In testimony before the United Nations Security Council, former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert Ian Henderson stated that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their findings were suppressed.
Ben NORTON
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and dissenter Ian Henderson’s UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
Yesterday, a former engineer and ballistics expert with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) delivered testimony via video link to an audience at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), accusing the chemical weapons watchdog of intentionally burying exculpatory evidence from its Fact Finding Mission (FFM) report – evidence which would have exonerated the Syrian government in an alleged chemical weapons incident in Douma, Syria, in April 7, 2018.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments and by the time of release of the interim report, in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that any chemical attack had occurred.
The Douma alleged "chemical weapon" furore has thrown the Syria narrative managers in Western corporate media into disarray. Their default defence mechanism has been to circle their wagons around the Syria "WMD" propaganda which has been instrumental in vilifying the Syrian government and allies.
Professor Lucas, whilst being a fringe activist for all shades of the Syrian opposition, uses the platform provided to him by his university to attack and deride anyone who dares even suggest that “The Army of Islam” (a radical Jihadist group in Syria that Scott lends propaganda cover to) may have staged a chemical attack in Douma in 2018. He won’t hear any tell of it and during his defence of the group even goes as far as to attack other UK academics. A behaviour not befitting academia, as a whole:
"Al-Qaeda terrorists operating in the north of Syria and oppressing millions of Syrians can now breathe comfortably after the United Nations Security Council extended their supply routes from their regional sponsor NATO member state Turkey for an additional Six months within its Resolution 2504."
Last month, two conferences were scheduled in Montreal as part of Vanessa Beeley’s Canadian tour. As soon as they were announced, the speaker was subjected to volleys of invective, insults and slander from the proponents of the official narrative on Syria.
The thought has occurred to me that since my views on Syria and the White Helmets are identical to those of Beeley, suppose I proposed to give a talk at a Canadian university or public library. Would I, as a retired professor and senior scholar, be blocked in the way that Beeley was? Given the precedent of what happened to her, why should I be treated any differently?
White Helmets
Vanessa Beeley is a British journalist who was invited to Canada in the fall of 2019 to present talks in seven cities on the conflict in Syria. The sponsors of her speaking tour were several anti-war groups, including the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, and Peace Alliance in Winnipeg.
The Canadian media gets a failing grade when it comes to its coverage of chemical weapons in Syria.
Among the basic principles of reporting, as taught in every journalism school, are: Constantly strive for the truth; Give voice to all sides of a story; When new information comes to light about a story you reported, a correction must be issued or a follow-up produced.
