icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm
25 Apr, 2017 16:15

‘US media shuns anyone who challenges White House narrative on Syria chemical attack'

‘US media shuns anyone who challenges White House narrative on Syria chemical attack'

The US says it has identified 271 people responsible for the Idlib chemical attack, yet the UN is not investigating. The US is using the UN as cover for its interventionist foreign policy, claims Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute.

The US Treasury Department imposed new sanctions on Syrian science officials who are accused of being involved in the Idlib chemical incident.

Washington is still convinced President Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it doesn't seem very keen on a serious investigation on the ground.

RT: Do you think the coalition airstrikes over the weekend in Raqqa, which the UN claims reportedly resulted in civilian deaths, will be investigated properly?

Daniel McAdams: I hardly think they will be investigated properly. The entire US operation in Iraq and Syria is not being investigated properly. How can you liberate people from oppression when you are killing them by the thousands. But every request for an investigation, including the event in Idlib, is being completely ignored by a UN that is cowed by US pressure.

RT: There have been mounting reports of civilian casualties as a result of coalition airstrikes both in Syria and Iraq. Are you surprised, given the technology, the strikes aren't more precise?

DM: No, because these are very difficult areas. These are urban areas, this is urban fighting. The political downside of having US troops involved is very high right now, so the US would rather use bombs, use weapons that don’t require a massive influx of US troops, so you don’t have any US casualties, which will be very unpopular back home. Essentially, the civilians on the ground are being sacrificed for political reasons back home in the US. But no one is asking why we are involved in these two battles in the first place.

RT: New US sanctions were imposed on Syria over the alleged chemical attack. Is this right considering there has been no official investigation?

DM: I think it is remarkable. They have managed to identify 271 people that are responsible for this attack, yet they haven’t even proved that an attack has taken place. Maybe the whole thing was a staged event. MIT professor Theodore Postol made a very compelling case that this was either a staged event, a false flag event or something that certainly was not what has been presented by the White House. Why is nobody listening to him? Why are no news outlet going to him and talking to him, looking at his research which is very sound. He has a long history of working with the intelligence community, a very distinguished career. Why is nobody talking to experts like this? Because it goes against the narrative and the US media is too cowardly to challenge the White House’s claim on this.

Why on Earth are we propping up the UN with so much money? What he doesn’t want to admit is that US is more than willing to fund the UN as long as the UN does the US bidding. It blocks investigations into things like the so-called chemical attack in Idlib. Why aren’t there UN teams investigating right now? They were blocked by the US and its allies. So, the US does prop up the UN and gives it more money, but it does it for a reason. It uses it as cover for the US interventionist foreign policy. I’m sure the elites in Washington consider it a good deal regardless of the rhetoric that comes from the mouth of President Trump.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.