Palestina Summer

Activists & Activism News

Exposing Chemical Warfare and The Boys Who Cry Wolf by M. Dennis Paul, Ph. D

Exposing Chemical Warfare and The Boys Who Cry Wolf

by M. Dennis Paul, Ph. D.


former contributor to

A recent article published by Al Arabiya ( ) poses a number of questions regarding the recent claimed chemical attacks in Syria and does so with an air of expertise which is, in fact, unsubstantiated and easily discredited. Such articles, designed to lend credence, in a surreptitious manner, to claims which have absolutely no verification and very little chance of ever acquiring such validation become abundant in media simply to further confuse and misdirect the leanings of under-educated masses toward a conclusion which, in this case, is immediate inclusion (intervention) of the US in a ground war in Syria.


The “expert” referred to in the article is the Editor, Gwyn Winfield, of a periodical (CBRNe WORLD) which promotes opinion, “researched” news, interviews, articles, surveys and regular columns, and Co-Editor of The New Wars of the West: Anglo-American Voices on the War on Terror (2006) and Axis of Evil: The War on Terror (2005). CBRNe WORLD is essentially a limited scope magazine which caters to a niche audience of “security” enthusiasts.

An apparently self proclaimed expert (as no references toward outside acclaim could be found), this Editor makes the profound comment, based on video which has no authenticity verified, that it appears “it might be chemical, biological or radiological device”. Then adds the symptoms suggest it was a chemical attack, but exactly which chemical it is is difficult to decide. So in the “experts” view it could be any number of things based upon an unverified video and yet at the same time, using the same video, claims it is chemical but he is unable to ascertain what chemical. This is quite an “expert” leap based on what amounts to no real evidence at all.

The expert continues claiming three indications are mandatory to know in order to identify the source . They are: “the agent itself, the delivery system (rocket/shell/mortar and the device that fires it) and the skill needed to bring the three together (personnel).” Using quotation, the article suggests the expert implicates the Syrian government (From article: The most difficult part in this is identifying the agent, as Syria has the delivery system and skill “in abundance.”)

Winfield notes that Syria claims to maintain control over its chemical stockpile then claims all an enemy need do “is overrun an ammunition dump with a small supply of agent” to stage such an attack. This is such a ludicrous statement suggesting the Syrian military would leave little packages of Sarin or some other agent exposed to such a situation. In a previous article, I explained briefly how unstable Sarin is as an agent as it degrades so rapidly. Even in its most stabilized presentation, under ideal conditions, real experts know Sarin, and most other similar compounds, have a shelf life of no more than 5 years at best. Not even Saddam Hussein was dumb enough to store Sarin in scattered munition dumps and as the CIA has previously admitted, Saddam’s stock was of such low quality as to be useless (in 1989, the Iraqi Government destroyed 40 plus tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.). Further, an enemy overrunning a dump and finding a small stock of Sarin would have to be quite knowledgeable on how to use it, understanding what form and method under which it was prepared and how to prime and launch it. Not a likely scenario and quite contrary to the experts dire warning of an ammo dump being overrun.

To enhance the surreptitious scare imprints the article has already presented, the article presents “Andrew Tabler a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who tells Al-Arabiya that if the chemical weapons use is confirmed on such a massive scale (no massive scale having yet been promoted and no use having been thus far verified) , “it will be much harder for the Barack Obama administration not to respond” warning that this might be a sign of “more systematic use in the future if we are not there already.” All of this based upon a claim, a video, some ridiculous speculations from a so-called expert in such forms of weaponry and an enormous amount of thin air. All purposely concocted to misdirect the thoughts and emotions of the populace so that flags will be waved and ribbons strung.

The typical media flag wavers (which more often than not are for “false flag” events) from the Wall St. Journal and NYTimes and the vast majority of media parrots immediately began speculation about a US response (which is what all these machinations are about… dragging the US into another major offensive in an area it never belonged). The article states Pentagon officials are revamping their plans and Kerry is making the rounds with the small group of Western sycophant nations that still gather at the US teat. Obama, who speaks from both sides of his mouth and manages to say nothing, is quoted in the article as having commented to CNN that “core national interests are now at stake” if Chemical weapons use is verified, “both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.” Not unlike all the other statements he has made with each new cropping of claims for chemical apocalypse. It is, perhaps, the only good thing Obama has done in his time as President… doing nothing about these claims.

The article ends with final quotes from Tabler and Winfield. Tabler who does not expect immediate military action due to the “time needed to plan militarily and for diplomacy and coalition building”, a priority for the Obama administration (which indiscriminately uses drones in violation of International law and the sovereignty of those nations it attacks absent any “coalition”). Still, according to the article, he warns that Washington “can not afford waiting too long.” And Winfield who offers how military action in the form of airstrikes would not resolve the threat of chemical exposures as it is so difficult to protect these weapons and that “the chances of killing everyone that knows how to operate these systems is slim, as is the chance of destroying every mortar, howitzer and rocket battery.” He adds that “destroying a chemical agent is very difficult to do safely, and it would require special forces on the ground”. The article’s author ends, “something that the U.S. has been very reluctant about doing in Syria.”

As an “expert”, I’m sure Winfield knows just how easy it really is to destroy these chemical stockpiles with relative safety from both air and land. I won’t go into the science of it here but did mention it in very brief fashion in a previous article ( Reasons to Doubt Claims of Chemical weapons Use by M. Dennis Paul, Ph. D. … ). The US and Israel have the means to do so at their disposal and are not as worried as they let on ( ) Israel had no concerns about chemical weapons when it blew up a major stockpile of weapons in Syria just a few months ago or in any of the other admitted targeting of Syrian munitions over the past year.

The US and Israel have shown no remorse for their continued use of DU (Depleted Uranium) weapons which have created virtual cities of deformity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and where ever else they have and are being used. I am certain the “expert” knows all about this. Israel has shown no remorse for its use of phosphorous weapons and recently played semantics in trying to convince the UN it would not deploy them again unless it was necessary??

The real culprits behind chemical warfare are those making the most noise about Assad using them. It is a repeat of Iraq… same flavor in a new cone. The Gulf and Western financed insurgents are losing against Assad and this makes it all the more necessary for the financiers to promote ever larger lies.

  • 23 August 2013