Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (2): Which Syrian chemical attack account is credible?

The following article about the gas attacks in Damascus appeared online on Sunday, September 1st. Written by the American investigative journalist and author  of FAIR, it is one of different reports challenging the “facts” outlined in the so-called “dossier” of the Obama regime as to justify its warmongering against Syria. This weblog is circulating it as part of a series of information updates to assist our readers as well as the anti-war forces to maintain their orientation against the massive disinformation coming from the monopoly media, including the CBC. The use of force to solve political issues and justify foreign intervention is unjustifiable.


LET’S COMPARE a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (8/30/13), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called Mint Press News (8/29/13).

The government account expresses “high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack” on August 21. The Mint report bore the headline “Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack.” Which of these two versions should we find more credible?

The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism – particularly when it’s making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in hisaddress that “our intelligence community” has been “more than mindful of the Iraq experience” – as should be anyone listening to Kerry’s presentation, because the Iraq experience informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on distortion of evidence and deliberate suppression of contradictory facts.

Comparing Kerry’s presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell’s speech to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by Twittermessages and YouTube videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons – a question that indeed had been in some doubt, but had already largely been settled by a report by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for “neurotoxic symptoms.”On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry’s presentation was much more vague and circumstantial. A key point in the government’s white paper is “the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media.” It’s unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?

In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development – the point at which, as Kerry put it, “all hell broke loose in the social media”? Unless there’s some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it’s very unclear why we should think there’s any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.

When the evidence isn’t circumstantial, it’s strikingly vague

When the evidence isn’t circumstantial, it’s strikingly vague: “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence,” the report asserts. Taken at face value, it’s one of the most damning claims in the government’s report – a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that “confirmed” chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors – which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents – allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps “mindful of the Iraq experience,” Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

Colin Powell at the UN

Kerry did offer an explanation for why the report was so cursory: “In order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can’t talk about publicly.” It is not clear, however, why intelligence methods that produced visual and audible evidence that could be shared with the public 10 years ago cannot be similarly utilized today. It does point to why the $52 billion the United States spends on surveillance annually, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden (Washington Post8/29/13), provides relatively little information that’s of value to American democracy: The collection of information is considered so much more valuable than the information collected that it rarely if ever can be used to inform a public debate. Instead, as we discuss the dreadful question of whether to launch a military attack on another country, we are offered an undemocratic “trust us” from the most secretive parts of our government–an offer that history warns us to be extremely wary of.

Mnar Muhawesh

Mint takes a similar approach to the Syrian story, with a reporter in Ghouta – not Gavlak but Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student – who “spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents.” The article reports that “many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out” the chemical attack. The recipients of the chemical weapons are said to be Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction that was caught possessing sarin nerve gas in Turkey, according to Turkish press reports (OE Watch,7/13).

Mint quotes Abu Abdel-Moneim, described as the father of a rebel killed in the chemical weapons attacks, as saying that his son had described carrying unconventional weapons provided by Saudi Arabia to underground storage tunnels – a “tubelike structure” and a “huge gas bottle.” A rebel leader identified as J describes the release of toxic weaponry as accidental, saying, “Some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions.” Another rebel referred to as K complains, “When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them.”

Of course, independent media accounts are not necessarily more credible than official reports – or vice versa. As with the government white paper, there are gaps in the Mint account; while Abdel-Moneim cites his late son’s account of carrying chemical weapons, the rebels quoted do not indicate how they came to know what they say they know about the origin of the weapons. But unlike the government, Mint is honest about the limits of its knowledge: “Some information in this article could not be independently verified,” the story “Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates.”

This humility about the difficulty of reporting on a covert, invisible attack in the midst of a chaotic civil war actually adds to the credibility of the Mint account. It’s those who are most certain about matters of which they clearly lack firsthand knowledge who should make us most skeptical.

* Extra! Magazine Editor Since 1990, Jim Naureckas has been the editor ofExtra!, FAIR’s bimonthly journal of media criticism. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the ’90s. He is also the co-manager of FAIR’s website. He has worked as an investigative reporter for the newspaper In These Times, where he covered the Iran-Contra scandal, and was managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere, a newsletter on Latin America.

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Information and Reporting) is a long-established U.S. national media watch group.

Related Articles

Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (3): The self-serving twisting of ‘intelligence’

Disinformation about gas attacks in Damascus (1): Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack


Filed under Media, Journalism & Disinformation, No Harbour for War (Halifax)

15 responses to “Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (2): Which Syrian chemical attack account is credible?

  1. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (3): The self-serving twisting of ‘intelligence’ | Tony Seed's Weblog

  2. Pingback: Disinformation about gas attacks in Damascus (1) | Tony Seed's Weblog

  3. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (4): The falsification of evidence is the falsification of history | Tony Seed's Weblog

  4. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (5): Interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad | Tony Seed's Weblog

  5. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (6): Obama issues more threats as U.S. and Russia reach deal | Tony Seed's Weblog

  6. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (7): President al-Assad’s Interview with Rossiya 24 TV | Tony Seed's Weblog

  7. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (8): U.S. military admits to chemical, biological weapons experiments in Puerto Rico | Tony Seed's Weblog

  8. Pingback: UN concealing report on Iraqi deaths and illnesses caused by U.S. radiation | Tony Seed's Weblog

  9. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (9): U.S. manipulation of UN agencies | Tony Seed's Weblog

  10. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (10): A panoramic look at America’s case against Syria | Tony Seed's Weblog

  11. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (10): A panoramic look at the U.S. case against Syria | Tony Seed's Weblog

  12. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (11): Whose sarin? Whose rebels? Whose cherries? | Tony Seed's Weblog

  13. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (12): UN Report confirms Syrian chemical weapons fired from rebel-held territory | Tony Seed's Weblog

  14. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (13): On the role of the dogs of war – think tanks, ‘experts’ and media | Tony Seed's Weblog

  15. Pingback: Disinformation on gas attacks in Syria (14): US chemical weapons illegally left in Panama | Tony Seed's Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s