Darius Shahtahmasebi

Thursday, April 06, 2017

On Tuesday, yet another chemical weapons attack occurred in Syria. This particular attack took place in the Idlib province, and dozens have reportedly died as a result.

The U.S. attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering a terror group that should have been a prime suspect.

Syria is no stranger to chemical weapons attacks. In 2013, there were two notably devastating attacks, both of which the Obama administration used to try to justify a direct strike on the Assad government.

The U.N. thoroughly investigated the first 2013 attack. The U.N Commission of Inquiry’s Carla Del Ponte ultimately said the evidence indicated the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels – not the Syrian government. Despite this, support for the Syrian rebels from the U.S. and its allies only increased, raising serious questions about Obama’s sincerity when condemning chemical attacks.

The U.S. attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering a terror group that should have been a prime suspect.

Biased Evidence

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh found the second major attack was committed in a similar manner. Hersh found that the U.S. quite deliberately attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering al-Nusra, a terror group with access to nerve agents that should have been a prime suspect.

In 2016, the U.N. concluded that the Syrian government had, indeed, used chemical weapons during the years-long conflict, but that ISIS had, too. This is in light of the fact that in 2013, the U.N. also declared that the regime no longer possessed chemical weapons.

Without directly confirming any of the intelligence, the media and politicians are out in full force condemning the Assad government.

News Molded to Fit Foreign Policy Agenda

Even a New Zealand newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, ran an ambitious article entitled “Donald Trump is the only leader who can stop Syrian atrocities.” No – it is not the Onion.

In the article, the writer ignores all of the aforementioned reports regarding attacks in 2013, claiming that in that year, “the Syrian regime used sarin.” She also claims “Obama did nothing” in response.

The claim that Obama “did nothing” makes no sense. In 2016 alone, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs – almost half of which landed in Syria. These bombs also rained on Syrian troops in direct violation of international law. As president, Obama also oversaw the CIA’s expenditures of about $1 billion a year training Syrian rebels.

Is it that we only care about chemical weapons attacks if there is an indication that the Syrian government was behind it?