The series of chemical weapons hoaxes—false flag incidents that helped NATO and Israel overthrow the Syrian government and install their current ISIS/Al-Qaeda puppets—are unraveling. Today Dr. Piers Robinson joins us to discuss this issue by way of his recent article “Dr. Brendan Whelan's ILOAT Win Reveals Clear Evidence of OPCW Corruption.”

Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio-Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing this podcast since 2006. I try to bring on the most interesting writers and translate them into audiovisual. One of the best writers right now is Piers Robinson. He’s a fellow refugee from the controlled academy. We’re not so controlled now (that we’ve left).

Piers has done great work on a number of issues. We recently did a podcast on his work on the 9/11 planes. And now we’re going to revisit another of these big deceptions and scandals: the Syria chemical weapons thing. It’s hard to say whether it even was a thing. So let’s find out. Hey, welcome, Piers Robinson. How are you?

Piers Robinson: Good to see you, Kevin. I’m doing well, thanks.

Kevin Barrett: Good to have you back. So these chemical weapons accusations against Syria during the war that finally brought down the Syrian government a couple of years ago always had the stench of dubiousness about them, to say the least. But it was kind of hard to nail it down and prove exactly what was going on. It was complicated, right? Lots of alleged attacks going both ways.

Piers Robinson: You are correct. There was one in Homs in 2012 in December which was a staged event and they tried to spin it off as a sarin or a nerve agent attack. But very quickly the wheels came off that and I think even the US State Department backed away from the claims being made. But that was one of the very earliest incarnations of what I describe as essentially false flags, staged events.

Kevin Barrett: Bush had joked about Iraqi WMD and pretended to be looking for them under his desk. It turned out to be a complete hoax, and yet they rolled out the same thing for Syria. How do they get away with that?

Piers Robinson: Well, that’s the incredible thing about it. Syria was one of the 9/11 wars. It was planned (by the neocons): Wesley Clark famously blurted out about the seven countries in five years, and Syria was one of them. So it was always one of the countries which they were going to use the 9/11 false flag in order to get a war going. And of course with Syria it didn’t really get going until 2011 when you had various covert operations and also multiple external actors fueling dissent within the country and then really pretty much almost immediately triggering unrest.

Well, of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But in the UK you had Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s top biological weapons expert, who had a rather candid conversation with the BBC and said that the British government had sexed up the intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

At the same time, you had Ambassador Wilson in the US, who had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellowcake uranium claims, and he said pretty much the same thing. On both sides of the Atlantic you had very high, very significant officials basically saying that there was no WMD in Iraq because they were manipulating the intelligence.

A lot of people became aware of that in the fullness of time. Then came Syria. It’s quite remarkable that one of the decisions they made — and I suspect some of this was to do with Israeli involvement, but a lot of it was actually rooted in UK Foreign Office planning — was to build a narrative around demonizing the Syrian government and Assad using the same set of allegations, this idea that there are chemical and biological weapons.

Of course, in the case of Syria, the allegation was that Assad was using these weapons. In a way, it’s surprising that they embarked upon the same kind of deception again, but then perhaps not so surprising because it did work the first time.

Kevin Barrett: Right, but people woke up to it, supposedly.

Piers Robinson: People woke up to it, but they got the job done. But then that’s quite a long time to 2011. And I think you had the whole Arab Spring narrative building up around 2011. And I think it was easy for what was happening in Syria to get folded into that.

There was a build-up to this, because prior to this there was an interesting series of alleged chemical weapons attacks. It actually started in March 2013 when there was actually an attack on Syrian army soldiers using a nerve agent. And the Syrian government went straight to the United Nations and said, “We want an investigation. Some of our soldiers have been killed and we believe it’s a nerve agent.”

Almost as soon as the Syrian government had done that, you then had these counter accusations coming in from Britain, France, Qatar and the US alleging that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons.

You had the emergence of what I understand now as essentially staged events. This is where you started to have the involvement of, for example, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British military officer who’d set up a company called SecureBio. As we know now, he was part of an MI6 sample-gathering operation in 2013.

So you had this kind of interesting build-up to Ghouta 2013, all set around this invitation or request from the Syrian government: come in, send in the UN, send in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and get this investigated.

Then all of these other allegations suddenly started being thrown out by the Americans and the Brits and these kinds of events occurring in Syria.

When the joint OPCW-UN team arrived in Damascus in August 2013 to begin their investigations, at exactly that point there was a mass rocket-launch sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus in Ghouta.

So this is what we’re being asked to believe in terms of this narrative building: that the Syrian government legitimately requested the UN OPCW to come in, the inspectors get into the capital and then within a week or so you have this mass sarin rocket attack in Ghouta with a large casualty count.

The details of this are a little bit more complicated than that. I know some researchers argue that actually not that many people were killed by sarin and a lot of these people were probably massacred.

I think there are elements in the US who were part of this red-line creation. I think it was pushed by external actors in Israel as well. Obama famously backed away from it. He was given information from Clapper that this was not a slam dunk.

They backed away. Russia, of course, defused the situation by persuading Assad to hand over Syria’s strategic chemical weapons stocks, which Syria always had essentially as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear capability.

But Assad said, “Okay, we’ll go along with this. We will sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and we will dispose of all of our weapons.” These were all put onto Cape Ray, an American warship, and then destroyed.

That was the point at which the red line didn’t quite work for those wanting the full-scale intervention, but it did, I think from Israel’s point of view, get to this point of the disarmament of Assad.

Kevin Barrett: For sure.

Piers Robinson: I think with hindsight, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. And it was also clearly a mistake because this didn’t bring an end to it.

Within a year of Syria having acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and getting rid of its sarin stocks, you then had the sudden emergence of chlorine allegations.

Chlorine historically as a battlefield munition was used by the Germans in the First World War. You need huge quantities of the material. You’re talking with these alleged tactics of chlorine cylinders dropped, they burst and chlorine would pour out.

Kevin Barrett: Like somebody was getting in by the roof with a bottle of bleach from their laundry and kind of dropping the bleach bottle.

Piers Robinson: Yeah, but this worked and these alleged attacks started to occur. Then the allegations started to be delivered from the usual suspects: Assad has now started to use chlorine weapons against his own population.

The British government was very much involved in this. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were involved in the sense that they had the White Helmets set up, as some of your listeners are probably aware. They had various other outsourced operations in Syria.

The important point is around 2014 where the OPCW got drawn back into investigation of these attacks. What happened was that they set up an ad hoc body called the Fact Finding Mission, the FFM missions. These were there to deploy into the country.

They were told that they had clearance to go in, so they went into opposition-held territory. But just as they crossed the line outside Syrian government-controlled territory where they had been safe, their convoy was ambushed.

Two of the OPC...