BBC Has 'Evidence' Of Syrian Chemical Weapons, But There's One Major Problem

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Darius Shahtahmasebi via,

The BBC reportedly has exclusive proof that the Syrian government is continuing to produce chemical weapons in violation of a deal reached in 2013. Pursuant to that deal, the Syrian government was supposed to remove its entire stockpile, which the U.N. said had already been achieved in 2014.

According to a document provided to the BBC by a “Western intelligence agency,” chemical and biological munitions are being produced at three main sites near Damascus and Hama. The document also alleges that Iran and Russia are well aware of these activities.

Even though the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) monitors these sites, the document alleges that the manufacture of chemical weapons continues behind closed doors.

According to the BBC, the OPCW has confirmed that it has asked the Syrian authorities to declare the relevant parts of the sites per Syria’s obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Syrian authorities have declared sections of those sites, but the OPCW was not in a position to “confirm that the [Syrian] declaration is complete and accurate.”

In its report, the BBC then tied the information from the document into the wider issue at hand — that the Syrian government is deemed by Western powers to be the number one culprit behind the most recent chemical weapons attack at the beginning of April.

Most disturbing, however, is the fact that the BBC advanced this information with the following provisos buried in the final paragraphs of its report:

“The intelligence information about the suspected weapons manufacturing sites was shared with the BBC on condition the agency providing it would not be named.


“It does not give detail about how the alleged evidence was gathered.” [emphasis added]

It wouldn’t be surprising to most people if the Syrian government is still producing chemical weapons at those sites (or any other sites, for that matter). However, there is a glaring problem with these claims: What is the standard of proof? An unnamed “intelligence agency” shares information with a media network without providing any detail as to how it actually assessed or compiled its data?

This is the same media network that in 2013 reported on U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte’s view that, in fact, Syrian rebels likely used sarin gas to attack civilians in the major attacks in 2013. So far, very little concrete evidence regarding the Syrian government’s culpability in any of the chemical weapons attacks throughout the conflict has emerged, including the most recent one in April. As such, it is no surprise that the BBC has to resort to these kinds of tactics.

Despite the disclaimer mentioned in the article, the title of the BBC report was “Syria government ‘producing chemical weapons at research facilities,’” though the editors likely knew full well very few people would even bother to read the first paragraph, let alone the last few paragraphs, which acknowledged the absurdity of the information presented.

A parallel can be drawn between this narrative and the numerous allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. As noted by Glenn Greenwald in December, the allegations presented by the mainstream media regarding Russian interference were no substitute for concrete proof:

“There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof.”

Sound familiar?

Regardless of the accusation, the political nature of the issue at hand, and the parties involved, employing Greenwald’s words of warning are the only way to distinguish fact from fiction. If we don’t know the facts for sure, we shouldn’t promulgate them without question, especially given the ulterior motives of the corporate media and the agencies that advise them (in the case of Syria, the agenda of these parties is regime change).

Real journalism requires a much higher standard than that, assuming our job is to publish the truth. The stakes are high in Syria, and we can’t afford to let the U.S. government and allies employ a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality — the same kind we have seen cause such widespread catastrophe in countries such as Iraq and Libya.

As the New York Times was forced to admit in 2004, approximately a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

“But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.”

This time, let’s question the propaganda before the invasion - not after it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Davidduke2000's picture

I think the saudi's skin is itching for a terrible beating, Iran should  destroy saudi arabia and finish off the thugs that are terrorising the world.

Took Red Pill's picture

yeah the Syrians have chemical weapons and Russia hacked our election. Who needs proof? If they say it enough times, it makes it true.

glenlloyd's picture

I tend to agree, and I also tend to believe the old adage that drive by shootings are never a coincidence. Despite what people want to say often these occur because of a past provocation.

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

The BBC has proof... in the form of receipts from chemical weapons sold to Assad by British arms firms. 



Ignatius's picture

Based on what I've seen and know about what these murderous, mercenary terrorist invaders have done to Syria and the Syrian population it would not bother me in the least to see all these terrorist heads on poles from Damascus to Tel Aviv and Riyadh, gassed or not (God, forgive me the sentiment).

Fortunately, in the civilized West we use safe, clean depleted uranium shells so we can all sleep well at night....

These terrorist shitheads embed themselves with civilians as shields and shoot to kill when they attempt to flee.

eforce's picture

What they really mean is start a war with Syria AND Iran, since they have a joint defence pact.

UnpatrioticHoarder's picture

This is the "sexed up" Iraq dossier all over again. What fuckwit believes it this time?

Mountainview's picture

BBC, subsidary of CNN, rumour and false news machine.

lucitanian's picture

Ya, isn't it funny how in Senate hearings etc. RT is always identified as Russian state funded propaganda media, but the BBC or VOA are just as much state funded and are never seen as a propaganda arm of Britain or US respectively. The hypocrisy is so pervasive, as if the audience as whole was simply feeble minded. It's frankly insulting.

barndoor's picture

But questioning intell reports before an invasion/launch isn't nearly as fun...

exonomic halfbreed's picture

The western intelligence agency who gave the information had at first approached Stubblebines psychics but after carefull analysis decided that they would go with a Blavatsky and Crowley accolyte who succesfully read the mind of "Curveball".

HowdyDoody's picture

An anonymous report from an anonymous agency - sounds totally legit. Oh wait, it's reported on the British Bullshitters Corporation.

land_of_the_few's picture

Well clearly Assad is doing it secretly behind closed doors, which would explain why the BBC has no evidence of any kind. Pure journalism that is.

And he is following Sun Tzu's advice to sabotage your own military campaigns as much as possible simply to please your enemies.

Apparently he is also making a 1/8th scale model of the Taj Mahal out of Philadelphia cheese, JUST BECAUSE.

