From the Euronews blurb…

Russia has denounced the findings of a team of UN investigators into a poison gas attack in Syria as, ‘preconceived’ and ‘politicised.’

The Russian reaction came after the UN report, which confirms the use of the nerve agent Sarin, was taken as proof by Western nations that Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, who met today with President Assad, said the UN report was prepared ‘selectively and incompletely.’ Russia maintains Syrian rebels were behind the chemical attack.

Now, I ask you if you would rather trust the UN or Mother Agnes…

Children in Syria chemical attack video ‘moved between locations’ before ‘staged’ filming

Children filmed as victims of the Aug 21 chemical attack in a Damascus suburb had been deliberately moved to the location from a different region after being kidnapped weeks before, Mother Agnes told RT after presenting her own investigation to the UN.

Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib and her group carried out their own investigation. They looked through the 35 videos of the incident that were posted on the internet.

What caught Mother Agnes’ eye was that the same children resurfaced in different videos.

‘We see children in a video presented as victims of a chemical attack in Jobar. And then we see the same kids in a video out of Kfar-Batna, and they are claimed to be kids from Kfar-Batna, and then, from Ain Terma. We have seen one and the same boy ostensibly in agony in different settings,’ she told RT Arabic.

‘Who are those children? We want to know the truth,’ Mother Agnes says. {…}

First of all, there are family members who say they have recognized their children. They pointed to specific videos from Kfar Batna and Jobar. I cannot go into detail, because I don’t have permission from the families to mention names. So I’ll put it in general terms: as of now, we know that people have recognized some of the children. In some cases, it was a mother or a father who recognized their child in a video. In other cases, it was an aunt or an uncle, or some other relative, because some of the parents had been killed during the fighting, as the insurgents advanced through the townships and villages of Latakia. I cannot judge whether what those people say is true; that would require a DNA test. As far as we are concerned, we are trying to figure out why all those people would start claiming they see familiar faces in those videos. We look specifically at the footage selected by the Americans, and we see that it has been supplemented with footage provided by Al Jazeera, or by one of the coordination committees. We have 35 videos in our brief, but there are about 200 to 230 videos in total, each different from the others. They are peddled by a variety of sources – from local coordination committees to NGOs to media organizations. As we examined the videos, trying to identify the children in question, we noticed signs suggesting this or that had been staged and directed. For example, there is footage of a boy receiving first aid. And then there is a different video where you can see the same boy receiving first aid all over again, but in a different setting. It is like a movie production, where scenes are repeatedly edited and re-filmed. You shoot one scene, you don’t like it, so you alter the settings and you try again.

Some more from Deputy FM Ryabkov…

‘Proof of rebels using chem arms’

UN experts to return to Syria soon; America maintains its aggressive military option against Assad regime

The Syrian regime has handed Russia new materials implicating rebels in a chemical attack outside Damascus on 21 August, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said today after talks in Damascus.

‘The corresponding materials were handed to the Russian side. We were told that they were evidence that the rebels are implicated in the chemical attack,’ Mr Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies after talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem late yesterday. He said that Russia would “examine the Syrian materials implicating the rebels with the utmost seriousness.’

To the fury of the West, Russia has repeatedly expressed suspicion that the chemical attack was a ‘provocation’ staged by the rebels with the aim of attracting Western military intervention in the conflict.

Mr Ryabkov also said Russia was disappointed with the UN report into the chemical weapons attack published this week, saying it was selective and had ignored other episodes. ‘Without a full picture… we cannot describe the character of the conclusions as anything other than politicised, biased and one-sided,’ he said.

Mr Ryabkov is on a visit to Damascus to present the Syrian regime with the results of the agreement between Moscow and Washington reached in Geneva at the weekend to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. He said he emphasised to Mr Muallem the importance of the Syrian side ‘strictly and swiftly’ handing over details of its chemical weapons arsenal to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the first step in the agreement.

Yoichi Shimatsu, who covered the Tokyo subway gassing in 1995, wrote a scathing critique on the UN’s Sellstrom Report…

The Sellstrom Report: The United Nations’ Syria Inspector Shills for NATO and Israel

Instead of a non-politicized investigation and lab analysis, the UN investigation of alleged nerve-gas attacks inside Syria was led by Professor Ake Sellstrom, a man of mystery who keeps a veil of secrecy around his research and political-military relationships.

Sellstrom’s report on Syria for the UN and his prior inspections record in Iraq are dubious, to say the least. In the eyes of laymen, his seeming objectivity and non-partisanship is based on the myth of Sweden’s neutrality. The public assumes – wrongly- that Sweden never takes sides in wars or geopolitical conflicts. {…}

No Credibility on Syria

The term ‘relatively large scale’ chemical-weapons attack used in the introduction to the UN report on Syria is hyperbole, since any major attack with sarin would have resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities, especially if dispersed by military rockets. The first videos from Ghouta showed residents pouring out of their homes onto the street, gasping for fresh air. If indeed highly efficient rockets had been used, every one of them would have been killed instantaneous. The gassing, therefore, must have been an accidental release indoors, probably from a hidden rebel arsenal.

