VS geschiedenis van chemisch wapengebruik vergeleken met uitspraken van VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley

Hare kwaadaardigheid Nikki Haley, VS ambassadeur bij de VN, die keer op keer het gore lef heeft om wie dan ook de les te lezen, moet eindelijk eens kijken waarvoor haar eigen land, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS, verantwoordelijk is..... Neem de zogenaamd door de wettige regering van Syrië gepleegde gifgasaanvallen die Haley keer op keer noemt als feit, terwijl de enige bewezen gifgasaanvallen* allen zijn toe te schrijven aan de door de VS beschermde 'gematigde rebellen' (lees: terreurgroepen die zich schuldig maken aan moord, verkrachting, marteling en het gebruik van chemische wapens..)...... Daarmee maakt de VS zich ook nog eens schuldig aan vreselijke oorlogsmisdaden.......

De schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, Brian Kalman heeft een aantal oorlogsmisdaden van de VS op een rij gezet, o.a. waar de VS gebruik heeft gemaakt van gifgas, en waaruit ten overvloede nog eens de enorme hypocrisie van helleveeg Haley blijkt..... 

Voorts wijst de schrijver nog eens op het chemische wapenprogramma van de VS, een programma waar nog steeds aan wordt gewerkt en waar nog steeds onderzoek wordt gedaan naar nieuwe chemische wapens, ondanks dat de VS of beter gezegd de Vereniging van Terreurstaten het verdrag tegen de verspreiding van chemische wapens, ofwel Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) heeft getekend...... 

Het gestolen land VS 'heeft zich voorts onderworpen' aan de Organisatie voor het Verbod op Chemische Wapens (OVCW), die landen bij de les moet houden, een organisatie waar de VS lid van is....... De organisatie die e.e.a. controleert is het VN orgaan OPCW en is gezeteld in Den Haag, blijkbaar heeft die organisatie geen toegang tot de massamoord laboratoria van de VS.... (zie de PS notitie onderaan in dit bericht) Kortom de OPCW is een uiterst lamme organisatie (zoals de hele VN), maar dat past dan weer prefect bij het hypocriete Nederland, de hielenlikker van de VS.......

Nieuw voor mij is het feit dat de VS in meerdere buitenlanden laboratoria heeft voor 'onderzoek' naar chemische wapens 

US History of Chemical Weapons Use and Complicity in War Crimes

Before pointing the finger at Russia and Syria, the U.S. should answer for its own record

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront; Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

The world is once again witnessing the height of U.S. hypocrisy as members of the U.S. State Department ratchet up anti-Russian and anti-Syrian rhetoric surrounding the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the UK. Ambassador Nikki Haley has warned Syria, Iran and Russia that they will be held accountable for their pre-determined use of chemical weapons in Idlib on innocent civilians. No evidence was provided to support her threats. The United States carried out cruise missile strikes on two previous occasions, and each time provided no evidence to prove their assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in attacking civilians, nor was any rational reason given for such an obviously irrational decision on the part of the Syrian state. No evidence has ever been provided to justify the clear international crime of aggression committed by the United States on these two earlier occasions. Now, the UK and the U.S. are both attempting to accuse the Russian government of using chemical weapons in an alleged attempted assassination of a Russian national on UK soil. Once again, no real evidence has been presented, only assertions and hearsay.      

On Thursday September 13th, Assistant Secretary of State Manisha Singh declared before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that the United States would level the most severe of sanctions against Russia, including breaking all diplomatic ties, if Russia refused to admit its guilt in perpetrating the Skripal assassination fiasco and refused to submit to International inspections by the OPCW of its alleged chemical weapons and biological weapons programs. She stated that Russia would have to meet this requirement by an arbitrary November 4th deadline, set by the United States in accordance with a U.S. law, not an international law. H.R. 1724 – Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 specifies in part:  

 Title III: Control and Elimination of Chemical and Biological Weapons – Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 – Declares it is U.S. policy to: (1) seek multilaterally coordinated efforts with other countries to control the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons; and (2) strengthen efforts to control chemical agents, precursors, and equipment.     

Requires the President to use the U.S. export control laws to control the export of defense articles, defense services, goods, and technologies that he determines would assist a country in acquiring the capability to produce or use such weapons.     

Amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a list of goods and technology that would assist a foreign government or group in acquiring chemical or biological weapons. Requires a validated export license for the export of such items to certain countries of concern.

Requires the President to impose certain sanctions against foreign persons if he determines that they knowingly contributed to the efforts of a country to acquire, use, or stockpile chemical or biological weapons. Declares such sanctions to include: (1) denial of U.S. procurement contracts for goods or services from such foreign persons; and (2) prohibition against importation of products from such persons. Authorizes the President to waive imposition of such sanctions if he determines that is in the national security interests of the United States.

Amends the Arms Export Control Act to set forth similar provisions.