There's no evidence for it, but it is a scientific fact

Whalley World's picture

The psychic BBC who's reporters can spot a building collapse well before it happens.

Eeyores Enigma's picture

We have proof but if we told you we would have to kill you so don't ask.

glenlloyd's picture

Just wait, it'll be the same playbook as before, you can count on it.

Juggernaut x2's picture

The USofA-  taking out Israel's neighbors one by one.

Got The Wrong No's picture

This time they will plant the evidence. I'm surprised they didn't last time. 

HowdyDoody's picture

The BBC - helping fix the 'facts' and 'intelligence' around the policy since the was against Iraq in 2003.

GreatUncle's picture

BBC reporters, journalists and employees in general know exactly what they are doing, who for and for personal gain.

So mercenaries the lot like a cancer in society.

Winston Churchill's picture

Say its not so,Auntie would never lie to us shirley ?

OverTheHedge's picture

Jeremy Bowen' s account or Tiananmen Square is so different to the photo evidence that I have seen, that I can no longer believe anything the man says. His smug confirmation that Assad is a monster just smacks of propaganda.

My favourite is the current BBC trailer that lists all the attributes of the perfect, independent news outlet, suggesting that the BBC has never taken a side in a war (??!!!), always speaks truth, and is generally the only place to go for "independent" news. Magnificent irony.

Cruel Joke's picture

If the BBC has evidence of Syria's Army using chemical weapons, then they should show it. If it is not shown, then it does not exist.

Whalley World's picture

9/11/01, there I fixed it for you

bigkahuna's picture

yep - they are the ones who reported wtc7's collapse before it actually collapsed....

must've got their times zones mixed up during coordination.

Steroid's picture

We have declared carbon dioxide toxic.

Don't they breath?

Tennessee Patriot's picture

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good lie"   

Don't know if it is a quote from someone or not, but it sounded pretty good in my head. 

IridiumRebel's picture

It's not like they announced 9/11 buildings falling preemptively.

auricle's picture

I remember when it was a reporter that would investigate and find a story. Now it's the BBC that investigates and finds a story. 

GreatUncle's picture

Correction, BBC investigates and makes up a story for their masters.

Lumberjack's picture

Bullshittin British Chimps

The Gladiator's picture

I guess. If you call doing exactly what the people that own you tell you to do "investigating".

EuroPox's picture

Don't worry, the BBC even reports news BEFORE it happens!  Remember WTC7 - the BBC was reporting the collapse of that building 20 minutes before it collapsed.  I am sure if Assad was not making chemical weapons before the BBC reports it, he will be soon afterwards.

harrybrown's picture

Few know, but the BBC was also reporting on the "6 MILLION" jews who were being 1942....
in radio broadcasts around Europe / allied countries,
3 years before the war was over,
but bletchley park had / has no records of any death camps or plans by the Germans to Kill inmates / prisoners
and the germans had no idea we had broken  their enigma code at those times... INTERESTING BBC REPORTS


directaction's picture

The Red Cross was in Auschwitz/Birkinaau, too, and they didn't see any killing.
Nor a word about any of that gas chamber nonsense either. Yet the BBC did.
Interesting how the US/UK media propaganda fakes all kinds of crazy things,
And stranger still is how many people actually believe it.  

JohninMK's picture

They haven't found all that pink concrete that Zyklon B would have stained either.

exonomic halfbreed's picture

I wonder if the BBC devoted any time to report on the round up of civilians outside of germany who had lived peacefully for generations in other countries nearby but happened to speak german and were of germanic decent that were sent to concentration camps run by the allies after the war.  These people were starved and denied basic hygeine requirements and died likes flies.  One soldier was quartmartialed for throwing some food over the fence to a starving inmate.  Our president at the time was the Swedish Jew Eisenhower.

Troll Magnet's picture

They need to shut down all those CIA/Big Pharma funded labs where they create diseases and viruses first.

mary mary's picture

<  The double-top-secret-intelligence-agency is the one-man Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

<  The double-top-secret-intelligence-agency is Moose and Squirrel.

mc888's picture

 ...always loved Natasha...

Fireman's picture

Britland Bulls#it Conspiracies...another prediction from the heart of the anglozionazi terror factory.

roadhazard's picture

I remember when the Iraqi WMD were spirited off to Syria/Iran/Lebanon... ask anyone from the right wing.

Blankone's picture

Russia's role also has to be questioned.

Russia brokered the deals to remove WMD's, chemical weapons and other such, from Iraq, Libya and Syria. It was after this was done that those countries were attacked/bombed directly by the US. And Russia failed to shield any of those countries from the US/NATO bombing.

Russia also brokered the deal where Iran would forgo their right to develop nucs for self preservation. All of Iran's enriched uranium has to and has been spirited off to -- Russia.

booboo's picture

Charge of the light in the loafer brigade, Linda Graham

Panic Mode's picture

A propaganda government news network for ego-centric people think they are so bloody civilised and educated.

BBC is ALWAYS a news network working for government. Just look at where their revenue comes from, the government acts as a pimp to force citizens to pay TV tax.

Have you ever read the news on BBC saying how brutal Saudi regime is? How many are be-headed a year? How many are punished with torture?

It's pro-establishment network, as simple as that.

When Edward Snowden escaped from US, why he didn't use BBC journalist as his first personal contact to outside world, instead he used a journalist from the Guardian. Because BBC will work with US at that time and grass him out. Those so called educated sheep in UK just never question themselves.

JohninMK's picture

THe BBC's revenue comes from us, the people. We pay a licence fee to them every year.

shovelhead's picture

Unconfirmed reports have surfaced that Donald Trump has been a woman since 1996.

See how easy that was?

Amazing, isn't it?