Journalist Disputes Syrian Chemical Attack in British Publication

Dr. Assim Rahaibani, a Syrian doctor, has told journalist Robert Fisk, writing for the British publication, The Independent, that last week’s alleged chemical gas attack by the Assad government on civilians in Douma did not happen. The alleged chemical attack was the pretext for a combined bombing raid by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred meters from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened,” Rahaibani told Fisk. “There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night — but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived.”

According to Rahaibani, “People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet,’ shouted ‘Gas!,' and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other.”

This was a video that was shown around the world, but Rahaibani explained what really happened. “Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia — not gas poisoning.”

The “White Helmets” described by Rahaibani are what most Americans would call medical “first responders.” Russia has charged that the Douma incident was “staged” by this volunteer rescue organization. Fisk noted that the White Helmets are funded by the British Foreign Office.

Americans have become increasingly skeptical of U.S. government assurances that Assad actually used chemical weapons “against his own people.” First of all, it is quite illogical that Assad would resort to gas warfare on civilians, when almost all observers believe that he is on the verge of victory in the multi-year Syrian civil war. Assad would have to know that the one thing that he could keep him from winning the war, at this point, is intervention by the British, the French, and especially America. And the only thing that would cause the U.S. public to support yet another military adventure in the Middle East would be gruesome pictures of the aftermath of just such a chemical attack.

In 2003, Americans were fed a steady diet of “information” from their government that Iraq’s dictator, Sadaam Hussein, was in possession or was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), such as chemical weapons, biological weapons, and even nuclear weapons, and that he was likely to use those weapons on American forces in the region, or he was going to give them to some Islamic terrorist group that would use them. Additionally, Americans were told that Hussein was a particularly brutal man, keeping “rape rooms,” and the like.

While Hussein was no doubt a brutal dictator, it is hard to argue that his removal from power has improved the civil liberties situation either in Iraq, or in the region. It certainly has contributed to the increased significance of the Iranians in the region.

President Donald Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, at least in part, because he condemned the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, based on the WMD claim, which U.S. forces were unable to find after the war was over. Now, Trump has been persuaded to bomb targets in Syria to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons.

But did Assad really use chemical weapons? Very little evidence has been presented to prove that contention. In fact, it has been nine days since the alleged gas attack in Douma, Syria, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has still not been given access to the site.

Russian officials have visited the site, leading Kenneth Ward, U.S. ambassador to the OPWC, to question whether the Russians may have “tampered” with the site. “It is our understanding the Russian Federation may have visited the attack site. We are concerned they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW fact-finding mission [FFM] to conduct an effective investigation. This raises serious questions about the ability of the FFM to do its job.”

Peter Wilson, the British ambassador to the OPCW, echoed Ward’s suspicions. “Since 2016, Russia has sought to undermine every OPCW investigation into allegations of regime chemical weapons use. Yet again, Russia is spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation designed to undermine the integrity of the OPCW’s fact finding mission.”

For their part, the Russians strongly reject such accusations. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that his government is not doing anything to hamper the OPCW. Instead, Ryabkov said the delays in the OPCW reaching Douma is because of “the illegal, unlawful military action” — the airstrikes conducted by the U.S., France and Britain last Friday.

Some local Arabs told Fisk that the Islamists had forcibly taken over Syrian homes to avoid bombing by the Syrian government and the Russians. The local population hates these radicals — the forces that would likely take over the country were Assad fall from power.

For more than a century, dating back to the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898, which led to a U.S. declaration of war against Spain in 1898, Americans have been persuaded to support military action by incidents in which the whole truth of the matter is disputed, e.g., Germans allegedly eating babies in Belgium before American entry into the First World War; the supposed attacks upon American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin; WMDs in Iraq; and other debatable incidents. Now, Americans are being told that a civil war in Syria is of vital interest to our country.

Perhaps the time has come to demand proof. As President Ronald Reagan said of taking the Soviets at their word — we should “trust, but verify.” Sadly, we need apply the same skepticism to our own government’s assertions before we launch bombing attacks inside another country.

Trump’s Disastrous Syria Attack

Over the weekend, President Trump celebrated firing more than 100 missiles into Syria by Tweeting, “Mission Accomplished!” They say if you cannot learn from history you are condemned to repeat it. So I guess we are repeating it.

We all remember that “Mission Accomplished” was the banner behind then-President Bush as he gloated aboard a US navy ship that the war in Iraq had been won. After his “victory,” however, some 4,000 US military personnel were killed, perhaps a million Iraqis were killed, and the country’s infrastructure and social fabric were so badly destroyed that they probably can never be repaired.

Actually, there is much about the US attack on Syria that reminds us of Iraq.

With Iraq, the US moved in to start bombing before international inspectors had completed their mission to verify whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Had they been allowed to complete their mission and verify that he did not, imagine the suffering, death, and destruction that could have been avoided. In Syria, the US decided to start bombing before the international inspectors were even allowed to start checking claims that Assad gassed his own people in Douma. Why? What was the rush? Was Washington afraid they might not find Assad guilty?

Who really benefits from US attacks on the Syrian government? There were reports that ISIS began making moves immediately after the air strikes. Do we really want to be al-Qaeda and ISIS’s airforce? Is that going to keep us safer? I remember when al-Qaeda was actually considered our enemy, not an ally in overthrowing the last secular government in the Middle East.

Will Syria’s Christians be better off after the recent US attack? Just over a week ago Christians celebrated Easter in Aleppo for the first time in years. What changed? The Syrian army kicked out al-Qaeda, which had been occupying the eastern part of the city. So no, Christians will be much worse off if our “moderate terrorists” take control of Syria.

If Syria really had sarin and other chemical weapons factories, does it make sense for the US to bomb the buildings and risk killing thousands by widely disbursing the poisons? Does it make sense to risk killing Syrian civilians with chemical weapons in retaliation for allegations that the Syrian government killed civilians with chemical weapons? No, it seems more like the phony “mobile WMD labs” we were told that Saddam Hussein had constructed.

If the US knew Syria was manufacturing chemical weapons in the buildings they bombed, why not notify the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? The OPCW had certified the very building the US bombed as chemical weapons free not that long ago. Why not just call them up and ask them to check it out? After all, they were just arriving in the country as the US started bombing.

There are many more questions about President Trump’s terrible decision to again make war on Syria. For example, where is Congress? It was disgraceful to see Speaker Paul Ryan telling the President he needs no Congressional authorization to attack Syria. All Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Does that oath mean nothing these days?

President Trump will come to regret the day he let the neocons take over his foreign policy. Their track record is abysmal. His attack on Syria was clearly illegal and should his party lose the House in November he may find his new fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party quickly turning foul.

Ron Paul is a former U.S. congressman from Texas. This article originally appeared at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and is reprinted here with permission.