U.S. uncertainly reported use of chemical weapons in Syria

After reading the report, U.S. intelligence U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Heygel said that with "some degree of confidence," we can talk about how to use a small amount of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria.

During a press conference in Abu Dhabi Chuck Heygel also reported that, according to intelligence reports, the Syrian authorities used sarin gas. However, he has not informed about the number of the agent used, nor on when and where it is applied, nor of possible victims.

U.S. Secretary of Defense said that the use of chemical weapons "breaks all the conventions on the rules of war." 

Earlier, U.S. President said that if the Syrian government confirmed the use of chemical weapons during the conduct of the civil war, it will be the intersection of the "red line." This information will lead to action by the U.S. and NATO.

The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom also reported that it has a limited but very convincing information that Syria used chemical weapons, including sarin. London is very concerned about this message, because it is a war crime.

British Foreign Office called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to cooperate with international bodies to confirm that he did not authorize the use of such weapons.

Such charges of illegal use of toxic substances and America were presented earlier, for example, when the U.S. tried to prove that Iraq has nuclear and chemical weapons.

Ten years later, the famous American journalists apologize for speaking out in support of the war, and the officials responsible for it go into the shadows.

Author of the influential American newspaper Washington Post and Pulitzer Prize-winning Fred Hyatt apologized for the fact that the publication had played such an important role in convincing the citizens of the United States that need to attack Iraq. Apologize for what is: in Washington, none of the three official pretexts for invading recall aloud already been taken.

The most emotionally justifiable reason was a war against "Al Qaeda." Terrorist network allegedly personally supported Saddam Hussein. But "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq was not.

The second reason was more designed for an international audience: the war against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. From the rostrum of the UN Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions has nuclear weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons. It was only later, when neither the one nor the other is not found, already had to explain the poor performance of the CIA disinformation that provided inaccurate information.

The third reason — the war in Iraq for the sake of democracy — the least suited to start a bloody massacre of thousands of kilometers away from the United States. But this was the perfect excuse for a full-scale media campaign to support the invasion.


Like this post? Please share to your friends: