Syria: Terrorists benefit from the use of chemical weapons.
While the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee has announced that it seeks evidence for the accusations by Washington, France and Britain against Syria that the Syrian government and military was behind chemical attacks near the capital Damascus, the question of who benefits from it could tell one more about the alleged use of chemical weapons in suburbs of Damascus and which side has probably used chemicals in attacks.
However, it is already interesting, although it could be staged, that the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee has announced that it seeks a proof for Washington’s accusations that the government in Syria’s was behind a chemical attack in a suburb of Damascus.
Several Western and Arab states made these accusations that the Syrian government and the units of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has used chemical weapons in the recent military operations in suburbs of the capital, Damascus.
According to these baseless accusations (no real evidence so far) against the Syrian government, the chemical weapons were used against Syrian civilians and not only against the foreign-backed terrorist groups in these suburbs of Damascus (Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar). However, as stated, there is no real evidence for these claims against Damascus until now, although Washington has yet again stated that it has evidence that proofs that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.
Washington, London and Paris were very fast to adopt the rhetoric of war against the Syrian government and to speak about a military intervention to “protect the Syrian civilians” – in line with the Chapter 7 of the UN Charta. Of course, the protection of civilians is important, but since when has a war against a country protected the lives of the locals? Further, the term “military intervention” just means another senseless war against a country in the Middle East, based on propaganda, lies and Western interests. A military strike against Damascus would have dire consequences for the Arab country as well as for the entire Middle East.
However, back to the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee. The European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee held a meeting on the “Syrian issue” and the accusations by Washington, Paris and London against the Syrian government in terms of the use of chemical weapons near Damascus.
Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, said after the meeting behind closed doors, that Washington and specifically the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, has to provide the proof that the Syrian government in Damascus made use of chemical weapons.
Elmar Brok, the chairman of the committee, called on the U.S. administration in Washington to provide evidence for their accusations against Damascus that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons (e.g. Sarin nerve gas) against Syrian civilians.
Elmar Brok further stated at this news conference after the meeting of the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee that even if such a military strike against Damascus will happen, the European Union still believes that a political solution for Syria is then also still needed and that there is no way to not care about political solutions for the conflict in this country of the Middle East. As said, it is interesting that the EU asked for evidence for the claims by Washington. However, it could happen just for the show. Everybody wants to maintain his image for the public opinion.
Meanwhile, the interesting question of who benefits from such events has probably also an interesting answer. Certainly, the Syrian government, the Syrian Army as well as the Syrian people do not benefit from the use of chemical weapons as it is shown now by the increased rhetoric of war against Damascus and the increased possibility of a military strike against Syria. The same question is raised and answered by the journalist and political commentator, Edward Corrigan.
Edward Corrigan said in a new interview with Press TV that it is very much unlikely that the Syrian governance launched a chemical weapons attack against the foreign-backed terrorists near the capital, Damascus, because the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has now the upper hand in its fighting against the armed terrorists and thus, there is no need to rely on such weapons in the battles against them.
The political commentator and journalist, Edward Corrigan, further said in his interview that the “whole gas attack is highly suspicious” because if one looks at the answer of the question of who benefits from this gas attack, then it is “clearly not the Syrian government in Damascus or the people of Syria.”
The political commentator also raised the question of why should the Syrian government rely on the use of such chemical weapons now, when “its military was apparently winning the ground war” against the terrorists in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has gained the upper hand in the war against the foreign-backed terrorists in recent months and thus, there is certainly no need to use chemical weapons in the battles against foreign-backed terrorist groups.
However, the Syrian Army units (SAA) would also certainly not use chemical weapons in suburbs of the capital Damascus and in case if they would use chemical weapons, the Syrian soldiers would probably carry gas masks – but they did not wear/carry gas masks as it is confirmed by video recordings from August 21 / 22.
The journalist and political analyst Edward Corrigan also added that there has been already “substantial evidence” that the foreign-backed terrorists and Takfiri thugs were behind the recent chemical weapons attack in suburbs of Damascus.
Corrigan said that he has seen reports that Moscow has satellite imagery that show how rockets were fired from terrorist-held territory and these rockets could be filled with e.g. Sarin nerve gas. A similar attack by terrorists already happened in Khan al-Assal (Khan al-Asal) against Syrian civilians and soldiers in March, 2013.
According to the statements by the journalist Edward Corrigan, it is clear that the government of Syria had many reasons to not use chemical weapons and that the foreign-supported “Syrian rebels”, who are apparently losing on the battlefield in Syria, were trying to find a pretext for a Western military intervention in Syria and therefore, a staged chemical attack (false-flag) is very useful for the interests and aims of the terrorists in Syria. Corrigan finally stated in his interview with Press TV that around 60 percent of the people in the United States are opposed to a military intervention in Syria and that there is a lot of divisions in America in terms of a military strike against this Arab nation.