Requires the President to make a determination with respect to whether a country has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. Authorizes specified congressional committees to request the President to make such determination with respect to the use of such weapons.

Requires the President to impose the following sanctions against foreign countries that have been found to have used such weapons: (1) termination of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (except humanitarian assistance and agricultural commodities); (2) termination of arms sales and arms sales financing; (3) denial of U.S. credit; and (4) prohibition of the export of certain goods and technology. Directs the President to impose at least three of the following additional sanctions unless such countries cease the use of such weapons and provide assurances that they will not use, and will allow inspections with respect to, such weapons: (1) opposition to the extension of multilateral development bank assistance; (2) prohibition of U.S. bank loans (except loans for food or agricultural commodities); (3) further export prohibitions; (4) import restrictions; (5) suspension of diplomatic relations; and (6) termination of air carrier landing rights. Provides for the removal and waiver of such sanctions.

Requires the President to submit to the Congress annual reports on the efforts of countries to acquire chemical or biological weapons.

Repeals certain duplicative provisions of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.

It is important to note that nowhere in this law is there a legal commitment made by the United States itself, to eliminate its own chemical and biological weapons capabilities. This is not an oversight, yet speaks to the imperial hypocrisy of the United States and an acknowledgement that it alone has been the largest perpetrator of chemical weapons use and proliferation for more than 50 years. It currently maintains the largest stockpile of both chemical and biological warfare agents of any nation on the planet, and continues to expand its biological weapons research and development on a scale far larger than any other country.

While the U.S. Department of Defense maintains that its massive biological research programs are meant to counter and defend against new biological weapons being developed, they are in fact developing bio-weapons in the process.

International Obligations and the OPCW

Russia is one of 192 signatories (state and non-state parties) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, along with the United States. On September 27th, 2017 it was announced by Russia and the OPCW, that Russia had verified the total destruction of its large chemical weapons stockpile dating from the years of the Soviet Union, estimated at 39,967 metric tons of chemical agents. Russia was obligated to do this by 2020, yet was able to accomplish the task three years ahead of schedule. Under the original agreement, both the U.S. and Russia were obligated to accomplish this by 2007, but both nations required an extension of the deadline.

Although admitting to a total stockpile of 28,000 metric tons of chemical agents, the U.S. admits to destroying 90% of its chemical arsenal. The U.S. requested and was granted an extension out to 2023 to achieve verified elimination of 100% of its chemical weapons. The only other signatory of the law other than the United States not to have already met the requirements is Iraq. It must be stated that much of the chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal are based on the chemical warfare agents supplied to the Saddam Hussein regime during the height of the Iran-Iraq war by the United States and other western nations. Saddam used some of these U.S. supplied weapons to murder thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988. Estimates range between 3,000 – 7,000 deaths and over 10,000 injured.  

Saddam Hussein was a valued asset of the United States and its Western allies for decades. Hussein pictured above with former French President Jacque Chirac and U.S Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Not only did the United States, and France for that matter, provide chemical weapons to the Saddam regime, but the U.S. intelligence agencies provided the Iraqi military with vital battlefield intelligence, including satellite imagery in aiding them in the war. The U.S. was well aware that the Saddam regime had used chemical weapons in at least four offensives during the war. Of course they knew, they had facilitated the transfer of these weapons to help the Iraqis prosecute a war of aggression against Iran. Declassified CIA documents clearly show that the United States was well aware that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons at least four times between 1983 and 1988. Iran had accused Iraq of using chemical weapons, and tried to build a case to bring before the United Nations. The United States withheld its knowledge of course, and continued to aid its ally in perpetrating these crimes against humanity.

Perhaps the most powerful photo taken of the Halabja chemical attack perpetrated against Iraqi Kurds. This woman died running with her child in an attempt to save her, yet could not escape the deadly effects of the chemical agents used. Their embrace will forever symbolize both human love and sacrifice, and unfathomable human cruelty.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley has lied through her teeth repeatedly in her statements before the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly. She has stated repeatedly that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people in Ghouta in 2013, Khan Shaykhun in 2017 and Douma in 2018, yet has not supplied one shred of evidence beyond dubious social media posts of unknown provenance. She has also stated that the United States is certain that it could only be the Syrian government, as no other party in the conflict zone could possibly possess chemical weapons. Here’s the problem with her statement. Firstly, the United States and the OPCW verified that Syria destroyed or surrendered all of its chemical weapons agents. On its official website, the OPCW states:

“Veolia, the US firm contracted by the OPCW to dispose of part of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, has completed disposal of 75 cylinders of hydrogen fluoride at its facility in Texas.

This completes destruction of all chemical weapons declared by the Syrian Arab Republic.  The need to devise a technical solution for treating a number of cylinders in a deteriorated and hazardous condition had delayed the disposal process.

