Those calling for transparency from the OPCW are not attempting to destroy the OPCW, on the contrary they have all expressed a desire to restore credibility to the organisation. The OPCW is a global security agency, it has now been afforded the mandate to attribute blame, a move supported primarily by the FUKUS alliance. Effectively this means the OPCW might be responsible for military intervention against another nation deemed to have used chemical weapons. How will the world be reassured that the report is not doctored as the OPCW has clearly falsified the Douma report according to its own senior inspectors? The future of global security hangs in the balance and airing concerns and respecting the opinions of experts in their field is the only way forward.
n an extraordinary effort by the UK, US, and their allies to censor the former OPCW director general, José Bustani was not allowed to brief the UN Security Council on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, in 2018. Bustani had been invited by Moscow to give his opinion on the “Syrian chemical dossier”…
The evidence of fraud in the published report of the Douma investigation means that all other published reports from FFM Team Alpha, including the FFM reports on the alleged chlorine attacks in 2015 and the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017, must also be disregarded as unreliable and possibly fraudulent.
The UK, France and the US have stone-walled the emerging engineering and scientific reports produced by serious experts in their field, members of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) team. Instead, NATO-aligned & sponsored blogs like Bellingcat have been instructed to counter the mounting evidence of the OPCW dereliction of duty while compromised media ensure the public is kept in the dark about the shifting narrative landscape.
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.
A dissenting scientist, employed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says in a leaked email that investigations on the ground at Douma have produced no hard evidence that the alleged gas attack took place.
To echo Lucas himself, commenting in the Guardian, is he deliberately producing “agitation propaganda” to protect the UK/US Syria project or does he genuinely not realise he is “being used as a pawn” in the greater geopolitical chess game played by global experts in regime change and hybrid wars that violate international law with every move?
Paul McKeigue, Jake Mason, David Miller, Piers Robinson Members of Working Group on Syria Propaganda and Media Briefing note: the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018, and other alleged chlorine attacks in Syria since 2014 1 Summary 2 Introduction 3 Suggestions that a nerve agent had been used in Douma 4 The Prime Minister’s statement on…