fisherman wrote:Mike_L wrote:fisherman wrote:The OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism attributed the Syrian state with responsibility for the sarin attack at Khan Shaykhun in April last year. Their investigative mandate to continue working in Syria was vetoed by Russia last year, so at present, there is no recognised body in Syria that both sides have sanctioned with the authority to attribute blame for chemical weapons attacks.
As already mentioned earlier in the thread, Russia rejected the findings of the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) of the UN for very good reasons...
Moscow believes that JIM’s investigations were full of “systemic deficiencies” and speculations, lacked hard evidence, while its conclusions were often drawn from statements made by questionable sources. The main point of contention is that the team did not honor the basic chain-of-custody principle, which required OPCW to obtain on-site biomedical and environmental samples.https://www.rt.com/news/416794-un-syria-chemical-probe-nebenzia/
It is to be noted that the use of sarin or a sarin-like substance is not questioned. This is also evident from the position of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic which provided to the FFM its own information and materials as evidence.
However, the biomedical specimens, of which the FFM had full custody, provided incontrovertible evidence that people were exposed to sarin or a sarin-like substance.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13060.doc.htmIn‑depth laboratory study into the chemistry of the sarin had revealed that the nerve gas was very likely to have been made from the same precursor chemical that had come from the original stockpile of Syria, based on unique markers. He said the leadership panel was confident that when taken together, all those elements and others constituted clear evidence that Syria was responsible for the use of sarin at Khan Shaykhun.
Unique markers tying the sarin used directly to the government stockpile.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-exclusiv/exclusive-tests-link-syrian-government-stockpile-to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUKKBN1FJ0NS
From the Reuters article:
...
Smithson and other sources familiar with the matter said it would have been virtually impossible for the rebels to carry out a coordinated, large-scale strike with poisonous munitions, even if they had been able to steal the chemicals from the government’s stockpile.
“I don’t think there is a cat in hell’s chance that rebels or Islamic State were responsible for the Aug. 21 Ghouta attack,” said Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, an independent specialist in biological and chemical weapons.
The U.N.-OPCW inquiry, which was disbanded in November after being blocked by Syria’s ally Russia at the U.N. Security Council, also found that Islamic State had used the less toxic blistering agent sulphur mustard gas on a small scale in Syria.
The Ghouta attack, by comparison, was textbook chemical warfare, Smithson and de Bretton-Gordon said, perfectly executed by forces trained to handle sarin, a toxin which is more difficult to use because it must be mixed just before delivery.
...
Except that it is known that the rebels have used sarin...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un/u-n-has-testimony-that-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-investigator-idUSBRE94409Z20130505...likely stolen from the government stockpile or captured in areas that the rebels overran.
...
Surface-to-surface rockets delivered hundreds of litres of sarin in perfect weather conditions that made them as lethal as possible: low temperatures and wind in the early hours of the morning, when the gas would remain concentrated and kill sleeping victims, many of them children.
Pre-attack air raids with conventional bombs shattered windows and doors and drove people into shelters where the heavy poison seeped down into underground hiding places. Aerial bombing afterwards sought to destroy the evidence.
The large quantity of chemicals used, along with radar images of rocket traces showing they originated from Syrian Brigade positions, are further proof that the rebels could not have carried out the Ghouta attack, the experts said.
...
The official version of the 2013 Ghouta attacks has been questioned by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh. At the time, his thesis was dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense. However, two years later...
The Ghouta chemical attack and the unraveling of Ankara's official story
By Neil Clark
It was the chemical weapons attack that so nearly led to direct war between the US, the UK, France and the Syrian government; a war which most likely would have delivered the whole of Syria to IS and Al-Qaeda extremists.
The horrific Ghouta attack of August 21, 2013, which killed hundreds of civilians, including many children, was blamed on President Assad and his government by Western political leaders and elite media commentators.
...
...
But now Turkish MP Eren Erdem has told RT that Islamic State terrorists, then going under the name of Iraqi Al-Qaeda, received all the necessary materials to produce deadly sarin gas via Turkey.
Erdem, who is now being charged with treason for his comments, revealed that an investigation by Turkish police was started but then the case was closed, and all the suspects were released near the Turkish/Syrian border. He accused the Turkish authorities of a high-level cover up.
The Turkish MP says the evidence shows that IS, and not the Syrian government, was responsible for the Ghouta attacks.
“This attack was conducted just days before the sarin operation in Turkey. It’s a high probability that this attack was carried out with those basic materials shipped through Turkey. It is said the regime forces are responsible, but the indictment says it’s ISIS. UN inspectors went to the site but they couldn’t find any evidence. But in this indictment, we’ve found the evidence. We know who used the sarin gas, and our government knows it too,” Erdem said.
It’s not just Erdem’s testimony that challenges the official version of events. US experts do too. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report by former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and Professor Theodor Postol challenged the intelligence on which US claims against the Syrian government were made.
They revealed that the range of the rocket which was supposed to have carried the nerve gas was too short to have been launched from government-controlled areas.
“The Syrian improvised chemical munitions that were used in the August 21 nerve gas attack in Damascus have a range of about two kilometers. This indicates that these munitions could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’ or the eastern edge of the Syrian government controlled area in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30th 2013,” the report concluded.
The report pointed out that all the possible launching points for the rocket were in rebel-controlled areas.
“My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack,” said the report's co-author, Professor Postol. “But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.”
...
Full text at:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/326111-ghouta-chemical-attack-turkey/The official version of the later Khan Sheikhoun attack has also been challenged...
MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged
Theodore Postol of MIT says there is no concrete evidence linking Assad to the attack.
By Tareq Haddad
A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.
Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House's finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.
He concluded that the US government's report does not provide any "concrete" evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.
Postol said: "I have reviewed the [White House's] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.
"In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.
"This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House."
The image Postol refers to is that of a crater containing a shell inside, which is said to have contained the sarin gas.
His analysis of the shell suggests that it could not have been dropped from an airplane as the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion. Instead, Postol said it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.
...
...
In his latest reports, Postol hit out at what he says is a "politicisation" of intelligence findings.
Postol said: "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.
"All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.
...
Full text at:
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-was-staged-1617267
by 
reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for Russia to launch missile attacks on Porton Down... or, hell, any British university with a toxicology department... you know, just to be on the safe side.