Commenting on this development, the Director-General of the OPCW, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, said: “This process closes an important chapter in the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapon programme as we continue efforts to clarify Syria’s declaration and address ongoing use of toxic chemicals as weapons in that country.”

Secondly, the OPCW and the UN have both verified that opposition forces within Syria have used chemical agents as weapons on numerous occasions during the conflict. Not only has Carla Del Ponte, UN human rights investigator, former UN Chief Prosecutor and ICC attorney stated that opposition forces had used chemical weapons, but also the former OPCW head field investigator in Syria Jerry Smith stated to the BBC that he found it very unlikely that the government perpetrated these chemical attacks.. As recently as October of last year the U.S. State Department itself seemed to acknowledge the same truth in its warning to U.S. citizens traveling to Syria. The travel warning stated:

“Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons.

They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings, government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces.”

U.S. History of Using Chemical Weapons and Supporting Those that Do

The last country in the world that should lecture anyone on the possession and use of WMDs is the United States. Not only is the United States the only country in history to ever target civilians with multiple atomic bombs, it has used chemical weapons against the populations of Southeast Asia and Iraq in the past. Now, they were smart enough not to use mustard gas and anthrax, but the accumulative effects of Agent Orange and depleted uranium in these populations has been devastating, and will not only cause great harm and pain for these populations, but will leave the land poisoned for generations.  

The United States sprayed copious quantities of TCDD (dioxin tetrachlordibenzo-para-dioxin), a class 1 carcinogen all over regions of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in an attempt to defoliate the jungle environment, and thus rob their enemy of an environment they excelled at fighting in and hiding in as part of Operation Ranch Hand. Known as Agent Orange, the chemical was banned in the U.S. in 1970. Although extremely hard to quantify, the devastating effects of dioxin exposure in the Vietnamese population are easily identifiable, as the same effects were observed in U.S. veterans that returned home after exposure to the toxin. Abnormally high levels of various cancers and debilitating birth defects are present in Southeast Asian populations in areas of greatest use of Agent Orange. Dioxins remain in the soil and water table, as they do not degrade naturally. Dioxin also bio-accumulates in the fatty tissues of animals and thus remains in the food supply.

One of the many young Vietnamese born long after the war with debilitating, neurodevelopmental diseases and birth defects due to Agent Orange exposure of their parents.

The United States learned little from the crime it perpetrated in Southeast Asia, nor did it seem to care as it repeated a similar offense in two successive invasions of Iraq. Having failed to achieve its aim of defeating Iran through its brutal Iraqi proxy, even after helping the Saddam Hussein regime in chemical warfare attacks against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurdish civilians, the United States largely ignored the numerous atrocities carried out by one of its favorite dictators. The U.S. would turn on its erstwhile henchman in 1990, after Saddam decided to attack one of its favorite corrupt emirates in the region. The resulting 1991 invasion of Iraq saw the heavy use of depleted uranium armored piercing rounds. Depleted uranium is extremely dense, and thus good for piercing hardened steel or composite armor. The follow-on invasion of 2003 brought more death and destruction, and more depleted uranium.

Locations of depleted uranium munitions used by U.S. Airforce A-10 ground attack aircraft in Iraq during the 2003 invasion. Depleted Uranium is also used in anti-armor munitions utilized by all U.S. tanks and armored fighting vehicles as well, so the true breadth of distribution and employment of depleted uranium in the above map are understated.

The U.S. has not funded the reclamation and disposal of depleted uranium contaminated scrap in Iraq. The new Iraqi government has started cleaning up the approximately 350 sites identified as having depleted uranium contamination in the country, mostly around Basra and Baghdad, yet also scattered over the entire country. It is estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 metric tons of depleted uranium used in various munitions fired during the invasion of 2003 alone. It is hard to narrow down the exact amount as the U.S. military has failed to provide any definitive numbers. Iraqi doctors have recorded and reported higher cases of cancers in adult patients and increased birth defects in children being born in Iraq since the invasion took place. The U.S. government seems determined to undermine any attempts to draw direct correlations between this recorded phenomenon and its use of depleted uranium in two successive wars in Iraq. It has also fought all attempts by U.S. war veterans suffering from various cancers and neurological diseases from their similar exposure in both wars.

Continued Support of War Criminals

Nikki Haley fails to acknowledge the historic role of the United States government’s support of some of the world’s most horrible regimes in the past. From the Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein then, to Saudi Arabia and Tahrir al-Sham now, the United States has supported many of the world’s most deplorable violators of human rights. Yet Nikki Haley has the arrogance and delusional belief that she has the moral high ground in chastising Syria and Russia before the U.N.?

