Hacked Emails Reveal ‘Washington-Approved’ Plan to Stage Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria
Obama administration complicit in war crime?
Paul Joseph Watson
January 28, 2013
Alleged hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime, fulfilling what the Obama administration has made clear is a “red line” that would mandate US military intervention.
The leaked emails, obtained by a hacker in Malaysia, feature an exchange (
click here for screenshot) between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;
Phil
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
David
The fact that the plan involves delivering a CW (chemical weapon) that is “similar to those Assad should have,” clearly suggests that the idea is to stage a false flag chemical weapons attack that could be blamed on Assad by Gulf states like Qatar and NATO powers.
If the claim that such as plot was “approved by Washington” can be verified, then the Obama administration is complicit in a war crime.
According to Cyber War News, which details the process of how the emails were hacked and includes screenshots of the leaked documents, the hack also uncovered, “extremely personal information,” including copies of passports of Britam employees, some of whom appeared to be mercenaries.
A full list of all the hacked documents can be found
here.
Last year,
reports began to circulate that that US-backed rebel fighters in Syria had been given gas masks and were willing to stage a chemical weapons attack which would then be blamed on the Assad regime to grease the skids for NATO military intervention.
Soon after in August,
President Barack Obama warned that the use or even transportation of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would represent a “red line” that would precipitate military intervention. French President
Francois Hollande followed suit, stating that the use of such weapons “Would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention.”
At around the same time,
a source told Syrian news channel Addounia that a Saudi company had fitted 1400 ambulance vehicles with anti-gas & anti-chemical filtering systems at a cost of $97,000 dollars each, in preparation for a chemical weapons attack carried out by FSA rebels using mortar rounds. A further 400 vehicles were prepared as troop carriers.
The attack would be blamed on the Syrian Army and exploited as an excuse for a military assault. A March 2012 Brookings Institution report entitled
Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change outlined this very scenario – where a manufactured humanitarian crisis would be cited as justification for an attack.
Yesterday,
Israel’s vice premier Silvan Shalom told reporters that if Syrian rebels obtained chemical weapons from stockpiles belonging to the Assad regime, such a development would force Israel to resort to “preventive operations,” in other words – a military strike on Syria.
In December,
a shocking video emerged of Syrian rebels testing what appeared to be a form of nerve gas on rabbits, bolstering claims that the rebels had already obtained chemical weapons.
Last month, 29 different US-backed Syrian opposition groups pledged their allegiance to Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group which,
as the New York Times reported, “killed numerous American troops in Iraq.
Numerous reports confirm that
Al Nusra is the leading front line fighting force in Syria and is commanding other rebel groups. Given their prominent role, allied with the fact that the terror group has been responsible for numerous bloody attacks in Syria, the notion that the Obama administration would approve a plot that could see chemical weapons fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists could represent a foreign policy scandal even bigger than Benghazi-Gate.
