Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli
The Indicter
Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) [1] meant that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Instead in this modern episode, politics acts as the continuation of war: At the same rhythm in which the Syrian army and Russian forces, as well other allies, progress its irreversible military victory, the losing parties in the conflict seemingly attempt to compensate for their defeat by means of salacious political manoeuvres.
The strategy of deposing the secular republic presided by Mr Bashar al-Assad, via financing pro-sharia fundamentalists that for years terrorized the Syrian population, did not work. The shift in the plan appears to consist in a multiple international effort to discredit the winners, politically and ad-hominem. Specifically, this has been pursued via allegations of ‘chemical attacks’, no matter how preposterous, or evidence-deprived, these claims may be.
The most recent episode is a report of the “UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM)” [2] recently discussed at the Security Council. There are multiple reasons why to question the work of the JIM, as well of the ‘UN-Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (COI), [3] now centred on the alleged incidents in Khan Shaykhun of April 2017. These reasons have to do with logical and methodological contradictions showed in the reports it self; some others are referred to political motivations and bias exercised by those commissions; and finally, related to serious flaws pertinent to the primary source for the allegations, principally the West-founded propaganda organization ”White Helmets”.
I have recently reported in The Indicter Magazine an updated analysis (“From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun”) [4] regarding this and previous allegations of such a “chemical attacks”, illustrated with the so-called “Sarmin incident” of March 2015. All this, in the historical context of ‘false flag’ operations devised to justify a strategy of regime-change. My early reports on the White Helmets dealt with fake medical and life-saving procedures on children presumably already dead. [5] [6] Those reports were based in analyses we did at our NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, report which was later quoted by the Syrian Ambassador at the UN Security Council, in April this year. [7]
At first glance, we may see a similar pattern between the above episode and regarding the Khan Shaykhun official narrative. This refers both to the discussable credibility of primary sources been used –i.e. the White Helmets– [8] who reported the allegations to the “open sources”, which in turn are used as separated, independent sources. Added the astonishing lack of “quality control” of those testimonies from the part not only of the UN investigators, but also by a number of Western delegations at the Security Council. Fundamental principles of verifiability and reliability are ignored by the non-experts investigative panel.
May I remind that fake videos which the White Helmets fabricated in 2015 were shown at the UN [9] without a minimal verification regarding the authenticity or correctness of the “life-saving” procedures on dead children shown in the materials. [5] [6] This, to the point that the then U.S. ambassador Samantha Power declared to the press after the White Helmets video-show at the UN headquarters 16 April 2015, “If there was a dry eye in the room, I didn’t see it” [10]
I
The narrative authored by the “Seventh report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” tells that a main probe that one bomb containing a chemical substance of highest toxicity was dropped by the ‘Syrian government’ consists in a crater left in a Khan Shaykhun road. The same JIM authors acknowledge that rebels in Khan Shaykhun have however destroyed evidence by filling the purported impact “crater” with concrete.
Why the “rebels” have done that – and what consequences that sabotage would have for the investigation of facts is not even considered by the panel. Instead, what the JIM reports is that “The high security risk of a site visit to Khan Shaykhun, which is currently in a situation of armed conflict and under the control of a listed terrorist organization (Nusrah Front), outweighed the benefits to the investigation.”
What the panel is really messaging is that their own perception of a personal risk outweighs their unethical behaviour of condemning the Syrian government without investigating an essential piece of evidence. But equally true is that a visit on-site would make difficult for he JIM to disregard evidence that may contra the departure-premises of the investigators: ‘al-Assad is guilty’, ‘Russia is guilty’, ‘Iran is guilty’, and all those that oppose the U.S. pipeline dream in the Middle East shall be ‘guilty’ the same.
Besides, what danger al-Nusra and the rest of the “moderate terrorists” would possibly pose to the JIM team? Those forces have been militarily, logistically and politically supported by the same Western powers behind the JIM ‘conclusions’.