Just this week U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo clarified that the Saudi and UAE have acted in good faith in taking steps to reduce civilian casualties in their military operations in Yemen and that the U.S. military would keep providing both material and direct support to both nations in prosecuting their illegal war. U.S. manufactured and supplied bombs are being used to kill civilians in Yemen regularly, amounting to an estimated 15,000 killed or injured civilians over a period of three years. This does not take into account the deaths and suffering associated with the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the Saudi-led coalition destroying virtually all infrastructure in the Houthi controlled part of the country. I am sure that it is also just another “unintended consequence” that al-Qaeda has expanded and strengthened its position in Yemen as a direct result of the conflict. When will any member state in the U.N. finally tell Nikki Haley that the Security Council must acknowledge that al-Qaeda has always been a proxy of Saudi Arabia and the United States?

Children injured when a Saudi airstrike targeted a school bus in Saada, Yemen. A total of 51 civilians, 40 of them children below the age of 15 were killed in the strike. The United States supplies the aircraft, bombs, aerial refueling and intelligence gathering resources to support the bombing campaign.

Nikki Haley continues to claim that Russia is directly facilitating an impending humanitarian disaster and war crime in the impending Syrian military operations to retake Idlib province, destroy a host of ISIS and al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups and liberate hundreds of thousands of civilians. She said the same thing during the battle to liberate Aleppo. Her lies were revealed when the SAA and Russia finally liberated the city and Syrian civilians who were kept as prisoners there by the Islamic terrorists were finally free of the horror of their captivity. Is it no wonder that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees displaced by the conflict are now returning to their home country?

Apparently Nikki Haley sees no issue at all in Imperial America supporting Saudi Arabia and the UAE killing Yemeni civilians by the thousands in Yemen. The U.S. not only supplies the bombs, but directly provides in-flight refueling of the aircraft and the intelligence used to conduct the “precision” strikes that target schools, hospitals, funerals, and even school bus loads of children. Does this surprise anyone? U.S. coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Raqqa and Mosul killed an estimated 6,000 civilians. In Raqqa, U.S. aircraft conducted 90% of the airstrikes, and the U.S. fired at least 30,000 artillery rounds into the city. The U.S. has yet to pay any political or legal price for its indiscriminant destruction of these cities.

One of thousands of airstrikes carried out on the Syrian city of Raqqa. The U.S. led coalition was widely criticized for its blatant disregard for civilian casualties in its targeting of the city as part of its offensive to destroy ISIL. They have yet to be held accountable for the estimated 800-1,000 civilians deaths caused.

The Russian Response

Russia needs to finally accept the reality that there is nothing to be gained by negotiating, or attempting to collaborate with the United States in solving problems. It’s like a shepherd using a wolf to defend his flock, or a detective enlisting the aid of a criminal to solve a crime that the criminal is a co-conspirator in perpetrating. It is illogical in the extreme. The Russian U.N. mission needs to call out Nikki Haley and the U.S. on its own deplorable record and hypocrisy and while seeking  the aid of other member states, must also realizing that most of them are bought-off by Washington. Hasn’t Haley repeatedly threatened to stop giving money to nations that do not support her resolutions?

The Russians need to realize that they can never have a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship with the political and financial elites that control the United States. Russia will always find a friend in the American people, but Washington? This same elite despises the American people more than it does Putin or Assad. If it wasn’t for working class American citizens fed up with the U.S. establishment elite, we would likely already be in a direct war with Russia, China and Iran. I hope that the Russian political and military leadership understands this. Stop trying to placate Washington and start preparing to defend your nation. The Deep State will not stop at Ukraine or Syria. They desire the complete subjugation of Russia and a return to the Yeltsin days, or worse.

======================================

*  Een aantal gifgasaanvallen vond niet eens plaats, zo bleek uit onderzoek van o.a. de VN......

PS: Israël en Egypte behoren tot de weinige landen die het CWC niet hebben getekend en nog steeds chemische wapens produceren, opslaan en verkopen........ Niet ondenkbaar dus dat de terreurgroepen in Syrië ('gematigde rebellen) hun gifgas hebben betrokken uit Israël en/of Egypte, beiden grote vijanden van het Syrische Assad bewind...... Israël heeft al een paar keer aangegeven samen te werken met die terreurgroepen en zelfs samenwerking met IS niet uit de weg te gaan....... Dat deze terreurgroepen gifgas bezitten, waaronder sarin en chlorine deert het westen blijkbaar niet..... Overigens gebruiken veel westerse landen die het verdrag ondertekenden wel een chemisch wapen dat ze ook opgeslagen hebben, t.w. traangas......... Onlangs bleek overigens dat Nederland in het bezit is van nog veel gevaarlijker chemische wapens, die door TNO worden onderzocht....... (volgens het verdrag mag je ook geen chemische wapens in het bezit hebben...)

