France, UK & US (F.U.K.U.S.) Strikes Syria - Who Won? (April 14, 2018)

France, UK & US (F.U.K.U.S.) Strikes Syria – Who Won?

https://educate-yourself.org/cn/France-United-Kingdom-and-United-States-Strikes-Syria-Who-Won-14apr18.shtml#top
April 14, 2018 Forward from Tony Blizard

France, United Kingdom and United States (F.U.K.U.S.) Strikes Syria – Who Won? (April 14, 2018)

Facebook Censorship
To post this article on Facebook, link to the TinyUrl seen below. Facebook will remove any article identified as coming from educate-yourself.org .
https://tinyurl.com/ycnh8c3o

F.U.K.U.S. Strikes Syria – Who Won?

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/fukus-strikes-syria-who-won.html#more

Last night France, the UK and the U.S. launched an illegal attack on Syria and bombed several military and civilian sites within the country. They justify their attack as revenge or punishment for an alleged ‘chemical attack’ that had taken place a week earlier.

The ‘chemical incident’ on April 7 in Douma was designed to reverse Trump’s publicly announced decision to order the U.S. military out of Syria. The Saudi financed Salafi ‘rebels’ in Douma collected bodies, probably from another incident, and stacked them up in one apartment to stage a scene and to create fake videos of a ‘chemcial attack’ which they falsely attributed to the Syrian government.

Trump pretended to fall for the videos and tweeted threats against Syria and Russia. Russia threatened to respond with strong force should any U.S. attack hurt its soldiers or interests in Syria.

The UK and France, who like the U.S. were only recently visited by the Saudi clown prince and showered with fresh Saudi billions, jumped onto the case. France now admits that its ‘intelligence’ of the Douma incident is solely based on the obviously staged youtube videos and claims made by ‘western’ financed propaganda operations who cooperate with the Jihadis.

Yesterday the Russian Defense Ministry accused Britain of having organized the ‘chemical incident’:

Today, there are other evidences at the disposal of the Russian military department, which testify to the direct participation of Great Britain in organizing this provocation in the Eastern Ghouta.

The Russian party knows for certain that from April 3 to 6, representatives of the so-called White Helmets were influenced by London for the speedy implementation of the provocation – prepared in advance.

The White Helmets received information that Jaysh al-Islam militants were to conduct a series of powerful artillery shelling of Damascus on April 3 to 6.

This will promote a response from the government troops, which the White Helmets’ representatives will have to use to carry out provocations with alleged chemical weapons.

The ‘White Helmets’ are financed by the British government and are led by a ‘former’ British military intelligence officer. The direct accusations against Britain may have been a factor in the hasty launch of last night’s strike. Another was surely the arrival of technicians of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in Damascus. These will today investigate the alleged incident in Douma and will likely find that it did not take place. That the three countries did not even wait for preliminary results from the investigation must be seen as an admission of guilt. They know that the ‘chemical attack’ did not take place.

The U.S. military was wary of any potential conflict with Russia. Intense negotiations took place over the last week between the Pentagon and the Russian defense ministry. Secretary of Defense Mattis is said to have talked Trump out of a more serious strike. World War III was avoided.

Last night some 107 missiles and cruise missiles were fired against two research sites and eight military airports in Syria by U.S., French and British forces. The Russian and Syrian forces were warned. People and equipment had been moved. The Russian forces did not directly respond as their areas in Syria were not targeted. The Syrian air defense managed to shoot down or divert 71 of the incoming missiles before they reached their target. The Pentagon claims that none of its missiles were destroyed or diverted from its aim. A well known Syrian opposition outlet disagrees with the Pentagon’s claim:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights managed to monitored interception by the regime forces to tens of missiles which targeted their positions and military bases in the Syrian territory, where several intersected sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory, that the number missiles that were downed, exceeded 65 missiles …

A 60 to 70% air defense success rate against incoming missiles is stunning. Most of these will have been killed by the Pantsir-S1 systems Russia supplied to Syria. Every Syrian military airport is now protected by such short range systems and while eight were targeted only one was hit.