II
As regarding the ‘bomb crater’ version defended by the JIM, the panel reports about witnesses’ testimonies, photographs and even “satellite imagery”. These efforts would be appropriate in case some one would be questioning the existence of he crater. But the existence of the hole in the road is NOT the issue in discussion. The issue is instead to discern what caused that crater. In this regards, it is incomprehensible that the JIM neglected to report details of the exhaustive investigations conducted by Ted Postol, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and who demonstrated that such a crater could not possibly be the result of an aerial bombing. [11]
III
By acknowledging that Khan Shaykhun was then under control of al-Nusra, the JIM report exhibits yet another methodological contradiction: That would mean that al-Nusra and its jihadists allies, by having control of the area, they were also in control of the ‘official’ information delivered from Khan Shaykhun on the alleged incident. This would imperatively call for a questioning of the reliability/credibility (bias) of main sources that the panel used for its allegations.
Particularly concerning propaganda organizations such as the White Helmets and other formations “under control of al-Nusra” (it is what JIM says), or in frank collaboration. For the White Helmets, main source at the UN reports of recent years, could possibly function in those areas only insofar a convergence would exist towards the local powers in control. No need to remind that territories occupied by terrorists do not function as a democracy.
IV
What those biases not investigated by JIM would consist of? The answer is in what has been the core of the propaganda strategy of al-Nusra / FSA/ White Helmets and the rest of the sharia-adept jihadist organizations of the “Syrian opposition”, and from the very beginning: [12] the constant advocating for an escalation of the U.S./EU military intervention. For instance –as I have already pointed out in The Indicter Magazine and in interviews with Russian and EU media– each time an allegation of “chemical attacks” arises from the part of the “Syrian opposition”, and in particular by the White Helmets, those claims have been immediately followed by their renewed international pledge for a No-Fly Zone in Syria. [13] [14] [15] [16]
V
Further, the JIM presents a highly confusing argument on that the purported ‘sarin’ would not be properly sarin, but instead some sort of substance of the like. Then the panel admits that the mysterious substance is not actually ‘Syrian” sarin as such, but instead it would contain something that previously would also has been present in chemical materials time ago stockpiled in Syria (Syria destroyed all chemical weapons between 2013-2014). [17] But considering the documentation existing a) on the possession of chemical weapons (inclusive sarin) by opposition forces –[18] which comprises ISIS sarin; [19] b) on the rebels ‘homemade’ amateurish fabrication and stockpiling; and c) on the actual weapon-transfers that has existed between jihadists formations in the area, ISIS included, [20]: Who would possibly accept such an ambiguous JIM argument on the “semi-sarin” as unequivocal evidence that the alleged attack was ordered by the Syrian government?
VI
Finally, the panel states, again paradoxically, that “Should conditions improve and it be determined that an on-site investigation would produce valuable new information, a visit could take place in the future.” So, if I may ask, why not waiting for that possibility instead of passing judgement and declaring Syria ‘guilty’ already now, in absence of solid evidence?
The answer is elsewhere in the JIM document, where the panel admitted that the more time passes, the less possibilities remain for evidence collection. So, they may think, why to hurry?
To the above it should be added the numerous incongruences in the documentation and testimonies that the JIM accepted to include in its report. For instance, that several dozens of ‘victims’ of the alleged attack were admitted and registered in the vicinity hospitals at a time-point before the purported occurrence of the said attack; or the notorious clinical disagreement reported in samples taken from same individuals, etc. These and other kinds of epidemiological flaws or oddities, such as an atypical ratio between injured and reported fatalities, are equally prominent in the parallel COI report.
The JIM conclusions in its latest report [2], which declared ‘guilty’ the Syrian government for a ‘war crime’ on the base of “open sources” and one-sided or non verifiable information, further entails –precisely as its sister report issued by the COI [2]– two fundamental forensic flaws:
i) Absence of a ‘crime motive’ demonstration.