Zie ook:
'BBC weer met anti-Syrische propaganda en veel aandacht voor de geweldige Turken en hun leider Erdogan' (met links naar ander gifgas gebruik in Syrië)
 
'VS bewapening van Irak met chemische en biologische wapens valt onder leeftijdscensuur van YouTube' 

'VS heeft al 4 keer het verboden chemische wapen witte fosfor gebruikt'

Meer voorbeelden van grootschalige VS terreur:
'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'

'List of wars involving the United States'

'VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........'

'VS: openlijke militaire oefening met terreurgroep in Syrië......'

'NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO.........'

'VS commando's vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog.........'

'De VS, een duivels imperium, dat achter haar psychopathisch moordende troepen staat??'

'De war on drugs is veel dodelijker dan over het algemeen gedacht'

Skripal: wat journalisten echt zouden moeten vragen aangaande 'de aanslag met gifgas'

De reactie, of beter gezegd de hysterie na de 'aanslag' gepleegd op Skripal en zijn dochter is werkelijk ongelofelijk, zonder ook maar één flinter van bewijs werd en wordt Rusland (het liefst gebruikt men de naam Putin) de schuld in de schoenen geschoven.... Alsof het een oorlogsdaad betrof, wezen een aantal NAVO landen Russische diplomaten uit, nogmaals op basis van nul komma nada bewijs...... VVD volksverlakkers Rutte en Blok spraken zelfs over 'plausibel bewijs....' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Drie dagen geleden werd bekend gemaakt dat de dochter van Skripal uit het ziekenhuis werd ontslagen, terwijl eerder vorige week werd gesteld dat wanneer de Skripals de aanslag zouden overleven, ze de rest van hun leven zwaar gehandicapt zouden zijn, als een soort van levende planten........ Met het ontslaan uit het ziekenhuis van Skripals dochter werd de internationale hysterie nog eens verder aan de kaak gesteld en moeten er nog grotere vraagtekens worden gezet bij de beschuldigingen aan het adres van de Russen............

Rob Slane schreef eerder een artikel genaamd: '30 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case' (de link naar dat artikel vindt je als eerste link in het tweede artikel van Slane, dat hieronder is opgenomen). 30 vragen waarmee Slane duidelijk maakt dat de Britse versie over de 'aanslag' is gebaseerd op lucht.

Intussen is er weer heel wat meer bekend over de leugens waarmee Rusland werd/wordt beschuldigd, reden voor Slane om een vervolg te schrijven op zijn eerste artikel met de titel: '20 More Questions That Journalists Shoul be Asking About the Skripal Case'. (zoals gezegd hieronder te vinden)

Slane vraagt zich o.a. af hoe andere landen dan Groot-Brittannië op 26 maart het besluit hebben kunnen nemen Russische diplomaten uit te zetten, terwijl de Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) het onderzoek naar de zaak nog niet had afgerond en de bloedmonsters nog niet kon analyseren (voor toestemming dit bloed te onderzoeken door de OPCW, was godbetert een proces nodig....)...... 

Zelfs de analyse van de bloedmonsters door Porton Down laten vragen open....... (Porton Down is een instituut van de Britse overheid, dus gekleurde onderzoeksuitslagen, die in het straatje van de regering May passen, zijn niet te ontlopen, ofwel: Porton Down ondersteunt de anti-Russische propaganda* van de Britse overheid en de reguliere westerse media.....)  

Gezien alles wat intussen bekend is geworden, 'zou je je zelfs af kunnen vragen', of het hier niet om een false flag operatie gaat, ofwel een operatie gedaan om in dit geval een ander land (Rusland) in een kwaad daglicht te stellen. 

20 More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case

 March 27, 2018  Rob Slane

To my knowledge, none of the questions I wrote in my previous piece – 30 questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case – has been answered satisfactorily, at least not in the public domain. Yet despite the fact that these legitimate questions have not yet been answered, and many important facts surrounding the case are still unknown, the case has given rise to a serious international crisis, with the extraordinary expulsion of Russian diplomats across many EU countries and particularly the United States on March 26th.

This is a moment to stop and pause. A man and his daughter were poisoned in the City of Salisbury on 4th March. Yet despite the fact that investigators do not yet appear to know how they were poisoned, when they were poisoned, or where they were poisoned, a number of Western nations have used the incident as a pretext for the co-ordinated expulsion of diplomats on a scale not witnessed even during the height of the Cold War. These are clearly very abnormal and very dangerous times.

I pointed out in my previous piece that it is not my intention to advance some sort of conspiracy theory on this blog. It remains the case that I simply don’t have any holistic theory — “conspiracy” or otherwise — for who carried this out, and I continue to retain an open mind. But since the Government of my country has rushed to judgement without many of the facts of the case being established, and since this has led to the biggest deterioration in relations between nuclear-armed nations since the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems to me that it is more important than ever to keep asking questions in the hope that answers will come.

