Syria; Chemical Weapons and lies by the Cameron regime
Newmark claims to have met both Assad and his wife on a one to one basis over many years. Significantly he does not say in what capacity, and it is unlikely to be as a friend, since he quickly identifies himself as abhorring the Assad regime and its hostility to Israel. Newmark ramps up the rhetoric "Assad is willing to destroy Syria and kill its people, Syria is a mafia state, Assad is only interested in his survival, Assad is bipolar." Really and when was Newmark qualified to give medical opinion. Could it be that the the man showing mental deficiency is Newmark for trying to suggest that putting arms into a conflict will assist a peaceful resolution?
But the real sting in Newmark's article is the statement that..."This is not Iraq: in Iraq there were no chemical weapons. In Syria, we know for sure that Assad has used them." A simple telephone call to Brooks Newmark to ask where his evidence was for the 'certain' use of chemical weapons by Assad resulted in bluster and obfuscation. It has been reported by the UN was the first line. The second line was he had been told this was the case by an individual in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "Really, who was that individual", we asked. Mr Newmark did not want to say. He blustered on ... Portland Down has reported it ...
In fact all of the UN reports to date only refer to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, and indeed the alleged use of chemical weapons where there is no clear evidence as to the use by any perpetrator - Assad, the government or the rebel forces. On 21 March 2013 Ban Ki-moon states that "he received a letter from the governments of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requesting an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in the location of Khan al-Asal in Aleppo and Ataybah in the vicinity of Damascus, as well as Homs on the 23 December 2012. Other member states have also written to me or made public statements calling for the above-mentioned investigation mission to look into all allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic." The key word 'allegations' is mirrored in UNDOC/GEN/NE12/494/32/PDF/N1249432 which demands full and unfettered access to the investigation of the Secretary-General into all 'alleged uses of chemical weapons.' In fact one UN report suggests that there is greater evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons - but again no certainty. When the UK Column suggested to Mr Newmark that the government had lied to the public over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and appeared to be doing so again in respect of Syria he became somewhat flustered. The conversation ended soon after.
To date there no factual substantiated evidence has been released by the US, UK or the UN that chemical weapons have been used by anyone in Syria. Claims to this effect rely on assessments but no substantive fact. So why did Newmark attempt to mislead the public by claiming that "we know for sure that Assad has used them?" Could it be a statement designed to ramp up the British and US policy to 'remove Assad' at whatever cost? On Friday 14 June, Guardian writers Patrick Wintour and Nicholas Watt produced a disingenuous article claiming that a 'candid assessment' by the US that Assad has used chemical weapons is shared by the UK. Reading the small print however we find arch political liar David Cameron quoting that "We share their view [the US] that, as we put it growing levels of information about chemical weapons used by the regime and no firm evidence that chemical weapons have been used by the opposition."
So in plain english no hard factual evidence of use by Assad - simply 'growing levels of information.' Britain unleashed a war of death and destruction in Iraq based on the lie of the existence of weapons of mass destruction; there is a similar smell about the UK US stance on Syria. Should we trust Cameron - no. Should we trust Brooks Newmark? No. Both men have, after all, declared their support is to Israel rather than the the British nation. Aside from the smell of death in Syria there is an even greater smell of fraud and corruption in British politics. Whose agenda is Cameron's rotten government promoting and should we trust their claims of chemical weapons in Syria? We don't think so. In Syria, truth is the important issue and we are seeing little of it. Is Cameron's blatantly dishonest propaganda on weapons of mass destruction in Syria designed to depose another sovereign Head of State who is on the Bilderberg international hit list?