Chemical residues from the alleged rockets would have been oxidized by the heat of impact and certainly no intact organophosphate traces would be detectable, since sarin is designed to decompose after 20 minutes. Rockets are designed to use a binary system by which two chemical precursors are mixed during mid-air dispersal. Thus, there is no need for stabilizers or dispersants, meaning an absence of any identifying chemicals. The UN inspectors arrived long after the expiration period for sample testing. There is a possiblity also that the site and rocket parts may have been tampered with falsified evidence by the rebels and their foreign military advisers.

The casualty figures are unverifiable, and certainly not any of the videos showed more than a dozen corpses at a time. The scenes of swaddled infants is typical of war propaganda, certainly not believable when only a few faces were visible. The sum effect of these images is closer to theater than credible reporting.

Sellstrom’s strategy is to point fingers of guilt at the Syrian regime, while avoiding all possibility of alternative and more probable scenarios.

Today, Bashar al-Assad, told Fox News… Chemical weapon disposal will take a year, cost $1 billion.

Meanwhile, over on CNN, the Pentagon Stenographer Barbara Starr was breathlessly reporting this rubbish…

Pentagon proposes training Syrian rebels

If approved, it would dramatically increase role of US military in Syrian’s civil war

The Pentagon has ‘put a proposal on the table’ for U.S. military forces to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces for the first time, two Obama administration officials told CNN.

If approved, it would dramatically increase the role of the U.S. military in Syria’s civil war and would for the first time put American troops in direct contact with opposition forces.

The idea has been under consideration since the August 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, which the United States says was carried out by the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

There are few specifics on troops or other aspects of the military proposal, but both officials said the effort envisions training taking place in a country near Syria.

‘We have any number of options under development that could expand our support to the moderate opposition, but no decision has been taken at this point,’ Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said when asked by reporters on Wednesday about the proposal.

Until now, any training and equipping of Syrian opposition forces has fallen under the purview of the CIA and has not directly been acknowledged by the United States government.

Meanwhile, NBC News aired an interview with Iran’s Rouhani…

Rouhani says Iran will never develop nuclear weapons – NBC interview

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a television interview on Wednesday that his government would never develop nuclear weapons and that he has full authority to negotiate a nuclear deal with the West, NBC News reported.

Speaking to the U.S. network at his presidential compound in Tehran, Iran’s new president also said the tone of a letter he had received from President Barack Obama, part of a recent exchange of messages between the two leaders, was ‘positive and constructive.’

‘It could be subtle and tiny steps for a very important future,’ Rouhani said, in another sign that he may be seeking a thaw between Iran and the West after years locked in a standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Rouhani’s comments came just six days before he will be in New York to address the U.N. General Assembly, a speech that will be closely watched for fresh diplomatic overtures.

Echoing what Iranian leaders have said before, Rouhani was quoted by NBC as declaring that his government would ‘never develop nuclear weapons’ under any circumstances.

The United States and its allies suspect Iran is seeking bomb-making capability despite Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program has only peaceful aims.

Speaking of our ‘Allies’…

Will Bibi Trade Iran for Palestine?

On Sunday, 17 members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s governing coalition sent him a letter making it clear they want no part of an Oslo rerun which would involve further surrender of territory and the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The group, which included five deputy ministers, referenced last week’s 20th anniversary of the 1993 Oslo Accords which set off two decades of peace processing but they were most eager to quote, at length, a 2002 speech by Netanyahu in which he pledged never to accept a Palestinian state, since, as he said at the time, it would present a deadly threat to the Jewish state. But the context was the current negotiations currently being conducted between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that were convened earlier this month by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. But since no one, except perhaps for Kerry, thinks there’s a ghost of a chance that those talks will result in an agreement, it’s worth asking what exactly the 17 members of the Likud and Habayit Hayehudi parties are worrying about?

Interestingly, one of the leaders of this faction, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, acknowledged that consensus when he told the Times of Israel that the signers of the letter thought there was no chance the talks with the Palestinians would succeed, but said ‘we want to make sure we won’t be surprised.’ What kind of a surprise is he anticipating? Israeli journalist Ari Caspit writing in AL Monitor thinks he has the answer to that question. According to Caspit, there may be a secret deal already in place that will guarantee Netanyahu’s agreement to a Palestinian state. The broad outline of that deal is this: Palestine for Iran. That means Israel trades a diplomatic triumph in the peace talks in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that the U.S. will prevent Iran from going nuclear. If, as Caspit claims, this proposal is already common knowledge in the upper echelons of the coalition, Kerry’s revival of the peace process with the Palestinians is merely a shadow game masking the real negotiations between the U.S. and Israel and that’s what really scares the Israeli right. Yet while Caspit’s claims seem to have substance, the assumption that Netanyahu or Obama are either interested in or capable of coming to such an agreement is still doubtful…

What absolute F*ckery…! *gah*