And so, for what it’s worth, here are 20 more important questions that I think that journalists ought to be asking regarding this case:

1. Have the police yet identified any suspects in the case?

2. If so, is there any evidence connecting them to the Russian Government?

3. If not, how is it possible to determine culpability, as the British Government has done?

4. In her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May stated the following:

“It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down” [my emphasis added].

In the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the court (Section 17 i) stated the following:

“Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent” [my emphasis added].

So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing?

5. Why were the phrases “related compound” and “closely related agent” added to the statement given by Porton Down, and is this an indication that the scientists were not 100% sure that the substance was a “Novichok” nerve agent?

6. Why were these phrases left out of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons?

7. Why did the Prime Minister choose to use the word “Novichok” in her speech, rather than the word Foliant, which is the actual name of the programme initiated by the Soviet Union when attempting to develop a new class of chemical weapons in the 1970s and 1980s?

8. When asked in an interview with Deutsche Welle how scientists at Porton Down had found out so quickly that the nerve agent was of the “Novichok” class of chemical weapons, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was asked whether Porton Down possesses samples of it. Here is how he replied:

“They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt” [My emphasis].

If Mr Johnson’s statement is correct, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down has samples of “Novichok” in its possession, where did they come from?

9. Were they produced at Porton Down?

10. How long have they had them?

11. Why has the DSTL not registered possession of these substances with the OPCW, which it is legally obliged to do under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

12. Does this admission by Mr Johnson not indicate that “Novichoks” can be made in any advanced chemical weapons facility, as indeed they were under the auspices of the OPCW in Iran in 2016?

13. If so, how can the Government be sure that the substance used to poison Mr Skripal and his daughter was made in or produced by Russia?

14. In her statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday 14th March, the British Prime Minister stated that there were only two plausible explanations for poisoning of Mr Skripal and his daughter:

“Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”

Other than the actual substance used, is there any hard evidence that led the Government to conclude these as being the only two plausible scenarios?

15. On March 26th, a number of countries expelled Russian diplomats in an apparent response to the incident in Salisbury. Yet at this time, the OPCW had not yet investigated the case, nor analysed blood samples. Why was the clearly co-ordinated decision to expel diplomats taken before the OPCW’s investigation had concluded?

16. Has this not put huge pressure on the OPCW to come up with “the right” conclusion?

17. It is reckoned that the OPCW’s investigation into the substance used will take at least three weeks to complete, whereas it took Porton Down less than a week to analyse it. What accounts for this difference?

18. Will the OPCW be using the samples of “Novichok” that Boris Johnson says are held at Porton Down to compare with the blood samples of Mr Skripal and his daughter?

19. If not, on what basis will this comparison be made, since the first known synthesis of a “Novichok” was made by Iran in 2016?

20. If the OPCW discovers that the substance is indeed a “Novichok”, will this be sufficient evidence with which to establish who carried out the attack on the Skripals or — given that other countries clearly have the capability to produce such substances — would more evidence be needed?

===================================

* Anti-Russische propaganda waarvan de zaak Skripal maar één voorbeeld uit velen is......

Moet wel toegeven dat ik de vraagstelling van Slane niet helemaal begrijp, immers de hijgerige reguliere westerse massamedia brengen met grote graagte zoveel mogelijk 'nieuws' (voornamelijk 'nepnieuws') waarmee Rusland als de slechterik wordt afgeschilderd..... Neem alleen al het continu volhouden door deze media van de leugen dat Rusland De Krim heeft geannexeerd, terwijl men dondersgoed weet dat de bevolking van De Krim (inclusief de oorspronkelijke bevolking) zich in een door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed beoordeeld referendum hebben uitgesproken voor aansluiting bij Rusland. Vooral de VS coup tegen de door hen democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj, stak de bevolking van De Krim, waar de door de VS geparachuteerde fascistische junta (gecontroleerd door neonazi's) de druppel was, die hen tot het besluit brachten te stemmen voor aansluiting bij Rusland......

Zie ook: 'Novitsjok Skripal sprookje? Lees dit bericht!'

       en: 'Skripal vergiftiging roept steeds meer vraagtekens op.....'
'Skripal vergiftiging roept steeds meer vraagtekens op.....'

        en: 'Rusland schuldig verklaard voor aanslag op Skripal, echter onafhankelijke controle van 'het bewijsmateriaal' wordt geweigerd......'

        en: 'Novitsjok (Novichok) een Russisch chemische wapen >> één grote leugen, zoals de massavernietigingswapen van Saddam Hoessein'

        en: 'Rusland verlangt terecht een excuus van de Britse regering voor valse beschuldiging 'aanslag' op Skripal.....'

        en: 'Novitsjok (novichok) uitgelegd door wetenschappers, Groot-Brittannië zit 'goed fout....'

        en: 'Skripal: geen (onomstotelijk) bewijs voor Russische schuld en toch stuurt Rutte 2 Russische diplomaten het land uit........'

