JAMES O’NEILL. Scientific evidence exposes the falsity of US government claims about Syrian gas attack.

Apr 17, 2017

The irresistible conclusion is that those same senior politicians know that the White House claims are false and misleading and therefore highly dangerous to Australia’s national security. That they should maintain their silence on this while continuing to perpetuate a barrage of lies and half-truths about the ongoing Syrian tragedy raises serious questions about their fitness to govern.   

On 4 April 2017 an incident occurred in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, as a result of which a number of civilians, including children, died. The western media and western politicians immediately branded the attack as an assault using chemical weapons by the Syrian government of Bashar al Assad. In what can only be described as a propaganda frenzy, the media and politicians condemned the Syrian President and his government.

That there was at the time very little evidence upon which to found these verbal and printed attacks was the least of the concerns of political leaders and their echo chambers in the media.

US President Trump made a number of barely coherent statements and claimed to be horrified at the deaths of civilians and children. Allegedly based upon these concerns, he ordered a missile attack on the Syrian air base at al Shayrat. A total of 59 cruise missiles were fired, of which only 23 hit their intended target. It seems likely that the balance of the missiles fired had their navigation systems electronically jammed by Russian defences and were diverted to fall harmlessly into the sea or open countryside.

Amidst the acres of newspaper space devoted to what was alleged to be a sarin attack and the American military response, the media were silent on both the illegality of the missile attack (apart from referencing the Russian government’s response) and the effectiveness of the Russian counter measures. The latter were achieved without the use of the effective S300 anti missile defences.

Further evidence has now emerged that throws into question the whole of the official narrative, and raises further serious questions about the integrity of the US government.

That evidence is contained in two reports issued by MIT scientist Professor Theodore Postol.   Professor Postol is well known in US security circles, having issued influential reports on among other things the Israeli Iron Dome missile system and the 2013 Ghouta sarin attack. The latter incident is still falsely ascribed to the Syrian government by the Australian media, although the contrary evidence is now overwhelming.

Professor Postol analysed the official White House report on the Khan Sheikhoun attack. He further analysed other reports and claimed evidence upon which the White House report was allegedly based. This included forensic analysis and drawing on his own considerable experience in these matters.

In his first report, published on 11 April 2017, Professor Postol made a number of very important points. In the interests of clarity and brevity they will only be summarised here. The reader is urged to consult the original source for a fuller explanation. (1)

  • The main evidence relied upon by the US government in claiming an aerial attack in fact points to individuals on the ground as being responsible, not an aircraft.
  • The photographs of the alleged source of the sarin release were very likely tampered with or staged.
  • The most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of a rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.
  • The crater was located in a search on google earth and there was absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition dropped from an aircraft.
  • Analysis of the debris cited by the White House report clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged sarin.
  • The White House Report contains false and misleading conclusions.
  • Analysis of the weather patterns before and after the event show that the time and day of the attack was carefully chosen to ensure maximum effect and was no accident.
  • The errors in respect of the Ghouta attack in 2013 were proof that the intelligence had been fabricated and the same errors were repeated in the present report.
  • The highly amateurish nature of the mistakes indicate that the report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

All of these conclusions are reached on the basis of the data, which are also shown in Professor Postol’s report.

The fact that the White House would release what was manifestly a false, misleading and amateurish report is obviously a matter of serious concern. That concern is compounded by the fact that this false information was used to justify an illegal missile attack upon a sovereign nation. The escalation of tensions created by the Khan Sheikhoun incident and its aftermath have brought us inexorably closer to a full-scale war in the Middle East between two major nuclear powers. There is a sociopathic and psychopathic element in the US that sees such a war as desirable and winnable. Such insane attitudes only accentuate the risks.

Professor Postol also wrote an addendum to his report in the light of further analysis. The addendum reinforces his main original conclusions with the caveat that the chemical agent used was highly unlikely to have been sarin. The absence of proper protective clothing by workers on the scene (the highly dubious so-called White Helmets) means that if it were sarin that was dispersed they would either be suffering debilitating effects or be dead.

The claims by the White House (and other western politicians and media), cannot be sustained in the light of the actual evidence. These claims cannot simply be a mistake, but rather point to deliberate deception. Professor Postol finds this conclusion disturbing, because it means that the report was motivated not by serious intelligence, but rather was used to justify actions that were not supported by any legitimate intelligence.

Professor Postol’s two reports have received extensive coverage in the alternative media. A search of major mainstream media websites, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, BBC, Fairfax Media, Newscorp and Australia’s ABC produced zero results for any reporting of Professor Postol’s conclusions.

This is almost as alarming as the false intelligence blaming the
Assad government and justifying a missile attack. It strongly suggests that the mainstream media are not interested in fairly and fully informing their readers of the actual evidence.

It defies belief that the Australian intelligence agencies are unaware of the shoddy and misleading “intelligence” contained in the White House report, and have not advised the relevant senior politicians accordingly. It would also be extremely surprising if those same intelligence agencies were unaware of Professor Postol’s report and its implications.

The irresistible conclusion is that those same senior politicians know that the White House claims are false and misleading and therefore highly dangerous to Australia’s national security. That they should maintain their silence on this while continuing to perpetuate a barrage of lies and half-truths about the ongoing Syrian tragedy raises serious questions about their fitness to govern.

James O’Neill, Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst. He may be contacted at joneill@qldbar.asn.au


  1. Both of Professor Postol’s reports and the White House reports which they address can be found at www.unz.com 14 April 2017

Share and Enjoy !

Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter
Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter


Thank you for subscribing!