The US intelligence community has been put to shame by one lone Christian nun. Her modest study of the videos of the Syrian chemical attack shows they were productions involving staged bodies.
Those who take the time to read the report by Mother Agnes and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS), which has been sent to the United Nations, will realize that it disgraces the entire US intelligence community for endorsing video footage that is clearly dubious and not credible upon careful study by even a layperson.
No one denies that chemical weapons were used. The US federal government and the mainstream media in the US and its allies have been playing a dirty game of equating the a) rejection of accusations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons with b) an outright denial that chemical weapons were used. The two are deliberately being mixed together to confuse the general public. The question is who used the chemical weapons?
What is the US intelligence community?
Before I go any further, it has to be emphasized that the US intelligence community is a collective of all the intelligence bodies of the US government, which is formed by 16 different intelligence agencies.
Out of the agencies that form the US Intelligence community, one belongs to the US Treasury, one belongs to the US Department of State, two belong to Homeland Security, two belong to the US Department of Justice, one belongs to the US Department of Energy, eight belong to the Pentagon, and finally one of them is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which is independent from any US government department.
Nonetheless, this gargantuan body could not see what Mother Agnes Mariam has found and submitted to the United Nations. It is job of the agencies of the US intelligence community to examine these videos and to authenticate them. But they failed either to serve US foreign policy, or to show professionalism, or both.
Instead they nominated a sample of footage from Syria as a means of proving that (1) the chemical weapons were used in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta and (2) that the Syrian government was responsible for the diabolical attacks.
Dubious nature of videos selected by US intel community
The US intelligence community selected 13 videos that the Obama Administration has used in their case against the Syrian government. These videos need to be carefully looked at.
The emphasis that US Secretary of State John Kerry put on the videos in his scripted speech to reporters on August 30, 2013, came across as ingenuous. Kerry notably refers to the footage from Syria and constantly uses the words “our own eyes” and “seeing.” He even asks that the videos be watched by the general public. He should have been taken to task on this, and he was through the study that Mother Agnes has produced.
A RED FLAG– There is an almost total absence of adult corpses next to the bodies of the children. Nor is there footage of parents, especially mothers, coming to claim their children. Where were the parents?
From a cultural context–where mothers are rarely separated from their children– this is strikingly odd. It is highly unlikely that the parents, especially the mothers of all these children, would have left them alone or not rushed to where their bodies were. There would be much wailing and grief. There is none. Why?
If the parents were not killed, then where are they? If the parents, especially the mothers (following the gender script of Syrian society), were with their children, then where are the mothers’ corpses? One video states that all the bodies are dead. Yet we see that the some of the corpses are being injected with an unknown liquid. Why?
The report also highlights the fact that there have been no public funerals or announcements about all the dead children. This is outside of both cultural and religious norms.
In the footage of one burial, only eight people are buried and three of them are not even covered in white shrouds, which is a compulsory ritual. Were these people murdered by the insurgents and disrespectfully buried without the proper rituals, as a sign of disdain?
Moreover, the identities of the dead have consistently been withheld. There is more to say on this and it should be kept in mind.
Mother Agnes also points out that there is virtually an absence of the sound of ambulances, and that in the testimonies used by the West, individuals claim to have smelled the chemical that was used.
Sarin gas, however, is odorless, which raises important questions about the testimonies.
Even if one dismisses some of Mother Agnes arguments, some observations in her study are undeniable, and suggest scenes have been stage-managed.
For example, some of the same bodies were planted or recycled in different scenes and different makeshift morgues. In other words, the same bodies of the same children are spotted in different locations.
That leads to the undeniable conclusion that some of the children were being arranged and moved around.
A horrible conclusion
Many bad things have happened in Syria, including the chemical attack in East Ghouta. Yet there many questions that have to be answered.
There was a massacre in Latakia on August 4, 2013 that went unreported. After the massacre, surviving children are known to have been kidnapped by Rebels.
The mainstream media in the US and West failed to cover this or casually passed over it, obviously because it was inconvenient to expose war crimes by U.S backed rebel groups against ordinary Syrian people.
The study mentions that the relatives of children abducted by the US-supported insurgents have come forward to identify their relatives in the videos from the chemical attacks. It paints an ominous picture that the bodies of these children were prostituted by Rebels to open the field in Syria for a foreign military intervention.
Regardless of whatever position one takes on Syria, it is their responsibility to analyze the videos from the alleged chemical attack and pay attention to observations of Mother Agnes Mariam’s report.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.