibility that the Aug. 21 attack east of Damascus could have resulted from a botched rebel launch of a makeshift missile aimed at government targets or as an accident.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Shhh....... 
news to no one
I cannot find any sources for those alleged claims by the UN inspectors.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... 
Tom O'Bedlam - I cannot find any sources for those alleged claims by the UN inspectors.O bedlam strikes again.
I didn't read but I assume its a letter from the syrian people thanking us for liberation?
Blog.
tetris -Tom O'Bedlam - I cannot find any sources for those alleged claims by the UN inspectors.O bedlam strikes again.
lol I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you don't want to know where this info comes from and to see it for yourself. I have yet to see someone explain how my wanting sources or asking questions is unreasonable in any way.
MMAdotCOM - source:
http://webtv.un.org/watch/un-mission-to-investigate-allegations-of-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-the-syrian-arab-republic-press-conference/2932994876001/#full-text
you'll find more stuff by jumping off from here:
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/23/un-investigator-undercuts-nyt-on-syria/
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/20/nyt-replays-its-iraq-fiasco-in-syria/
Thank you.
Liberate first...ask questions later!
MMAdotCOM - it's unreasonable because you only seem to do it on news reports that show our government to be corrupt liars as if it wasn't obvious they are corrupt liars.
So when you hear anything bad about the government you just accept it without any research?
The escalation of death in Syria is consistent with the pull out of the US embassy and the US admitting to being in bed with the so-called rebels.
The casualties were only 5,500 at the time the US announced closing due to increased violence and safety concerns and Assad must step down. A year later the death toll has exploded to over 100,000, we find out our government admits to CIA arming and training these rebels for over a year while also learning they were mostly foreign and Al Qeada members. This bloodshed is on obama's hands and is no different than bush.
Then they blame these deaths on the Assad regime.
Were it not for the internet, the lies would have us in another war. No wonder they want to give obama the "off switch."
MMAdotCOM - it's unreasonable because you only seem to do it on news reports that show our government to be corrupt liars as if it wasn't obvious they are corrupt liars.
There is a noticeable correlation between a lack of sources and conspiracist articles.
I don't argue the government is full of corrupt liars, just that people shouldn't use half-truths or blatantly lie in order to "expose" the corruption or lies. Just as law enforcement shouldn't break the law in order to catch criminals.
Do they? Yes. And, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but it always serves to undermine the integrity of the law. The same is true with journalism. Sometimes it serves journalists to exaggerate and other times it just undermines their article.
I have found that it doesn't matter where you get your news from, it's always biased. Even the reality you see right in front of your face is biased.
The whole thing was ridiculous from the start. Assad would have been on his best behaviour with the UN inspectors in the country, desperate for a reason to condemn him. Then he just decides to launch a devastating gas attack on a civilian populace? A couple miles from inspectors hotel no less. The whole thing stunk from the start.
A one point it seemed that strikes were hours from happening. We were just waiting on the news reports coming in. I never saw complete outrage from the public like I saw when Obama wanted to get involved (officially) in Syria.
There is a good video out there I watched a couple of months ago that exposed the push for war. So-called "experts" that were paraded on tv calling for war were actually paid shills.
Here's the video showing that many of those "experts" paraded on tv in the run up to Syria were in the pocket of defense contractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBamvCMxlSw
After watching the video you see how war is just a way of making money for these people. It's a fucking amazing way of making money. Not at war?? Well then lets create one...
Stubjj844 - Here's the video showing that many of those "experts" paraded on tv in the run up to Syria were in the pocket of defense contractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBamvCMxlSw
After watching the video you see how war is just a way of making money for these people. It's a fucking amazing way of making money. Not at war?? Well then lets create one...
In this instance, we aren't at war with Syria and as it stands the rebels are losing ground quickly.
Tom O'Bedlam -Stubjj844 - Here's the video showing that many of those "experts" paraded on tv in the run up to Syria were in the pocket of defense contractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBamvCMxlSw
After watching the video you see how war is just a way of making money for these people. It's a fucking amazing way of making money. Not at war?? Well then lets create one...
In this instance, we aren't at war with Syria and as it stands the rebels are losing ground quickly.
I posted the video 1) Because people need to see it. And 2) We came VERY close to entering another war based on lies.
The company mentioned in the video, Raytheon, make the Tomahawk missiles that would have been used extensively in any Syria conflict. It just happens that back then (and probably still) John Kerry had extensive shares in Raytheon. Hmmm...I wonder why he was so keen to get involved??
Stubjj844 -Tom O'Bedlam -Stubjj844 - Here's the video showing that many of those "experts" paraded on tv in the run up to Syria were in the pocket of defense contractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBamvCMxlSw
After watching the video you see how war is just a way of making money for these people. It's a fucking amazing way of making money. Not at war?? Well then lets create one...
In this instance, we aren't at war with Syria and as it stands the rebels are losing ground quickly.
I posted the video 1) Because people need to see it. And 2) We came VERY close to entering another war based on lies.
The company mentioned in the video, Raytheon, make the Tomahawk missiles that would have been used extensively in any Syria conflict. It just happens that back then (and probably still) John Kerry had extensive shares in Raytheon. Hmmm...I wonder why he was so keen to get involved??
VERY close does not mean we are at war.
We didn't go to war.
So the conspiracy failed?