June 1, 2015
On May 25, when a large explosion took place in Latakia, Syria, a few mainstream media outlets covered the incident from the angle of it being yet one more sign that the Syrian regime was losing its grip on power. This explosion was followed by a huge yellow plume of smoke that caused many informed observers to wonder whether or not the explosion was that of a chemical weapon.
On the chemical weapons question, however, the mainstream Western press was silent.
This is despite the fact that the media clearly sees the sign of yellow smoke as the indication of chemical weapons use, which it subsequently uses to blame Bashar al-Assad and gin up support for US invasion when those explosions take place in certain areas or have deleterious results for the death squads. After all, when a missile/explosion was detonated in Dara (Dera’ah), Dr. Annie Sparrow, a “health activist” married to the head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, claimed that a chlorine-based chemical weapon had been detonated by the Assad regime (who else?). Sparrow’s photograph showed a plume of yellow smoke that looked identical to that in Latakia.
Indeed, her husband’s HRW organization has also made statements suggesting that yellow colored smoke was an indication of the use of chlorine-based chemical weapons.
plenty of evidence to the contrary) of the Assad regime as a result of her claims, why isn’t Sparrow or HRW condemning the terrorists who detonated a missile/chlorine based weapon in Latakia?
After all, one can see from the pictures posted on Twitter that the explosions were almost identical.
. @nadimhoury @Syricide < has a point, this (NO2) is exactly what #HRW describe as chlorine cc @ShoebridgeC pic.twitter.com/RimK7y1swE
— ifriqiyah (@ifriqiyah) May 25, 2015
The answer is that, much like the Western press, NATO, and the myriad of NGOS, Foundations, and think tanks across the Western world, Human Rights Watch is nothing more than a misleading front group for the imperialist powers that seek the destruction of sovereign states the world over.
To be clear, it is a matter of intense speculation as to the nature of the explosion. There is no consensus as to what the source or the material of the explosion might be. The possibility of an improvised chemical weapon, a missile, or even a crashed drone are competing theories.
Still, it must be remembered that HRW was recently caught in a brazen attempt to use a picture of the US bombing of Ayn al-Arab to claim that Assad had destroyed a Syrian city with barrel bombs.
While the attack in Latakia is clearly the work of Western-backed terrorists (Latakia is firmly in government control), all previous claims of chlorine-based chemical weapons have likewise shown to be the work of jihadists.
Back in December of 2012, after the death squads managed to capture a chlorine factory inside Syria, the Syrian government actually issued a warning that the death squads might attempt to use chemical weapons of this nature in their battle to overthrow and oppress the government and people of Syria respectively. The Syrian Foreign Ministry stated, “Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people ... after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory.”
Thus, with the most recent chemical weapon attack which has caused both a frothing and bumbling public relations response from the Anglo-Americans, it is interesting to note that chlorine has been fingered as being one of the major ingredients.
As Alex Thomson of The Telegraph reported,
The Syrian military is said to believe that a home-made locally-manufactured rocket was fired, containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. They claim that the warhead contained a quantity of the gas, dissolved in saline solution.Partially funded by George Soros, Human Rights Watch has repeatedly shilled for NATO and America’s imperialist aims, particularly in Syria.
CL17 is normal chlorine for swimming pools or industrial purposes. It is rated as Level 2 under the chemical weapons convention, which means it is dual purpose - it can be used as a weapon as well as for industrial or domestic purposes. Level 1 agents are chemicals whose sole use is as weapons, such as the nerve agents sarin or tabun.
There has been extensive experimentation by insurgents in Iraq in the use of chlorine, which is harmful when mixed with water to form hydrochloric acid. It vapourises quickly, meaning that in a big explosion it will evaporate; in a small blast - for instance, one delivered by a home-made rocket - it will turn into airborne droplets before dispersing quickly.
So it is likely only to produce limited casualties. In this case there were only 26 fatalities, far fewer than would be expected from a full chemical weapon attack. In short, it is easily improvised into a chemical device but not one that would be used by an army seeking mass-casualty effects. [emphasis added]
For instance, when Western media propaganda had reached a crescendo regarding the outright lie that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people, HRW stood right beside Barack Obama and John Kerry in their effort to prove Assad’s guilt. HRW even went so far as to repeat the lie that the UN report suggested that Assad was the offending party, driving the final nail into the coffin of any credibility HRW may have had.
When a last-minute chemical weapons deal was secured by Russia in an effort to avoid yet another US/NATO invasion of Syria, HRW did not rejoice for the opportunity of peaceful destruction of chemical weapons and a chance to avoid war, it attacked the deal by claiming that it “failed to ensure justice.” Of course, the deal did fail to ensure justice. There were no provisions demanding punishment of the death squads who actually used the weapons or the US/NATO apparatus that initiated and controlled the jihadist invasion to begin with.
Regardless, when Mother Agnes Mariam of the Cross released her report that refuted what the US/NATO was asserting in regards to chemical weapons in Syria, HRW embarked upon a campaign of attack against her and her work.
Even as far back as 2009, however, HRW was showing its true colors when it apparently signed off on and supported renditions – the process of kidnapping individuals off the street without any due process and “rendering” them to jails and prisons in other countries where they are often tortured – in secret talks with the Obama administration.
If HRW ever had any credibility in terms of the question of actual human rights, then all of that credibility has assuredly been lost. HRW is nothing more than a pro-US, pro-NATO NGO that acts as a smokescreen for the continuation of the violation of human rights across the world – that is, unless those violations are committed by America’s enemies.
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:
- It's Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won't Hurt Us
- Of Course Jeb Bush Would Have Invaded Iraq! He Signed On To PNAC Six Years Before!
- DOD Admits Supporting ISIS, Buffer Zones In Syria