        en: 'Stef Blok (VVD minister BuZa): de Russische schuld voor de aanslag op Skripal is 'plausibel...' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

        en: 'Rusland mag niet deelnemen aan onderzoek naar 'aanslag met novitsjok' op Skripal'

        en: 'Brits ministerie van Buitenlandse Zalen geeft toe dat Porton Down niet heeft gezegd dat 'novitsjok' uit Rusland komt..... Blok (VVD) alweer met 10 km/u. finaal uit de 'novitsjok-bocht''

        en: 'Russisch zenuwgas verhaal is nonsens ook aldus Jeremy Corbyn..... Jimmy Dore met commentaar!'

        en: 'OPCW bevestigt: novitsjok (novichok) van aanslag op Skripal komt uit Rusland......'

        en: 'Skripal false flag operatie zakt als soufflé in elkaar.......'

        en: 'Nieuwe 'novitsjok aanslag' nadat de Skripal vergiftiging definitief kan worden afgeschreven als false flag operatie'

        en: 'Skripal: GB klaagt 2 Russen aan voor vergiftiging middels een sci-fi techniek: de 2 waren tegelijk op 1 plek, waar 1 Rus te zien was....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

Novitsjok (Novichok) een Russisch chemische wapen >> één grote leugen, zoals de massavernietigingswapen van Saddam Hoessein

In twee artikelen, van Craig Murray die Information Cleariung House publiceerde, geeft hij aan wat een enorm oor ons werd en word aangenaaid aangaande het gifgas 'novitsjok' en de aanslag op Sergei Skripal en zijn dochter.......

De constatering van May dat deze stof alleen in militaire laboratoria kan worden gemaakt, is een leugen van formaat...

Nog één: Porton Down, het onderzoekscentrum gaf aan dat 'de gevonden novitsjok' uit Rusland kwam, echter dat is volkomen onmogelijk, daar Porton Down nooit beschikte over een Russische staal van dit spul. Porton Down heeft op basis van de formule het gif gemaakt, maar dat kan overal ter wereld gemaakt worden en bepaald niet alleen in 'militaire laboratoria!'

Niet voor niets dan ook, dat de Britse regering een onafhankelijk onderzoek naar het gevonden gif weigert...... Dit weigert deze regering zelfs aan de OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons). Deze VN organisatie is trouwens 10 jaar lang bezig geweest met het vernietigen van de Russische voorraden chemische wapens en ook de centra waar deze stoffen werden gemaakt, zijn ontmanteld, ook die waar volgens een Russische getuige, Mirzayanov zogenaamd novitsjok werd gemaakt, zijn ontmanteld......

Waar niemand over lult, zijn de Israëliërs, die enorme voorraden gifgas hebben en nog steeds chemische wapens maakt en ontwikkelt...... Israël maakt geen deel uit van de Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), een organisatie die een internationaal verbod op chemische wapens wil bewerkstelligen, noch is Israël lid van de eerder genoemde OPCW. Ook buurland Egypte beschikt over grote voorraden chemische wapens. De gifgasaanvallen in Syrië door de 'gematigde rebellen' werden dan ook gedaan met voorraden uit of Israël dan wel Egypte, beiden landen die schijt hebben aan mensenrechten en/of oorlogsmisdaden........

Het hele novitsjok verhaal is daarom precies zo betrouwbaar als het verhaal over de massavernietigingswapens van Saddam Hoessein, de enorme leugen die tot de illegale oorlog tegen Irak leidden, deze heeft tot nu toe aan dik meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden geleid.......

'Je zou bijna gaan denken' dat de VS en/of GB deze gifgasaanval hebben gepleegd om Rusland verder te demoniseren, ofwel de aanslag zou heel goed een 'false flag operatie' kunnen zijn............. ('false flag' in dit geval: een aanslag plegen en deze op zo'n manier doen dat het op een vijandige aanslag lijkt....)

Lees en het volgende artikel en geeft het ajb door, de kring van leugens moet doorbroken worden, voordat er echt grote ongelukken gebeuren!

The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam

By Craig Murray

March 16, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.

In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry

Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.

The world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:

[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)

OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013

Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks” but doubts he succeeded.

Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of “Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.

Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.

Why?

A second part of May’s accusation is that “Novichoks” could only be made in certain military installations. But that is also demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were allegedly designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial chemical facility – that was a major point of them. The only real evidence for the existence of Novichoks was the testimony of the ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually wrote.

One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.

Vil S. Mirzayanov, “Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider’s View,” in Amy E. Smithson, Dr. Vil S. Mirzayanov, Gen Roland Lajoie, and Michael Krepon, Chemical Weapons Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects, Stimson Report No. 17, October 1995, p. 21.

