Prime Minister David Cameron, Conservative MP Brooks Newmark, and US intelligence sources allege that chemical weapons were used in Syria. This “fact” is used to strengthen calls for military action to ensure the overthrow of Assad. But are chemical weapons real and where is the evidence?
Brooks Newmark is a former banker and financier, believed to be a member of Shearson Lehman Brothers, Newmark Brothers, Inc., Stelican, Inc., and Apollo Management LP. Newmark, now a Conservative MP, wrote a full-page article in the Sunday Mail on June 9, 2013 calling for the arming of the Syrian opposition and the removal of Assad. The heading is…”I know Assad – and I know it's time to arm the Syrian rebels and overthrow him, says a Conservative MP who visited the dictator's home for tea. says.“Of course, we can be sure that Mr. Newmark will not be on the front lines or joining his 'rebel friends' in battle. Others can fight and die. Mr Newmark is clearly in bed with the Tory Prime Minister a lot.'' David Cameron promotes the same hypocritical and despicable policies.
Mr. Newmark claims that he has met with both Mr. Assad and his wife one-on-one over the years. Importantly, he did not say what his position was, and he was quick to say that he hated the Assad regime and its hostility towards Israel, so it is unlikely that it was as a friend. That's true. Newmark intensifies rhetoric.”Assad is willing to destroy Syria and kill its people, Syria is a mafia state, Assad is only interested in his own survival, Assad is bipolar.“Really, when was Newmark qualified to give a medical opinion? Maybe a man showing mental deficiencies tried to suggest that throwing weapons into a conflict would help with a peaceful resolution?” Was it Newmark?
But the real pain in Newmark's article is the statement…”This is not Iraq. Iraq had no chemical weapons. In Syria, Assad certainly used them.“A simple call to Brooks Newmark to ask where was the 'hard' evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons was met with abuse and cover-up. That was the first line, according to the United Nations report. The second line was that he used chemical weapons. We asked if this was from someone in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but Mr Newmark didn't want to say… Portland Down reported on it.
In fact, all previous UN reports have alluded to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, and indeed the use of chemical weapons in the absence of clear evidence of their use by either the perpetrators, Assad, the government, or the rebels. It only refers to suspicions. force. On March 21, 2013, Ban Ki-moon said:He received letters 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 at the Khan al-Assal location in Aleppo and at Ataiba, near Damascus. Other Member States have also written to me and issued public statements calling on the aforementioned task force to investigate all allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.“The key word 'alleged' is reflected in UNDOC/GEN/NE12/494/32/PDF/N1249432, which calls for full and free access to the Secretary-General's investigation into all 'alleged use of chemical weapons.' Indeed, a UN report suggested there was greater evidence that rebels had used chemical weapons, but a British column told Mr Newmark that the government was When he lied and suggested that he appeared to be doing so, again, there is no proof. He did the same thing again regarding Syria, which made him a little dismayed, and the conversation quickly ended.
To date, no substantive evidence has been released by the United States, United Kingdom, or United Nations that anyone has used chemical weapons in Syria. Claims to this effect are based on evaluations but no substantive facts. So why did Mr. Newmark try to mislead the public by claiming, “We know for sure that Assad used them?'' Is it a statement aimed at reinforcing British and US policy to “remove Assad” at all costs? On Friday 14 June, Guardian reporters Patrick Winter and Nicholas Watt produced a disingenuous article claiming that the US's “honest assessment” that Assad had used chemical weapons was shared by the UK. . But read the small print and you'll see the great political liar David Cameron quoting:We share their (U.S.) view that while there is increasing information about chemical weapons used by the regime, there is no solid evidence that rebels have used chemical weapons.”
So, in plain English, there is no hard factual evidence of its use by Assad, just “increasing levels of information.” Britain launched a war of death and destruction in Iraq based on the lie of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There is a similar scent in the UK-US stance towards Syria. Should I trust Cameron? – No. Should we trust Brooks Newmark? No, after all, both men have declared that they support Israel, not the British people. Apart 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 believe their claims about chemical weapons in Syria? We don't think so. Truth is an important issue in Syria, but we see very little of it. Is Cameron's blatantly disingenuous propaganda about weapons of mass destruction in Syria aimed at ousting another sovereign head of state on Bilderberg's international target list?