One of the targets that were hit was the undefended Barzah Scientific Research Center near Damascus. The Pentagon claims that chemical weapons are made or stored there. That claim is obviously a lie:

• In 2013 Syrian joined the Chemical Warfare Convention and gave up all its chemical weapons.
• The OPCW has checked all accessible former chemical weapon sites in Syria and observed the destruction of the production equipment.
• It has visited and inspected (pdf) the Barzeh facility. Twice.
• After the equipment was removed the Barzah site was abandoned.
• One does not attack a site with normal bombs if one knows that chemical weapons are stored their. The bombs would distribute the dangerous chemicals and everyone downwind would be seriously affected.
• After the U.S. strikes people can be seen walking through the fresh ruins. None wear any protection. There surely was nothing ‘chemical’ there.

The same holds for the Jaramana facility hit by the strikes. The Pentagon’s claim that the strikes hit Syrian ‘chemical production and storage facilities’ is a lie.

No one has been reported killed by the strikes. The Russian Defense Ministry assessment says that three people were injured. Further assessments of the strikes can be found here: 1, 2 and 3.

What will be the consequences of these strikes?

Last weeks push by the media, by interventionists and by neoconservatives for a wider war on Syria (and Russia) has now been calmed down. Even John McCain, who always wants more wars, seems somewhat satisfied.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin issued a strong statement:

An act of aggression against a sovereign state that is on the frontline in the fight against terrorism was committed without a mandate from the UN Security Council and in violation of the UN Charter and norms and principles of international law.

The Chinese government likewise laments the violation of international law and the UN charter.

In ordering the strike President Trump also broke U.S. law specifically the War Powers Resolution.

A Security Council meeting will take place today but, as the U.S., Britain and France have vetos, will have no consequences.

One issue the U.S. is certainly not happy about is the successful demonstration of the Russian supplied air defenses which was used last night against the U.S. strikes. This announcement from the Russian Defense Ministry statement will create additional headaches:

It is to be stressed that several years ago given the strong request by our western partners, Russia opted out of supplying the S-300 AD systems to Syria. Taking into account the recent incident, Russia believes it possible to reconsider this issue not only regarding Syria but other countries as well.

More countries will now be able to buy and receive state-of-the-art Russian air defense equipment. Future interferences by the U.S. as well as Israeli strikes against Syria will become significantly more risky. When Syria receives the S-300 systems it will have the reach to detect and attack any Israeli plane flying over Lebanon. Israel has often used Lebanese airspace to attack targets in Syria.  It will soon lose that luxury.

Syria, Iran and Hizbullah all issued statement promising retaliation for the attack. Their responses will likely come on the ground against U.S. targets and assets in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. The Syrian people in Damascus could observe the success of the air defenses and were quite happy with it. They will respond with more support for their government and its plans to liberate all of Syria.

Trump evaded the public pressure created by the fake ‘chemical attack’ with a more or less symbolic airstrike. He tweeted “Mission Accomplished!” I expect that he will continue to press for an end of U.S. operations in Syria. Whoever instigated the faked attack has won nothing.

Trumps reaction to the incident is also an invitation to Jihadis and those who influence them to repeat such stunts whenever it suits them.

The Pentagon keeps the option open for such further ‘chemical attack’ stunts and U.S. strikes. It today claimed that Syria still has additional chemical weapon facilities. If this were really the case why isn’t the U.S. demanding an inspection and dismantling of these facilities by the OPCW? Syria has signed the Chemical Warfare Convention and would have to accept that.

The obvious U.S. disregard for any international law and for the international organizations like the UN, the OPCW and IAEA will have serious consequences. The U.S. can now surely forget about its desire for an disarmament agreement with North Korea. Russia, China and others will use the example of last night’s strikes to disregard international law when it will suit them. There will be no more favors like holding back S-300 systems or adhering to U.S. sanctions against other countries.  

In the end the instigators of the incident, the U.S., and its partners in crime will have hurt themselves more with these strikes than they hurt Syria.

—
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the ‘chemical attack’ in Douma and its consequences.

Posted by b on April 14, 2018 at 01:09 PM | Permalink