It is a scientific impossibility for Porton Down to have been able to test for Russian novichoks if they have never possessed a Russian sample to compare them to. They can analyse a sample as conforming to a Mirzayanov formula, but as he published those to the world twenty years ago, that is no proof of Russian Nukus origin. If Porton Down can synthesise it, so can many others, not just the Russians.

And finally – Mirzayanov is an Uzbek name and the novichok programme, assuming it existed, was in the Soviet Union but far away from modern Russia, at Nukus in modern Uzbekistan. I have visited the Nukus chemical weapons site myself. It was dismantled and made safe and all the stocks destroyed and the equipment removed by the American government, as I recall finishing while I was Ambassador there. There has in fact never been any evidence that any “novichok” ever existed in Russia itself.

To summarise:

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

With a great many thanks to sources who cannot be named at this moment.

Of A Type Developed By Liars

By Craig Murray

March 16, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a “novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China.

To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type developed by Russia” is the precise phrase used in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday:

This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.

When the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise. My FCO source, like me, remembers the extreme pressure put on FCO staff and other civil servants to sign off the dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD, some of which pressure I recount in my memoir Murder in Samarkand. She volunteered the comparison to what is happening now, particularly at Porton Down, with no prompting from me.

Separately I have written to the media office at OPCW to ask them to confirm that there has never been any physical evidence of the existence of Russian Novichoks, and the programme of inspection and destruction of Russian chemical weapons was completed last year.

Did you know these interesting facts?

OPCW inspectors have had full access to all known Russian chemical weapons facilities for over a decade – including those identified by the “Novichok” alleged whistleblower Mirzayanov – and last year OPCW inspectors completed the destruction of the last of 40,000 tonnes of Russian chemical weapons.

By contrast the programme of destruction of US chemical weapons stocks still has five years to run.

Israel has extensive stocks of chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any state to synthesise “Novichoks”.

Until this week, the near universal belief among chemical weapons experts, and the official position of the OPCW, was that “Novichoks” were at most a theoretical research programme which the Russians had never succeeded in actually synthesising and manufacturing. That is why they are not on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons.

Porton Down is still not certain it is the Russians who have apparently synthesised a “Novichok”. Hence “Of a type developed by Russia”. Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured.

It is very carefully worded propaganda. Of a type developed by liars.

UPDATE

This post prompted another old colleague to get in touch. On the bright side, the FCO have persuaded Boris he has to let the OPCW investigate a sample. But not just yet. The expectation is the inquiry committee will be chaired by a Chinese delegate. The Boris plan is to get the OPCW also to sign up to the “as developed by Russia” formula, and diplomacy to this end is being undertaken in Beijing right now.

I don’t suppose there is any sign of the BBC doing any actual journalism on this?

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk

=====

• See Also -

Russian diplomat insists Moscow has never possessed novichok nerve agent

The jingoistic fear of Russia is out of control: The Salisbury poisoning has exposed the hysteria of Britain’s rulers.

===============================

Zie ook: 'Novitsjok Skripal sprookje? Lees dit bericht!'

        en: 'Skripal vergiftiging roept steeds meer vraagtekens op.....'

        en: 'Rusland schuldig verklaard voor aanslag op Skripal, echter onafhankelijke controle van 'het bewijsmateriaal' wordt geweigerd......'

        en: 'Rusland verlangt terecht een excuus van de Britse regering voor valse beschuldiging 'aanslag' op Skripal.....'

        en: 'Novitsjok (novichok) uitgelegd door wetenschappers, Groot-Brittannië zit 'goed fout....''

       en: 'Skripal: geen (onomstotelijk) bewijs voor Russische schuld en toch stuurt Rutte 2 Russische diplomaten het land uit........'

       en: 'Stef Blok (VVD minister BuZa): de Russische schuld voor de aanslag op Skripal is 'plausibel...' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

       en: 'Rusland mag niet deelnemen aan onderzoek naar 'aanslag met novitsjok' op Skripal'

       en: 'Brits ministerie van Buitenlandse Zalen geeft toe dat Porton Down niet heeft gezegd dat 'novitsjok' uit Rusland komt..... Blok (VVD) alweer met 10 km/u. finaal uit de 'novitsjok-bocht''

       en: 'Russisch zenuwgas verhaal is nonsens ook aldus Jeremy Corbyn..... Jimmy Dore met commentaar!'

       en: 'OPCW bevestigt: novitsjok (novichok) van aanslag op Skripal komt uit Rusland......'

       en: 'Skripal: wat journalisten echt zouden moeten vragen aangaande 'de aanslag met gifgas''

       en: 'Skripal false flag operatie zakt als soufflé in elkaar.......'

       en: 'Nieuwe 'novitsjok aanslag' nadat de Skripal vergiftiging definitief kan worden afgeschreven als false flag operatie'

Dat was het voor deze dag mensen, morgen meer berichten; maak er als het even mogelijk is, een mooie dag van.