The JIM fails to demonstrate what conceivable purpose would exist from the part of the Syrian government, the wining side in the war, to indulge in such a self-damaging decision. At the contrary, such imputation against the Syrian government is deprived of logic, particularly ‘geopolitical logic’. [21] As indicated by former British Ambassador to Syria, Mr Peter Ford, the allegations against Syria are simply not plausible. [22]
ii) Absence of the “beyond doubt” principle.
Typically, any mob’s judgement that has further leaded to a lynching, appeal to the principle “We have reasons to believe”. At the contrary, a forensic, scientific, or juridical conclusion reached by any authentic experts-panel or court regarding severe criminal charges has to be based in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. This is not the case in the unprofessional conclusions issued by The JIM and COI, whose reports refer to allegations of “war crimes”, and not a kind of lesser crimes where the required standard could be of a lesser solidity. [23] [24]
What to do?
The ultimate human right is the right to exist. War is the most certain risk opposing that fundamental right. This is the reason of SWEDHR engagement in denouncing the warmongering of those –in Sweden or internationally– pursuing or provoking conflicts that might fatally lead to a worldwide confrontation, to a WW3 and its unpredictable risk of nuclear holocaust. It is highly the time that the warmongering behind the arbitrary conclusions of panels composed by a few, non-expert individuals, and of the powers behind, be exposed. Likewise, the politically biased behaviour of self-proclaimed “human-rights” organizations, such as HRW and others, [25] particularly the Swedish Section of Amnesty International, ultimately financed or ideologically controlled by those same powers. [26] [27] [28]
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights therefore suggest the establishment of an international, independent and multidisciplinary expert-panel of scientists aimed to review the procedures leading to the JIM assessment; to investigate the methodological bias behind their evidence-deprived conclusions. The suggested professional team shall be a true objective panel not only concerned with the flawed report on the Khan Shaykhun incident, but reviewing similar faulty allegations done in recent years, which together form a pattern of an aggressive geopolitical behaviour, and a contributing menace to world peace.
“The use of chemical weapons –an immoral and condemnable act anywhere, at any time, and under any circumstances.” –The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 October 2017
NOTES:
[1] Carl von Clausewitz , “On War”. Berlin: Dümmlers Verlag, 1832. English translation: https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm
[2] “Seventh report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”. http://static.alarabiya.net/files/PDF/2017/10/27/17021a74-d826-4752-aba6-f4083d8e7220.pdf
[3] “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Advance Edited Version)” http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria
[4] M. Ferrada de Noli, “From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun. Part I: The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change”. The Indicter Magazin, 24 October 2017. http://theindicter.com/from-timisoara-to-khan-shaykhun-part-i-the-staged-massacre-routine-for-regime-change/
[5] M. Ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims”. The Indicter Magazine, 6 March 2017. http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-video-swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-denounce-medical-malpractice-and-misuse-of-children-for-propaganda-aims/
[6] M. Ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Movie: Updated Evidence From Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children”. The Indicter Magazine, 17 March 2017. http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-movie-updated-evidence-from-swedish-doctors-confirm-fake-lifesaving-and-malpractices-on-children/
[7] “Report by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights referred in UN Security Council. White Helmets, Syria”. The Indicter Channel, YouTube, 12 April 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RqQlFXo2A
[8] NOTE:
Independent journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley have conducted several investigations on the organization White Helmets. See a list of relevant publications by Eva Bartlet at https://ingaza.wordpress.com/syria/ ; articles by Vanessa Beeley at https://muckrack.com/vanessa-beeley/articles
[9] Nick Logan, “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. Global News, 17 April 2017. https://globalnews.ca/news/1945397/un-officials-in-tears-watching-video-from-alleged-chlorine-attack-in-syria/
[10] New York Times, “U.N. Security Council Sees Video Evidence of a Chemical Attack in Syria”. New York Times, 16 April 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/world/middleeast/un-security-council-sees-video-evidence-of-a-chemical-attack-in-syria.html
[11] Ted Postol, “Assessment of White House Intelligence Report About Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria”. Global Research, 13 April 2017. https://www.globalresearch.ca/assessment-of-white-house-intelligence-report-about-nerve-agent-attack-in-khan-shaykhun-syria/5584867
NOTE: “Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus of science, technology, and national-security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who once served as a scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations at the Pentagon.” https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-…
[12] Syria Needs a No-Fly Zone! A no-fly zone was Syrians’ earliest demand from the international community. http://www.sacouncil.com/syria_needs_a_no_fly_zone
[13] “White Helmets ‘Made Up Syria Gas Attack Story in Campaign for No-Fly Zone”. Sputnik, 19 April 2017. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704101052502141-white-helmet-syria-chemical-attack/
[14] Interview with the author, “NATO White Helmets Denounced by Swedish Doctors”. UK Column News. Published on Mar 8, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijcA3LCKCl0
[15] Interview with the author, “De Hvide Hjelmes propaganda er farlig”. Arbeideren, Denmark, 26 April 2017. http://arbejderen.dk/udland/de-hvide-hjelmes-propaganda-er-farlig
[16] Associazione di medici svedesi: “Attacco chimico in Siria è una fake news”. Oltre La Linea, Italy. http://www.oltrelalinea.news/2017/04/10/associazione-di-medici-svedesi-attacco-chimico-in-siria-e-una-fake-news/
[17] “Destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons”. Wikipedia article, retrieved 2 November 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons
[18] “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator”, Reuters, 5 May 2013. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un/u-n-has-testimony-that-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-investigator-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
[19] The New York Times, “ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says”. NYT, 21 November 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html
[20] The New York Times, “U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands”. NYT, 5 December 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html
[21] M Ferrada de Noli, “UOSSM admits that doctor reporting alleged Khan Shaykhun ‘aerial attack’ was not qualified to do that”. The Indicter Magazine, 29 April 2017. http://theindicter.com/uossm-admits-that-doctor-reporting-alleged-khan-shaykhun-aerial-attack-was-not-qualified-to-do-that/
[22] BBC, “Trump has just given jihadists a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations”. Video uploaded by BBC News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LKsn4ZutxQ
[23] Grechenig, Nicklisch & Thoeni, Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt – A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions under Uncertainty, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) 2010, vol. 7 (4), p. 847-867
[24] NOTE:
Such as “clear and convincing evidence” or “preponderance of the evidence.”See, “What Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?” HG.org legal resources. https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=35819
[25] Eva Bartlett, “Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria”. DissidentVoice.org, 10 October 2016. https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/deconstructing-the-nato-narrative-on-syria/
[26] M. Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights on biased allegations of ‘war crimes’ put forward by Amnesty International against Russia”. The Indicter Magazine, 26 December 2015. http://theindicter.com/swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-on-the-allegations-of-war-crimes-put-forward-by-amnesty-international-against-russia/
[28] M Ferrada de Noli, “New Amnesty International’s fabrications aim to interfere President Trump’s upcoming decision on US participating in the anti-terror war in Syria”. The Indicter Magazine, 9 February 2017. http://theindicter.com/new-amnesty-internationals-fabrications-aim-to-interfere-president-trumps-upcoming-decision-on-us-participating-in-the-anti-terror-war-in-syria/
[29] NOTE:
On the pro-USA stances displayed by the Swedish Section of Amnesty International, as well as its ties with the Swedish government, see also from the author: a) Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange ; and b) Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted to reject human-right actions on cases Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children.
***
Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli is professor emeritus of epidemiology (research focus on Injury epidemiology), medicine doktor i psykiatri (PhD, Karolinska Institute), and formerly Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School. He is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights and editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.”
READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files
SUPPORT 21WIRE – SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV