Author: cassandrasboxmedia

Independent Writer from the UK, blending alternative media perspectives, gender critical views, conspiracy, left wing politics and economics, support for Julian Assange and alternative spirituality.

The Douma Primer Part 1: The Official Narrative

Cartoon reading: SYRIA, what is the evidence that the Douma "chemical attack" was staged? next panel: Henderson report: Cylinders manually placed, Next panel: BBC producer, text of tweet from Riam Dalati @dalatrm reading 'After almost 6 months of investigations i can prove without a doubt that the #Douma hospital scene was staged, next panel: Leaked emails Wikileaks OPCW Bosses Manipulated evidence to blame Syria, next panel Syrian witnesses the Hague state no chemical attack occurred. Last panel tweet from George Monbiot blaming Syrian government.

The Douma false flag is one of the most important stories over the past few years that has been (almost) completely ignored by the mainstream media. To summarise the scandal, Britain, the US and France bombed Syria based on the claim that Assad had carried out a chemical attack against civilians in Douma in April 2018. This argument was dubious from the start, but a drip feed of evidence has shown that the claim that Assad ‘gassed his own people’ at Douma to be a complete fraud.

This series of three articles will outline the key information regarding this scandal.

Part 1, below, will cover in brief what the Syrian conflict is about and why the West is involved, the basic narrative about Douma promoted by the US/UK governments and mainstream media, and the OPCW Report which was released in March 2019 and implied Assad was responsible for a chemical attack using chlorine.

Part 2 will cover the main points of evidence disproving the Western claims: 1) the nonexistent logic behind an Assad gas attack, 2) the Syrian witnesses who testified at the OPCW, 3) BBC producer Riam Dalati stating he could prove the attack was staged, 4) The Henderson Report, a ballistics analysis that contradicted the final OPCW report, 5) Internal OPCW documents leaked to Wikileaks, 6) Evidence showing that Henderson was a legitimate authority within the OPCW.

Part 3 will discuss the mainstream media response to this evidence. It will focus on the case of George Monbiot, an alleged outsider who in fact proves his establishment credentials by lying about Syria.

What is Syria About?

The war in Syria is a struggle for control over the country between different factions, that can be divided between pro- and anti-government forces.

The government of Syria, led by Bashar Al-Assad, seeks to maintain control over the country and protect Syria’s territorial integrity. His government is working with their ally, the Russian government led by Vladimir Putin (who has had a military presence in Syria since 2015). Some of Putin’s motives are likely to be protection of a valuable ally and concerns over Islamic terrorists from a jihadist-run Syria destabilising the North Caucasus.

On the other side of the conflict are those who seek to overthrow the Assad government. There are several different armed jihadist groups, such as Islamic State and al-Nusra, operating in Syria. There is also a Kurdish faction in the North of Syria that oppose Assad, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. The United States also has a sizable troop presence in Syria.

The Syrians and Russians are fighting the jihadi terrorists, whereas the West is using both the jihadists and the Kurds to undermine the Syrian government and the territorial integrity of the country. The US has funded and armed jihadists for this purpose, as well as using the Kurds (along with their own troops) to prevent the Syrian government’s access to oil fields. The West wants to remove Assad from power or at least plunge the country into such complete destabilisation that it cannot function.

Why is the West even concerned with Syria? What’s in it for them? There are a number of factors.

Economic motivations are always a strong reason for any war. The military industrial complex in the US always wants more war in order to increase the profits of military contractors, and politicians are generally funded by these contractors and so support the conflicts. Economic exploitation is also a motivating factor. Having a US vassal state in Syria would make this easier. In the case of Iraq, US firms such as Halliburton made a fortune out of the conflict. Even if they fail (very likely) at creating a vassal state there the destruction wreaked on Syria operates as a threat to any other leader thinking of pursuing an approach at odds with Washington’s interest.

Geostrategic motivations are also relevant, in particular, trying to weaken the Russian position in the face of her resurgence as a player on the international stage (at least to an extent). In the 1990s, Russia was a completely impotent country consumed with economic crisis as well as internal secessionist challenges in the Caucasus. In the 2000s under Putin, Russia began to recover economically because of a significant rise in oil prices, and Putin strengthened the Russian military which had become under-resourced in the 1990s. Slowly Russia recovered and with the Syria conflict was able to begin to become a significant regional player. Control over Syria would weaken Russia by taking out one of Putin’s key allies. Syria has been allied to Russia (previously USSR) for a long time.

A related motive for the West’s involvement is the possibility of putting a gas pipeline through Syria to Europe. Qatar proposed such a pipeline but Assad did not accept the Qatari plan. A pipeline through Syria would weaken Russia economically by reducing the reliance of Europe on Russian gas.

It goes without saying, of course, that none of the motives of the US have anything to do with freedom, democracy, or any other lie that they come up with to justify imperialism.

Douma: The Basic Narrative

The Douma ‘incident’ happened in April, 2018. The basic claim was that the Syrian Army had carried out a chemical attack, killing dozens of civilians in Douma.

The first piece of evidence presented for this was a video that was filmed by the White Helmets (purportedly a civil defense organisation but in reality strongly tied to the jihadists). This video claimed to show children at a hospital who had been attacked by a chemical weapon. It shows panic and children being doused in water. There is another White Helmets video which shows dead people at the scene. These videos were largely presented in an uncritical light by the mainstream media. Obviously they wanted to try to create an emotional response in the viewer, in order that critical questions were not asked.

The second piece of evidence that the mainstream media presented was photographs of cylinders taken at the scene. On the 15 April 2018, the Scottish Sun published an article with the headline “Damning new pics of gas cylinders at Syrian gassing scene as ‘toxin’ dossier emerges” showing these cylinders. They were presented as the source of the chemical attack.

The framing of mainstream media articles tended to assume the guilt of the Syrian army, while dismissing any Syrian or Russian claims that the attack was faked. The US, British and French responded to this ‘attack’ a few days later by an airstrike in Syria.

What the OPCW Claimed Happened

The OPCW released its report into the alleged Douma attack in March 2019. They summarised its findings as such:

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma, the evaluation and analysis of all the above-referenced information gathered by the FFM provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

The report itself states that:

Based on the levels of chlorinated organic derivatives, detected in several environmental samples gathered at the sites of alleged use of toxic chemicals (Locations 2 and 4), which are not naturally present in the environment, the FFM concludes that the objects from which the samples were taken at both locations had been in contact with one or more substances containing reactive chlorine.

So important point number 1 is that the OPCW report concluded that the chlorine levels as the scene indicated that chlorine was used as a chemical weapon. They report no evidence of any other chemical weapons.

Important point number 2 is the cylinder analysis:

The analyses indicated that the structural damage to the rebar-reinforced concrete terrace at Location 2 was caused by an impacting object with a geometrically symmetric shape and sufficient kinetic energy to cause the observed damage. The analyses indicate that the damage observed on the cylinder found on the roof-top terrace, the aperture, the balcony, the surrounding rooms, the rooms underneath and the structure above, is consistent with the creation of the aperture observed in the terrace by the cylinder found in that location.

and

At Location 4, the results of the studies indicated that the shape of the aperture produced in the modulation matched the shape and damage observed by the team. The studies further indicated that, after passing through the ceiling and impacting the floor at lower speed, the cylinder continued an altered trajectory, until reaching the position in which it was found.

The OPCW stated in their summary that the Fact Finding Mission [FFM] did not assign blame for the gas attack. However, the analysis of the cylinders assigns implicit blame to the Syrian Arab Army. This is because the argument is that these cylinders were dropped from height, and only Assad’s forces would have had the air power capacity to carry this out.

LGBT Charities Response to Bell/a vs. Tavistock is disgraceful

Cartoon reading 'Conversion Therapy: A Short History'. On the left, the year 1980 with a Bible, on the right, the year 2020 with a sigh stating 'NHS Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service'

Keira Bell is a detransitioned lesbian who was harmed by unprofessional treatment at the Tavistock, the UK’s only gender identity clinic for children. She was a claimant in a legal case against the Tavistock clinic (the other claimant being an anonymous mother, Mrs. A, who has concerns about her autistic daughter receiving treatment at the Tavistock). The question that the judges were asked to decide is whether children can consent to the use of puberty blockers.

Puberty blockers are a drug given to some children who have gender dysphoria. They stop the body from developing in puberty as it normally would (for females menstruation and breast growth, for males hair growth, voice deepening etc.) Ms Bell was prescribed these blockers when she was 16.

Many people have been raising concerns about puberty blockers for quite a while now. There is a lot of scientific evidence that the experience of gender dysphoria in childhood is not always permanent and that the majority of transgender-identified children desist (that is, no longer identify as transgender). It is also well known that many of these gender nonconforming children are more likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian. On the other hand, most children who take puberty blockers do not desist and instead go on to cross sex hormones and later (possibly) surgery. This evidence suggests that puberty blockers, rather than being a ‘pause’ and ‘time to think’ as advocates often claim, cement transgender identification.

There are also significant medical risks with the use of these drugs.  

So little is known about their long‐term effects in gender dysphoric adolescents that their use remains unlicenced (ibid., p. 41). Numerous studies suggest however that bone mass density is seriously compromised by them, leading to the risk of osteoporosis (Vlot et al. 2017, PBS Newshour, 4 February 2017). A study of 30 children prescribed them for precocious puberty showed a 7% drop in IQ (Mul 2001). The authors declared this clinically insignificant, presumably because of the small sample size. 

One puberty blocker, Lupron, has caused significant, long term harm to women who were prescribed it for endometriosis.

There are also significant problems with the Tavistock itself. There is evidence that many parents wanted their children to be transgender instead of gay or lesbian and saw the GIDS service as a means to achieve this goal. A BBC Newsnight report on the Tavistock found that:

“There have been many times when the push to transition has come from families who are uncomfortable with the sexual orientation of their child……some parents express real relief at their child is not gay or lesbian, suggesting being trans is a better outcome for their child.”

A clinician who had resigned from the service said the following: “A lot of the girls would come in and say, ‘I’m not a lesbian. I fell in love with my best girl friend but then I went online and realized I’m not a lesbian, I’m a boy. Phew.’” There was a joke at the clinic that “there would be no gay people left.”

This obviously raises massive concerns about childhood transition being caused by internalised and explicit homophobia, making it essentially the new conversion therapy. There are also other concerns such as a lack of investigation or study into the high level of autism among those referred as well as the huge spike in referrals over the past 10 years. There has also been no investigation into the fact that girls being referred outnumber boys despite the fact that historically, most transsexuals are biological males.

To summarise, then, an outfit riddled with homophobic beliefs has been running a medical experiment on children. The court wisely decided that this medical experiment had to stop and as such, its ruling makes clear that it is very unlikely that children under 16 can consent to these drugs.

So how did the charities that are meant to represent lesbians, such as Stonewall and LGBT Foundation react to this ruling? Did they support a young lesbian who overcame homophobia and being subjected to the medical experiment of puberty blockers?

No, of course not.

BBC Newsnight with Emily Maitlis interviewed both Keira Bell and Susie Green, who is the leader of the ‘trans child’ charity Mermaids. LGBT Foundation, in response to this program, tweeted out their support, not for Bell but for Green: “Today sending our love and solidarity to @Mermaids_Gender and @green_susie100 [Transgender flag] Thank you Susie for speaking so passionately on behalf of young trans people about how worrying the High Court ruling is”. This was added to the retweet of the video of Susie Green talking on Newsnight.

For those not familiar with Green, there is a TEDx talk where she discusses her backstory. She talks about how her eldest (biological male) child declared “I should have been a girl” age 4. According to her own account, the child liked stereotypically feminine toys, but her (likely homophobic) husband did not like this and the toys were taken away from the child. (I will leave you to judge to what degree this triggered the child’s transgender identification). Green put her child on puberty blockers (by going to America, at this time they were not prescribed in the UK) and when her child was 16 they went to Thailand so Green’s child could have genital surgery (an operation which is illegal for under 18s in the UK and now also illegal in Thailand).

Green is a problematic individual for a number of reasons, but one of the main ones is her weaponisation of suicide as a means to try and manipulate the public. Green endlessly repeats the statistic that 48% of ‘trans young people’ attempt suicide. [What she does not mention is that this study involved a total of 27 transgender people, hardly a sample that should be used to conduct national policy]. In the Newsnight clip, within the first 40 seconds Green refers to the fact that she believes that suicide will increase due to this ruling.

I find this extremely problematic and possibly dangerous. These young children, who are vulnerable, have been sold the idea of puberty blockers as a solution to their problems, and no doubt many have seen the videos online from children taking them and talking about the benefits. This ruling has taken away the possibility for these children to be put on blockers, so I have no doubt that some of these children now feel hurt and desperate.

Green’s invocation of suicide in this context has the possibility to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is well known that irresponsible media reporting on the issue of suicide can cause already desperate people to be more likely to kill themselves, and that higher rates of death follow suicides of famous people. (This is why suicide charities such as Samaritans have guidelines on suicide reporting for the media, in order to lower the risk.) Suicide contagion is not exactly an obscure phenomenon. It has been observed since the time of Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, so it’s not unreasonable to expect the head of a national charity to be aware of it.

By talking about the the ‘inevitable rise in self harm and suicidality’ she acts as if these young children are now doomed to death. Rather than bringing up suicide, a responsible person would reassure their clients and make clear that they will give additional support to anyone who is struggling. I do not believe LGBT charities should be sharing this woman’s irresponsible rhetoric.

LGBT Foundation’s own response to the ruling is filled with more claims about puberty blockers being ‘life-saving’, again promoting the suicide narrative. And, of course, they are complaining that it is bigoted because it means that ‘trans children’ have less autonomy than ‘cis children’ over their bodies which is obvious nonsense (if a 14-year-old ‘cis’ child wanted to be sterilised, for example, the courts would rule that to be illegal – the issue at hand is the weight of the decision, not whether it has anything to do with transgender issues). Nothing they have said whatsoever expresses any concern for Keira Bell and that she was harmed by irresponsible doctors, and will have lifelong consequences from impulsive decisions that adults should not have allowed her to make.

Stonewall’s response also lacks any concern for Ms Bell in their response to the ruling. As far as I can tell they don’t even mention her name. They repeat the claims about puberty blockers ‘buying time’ which has already been shown to be false. They claim puberty blockers alleviate distress. What’s interesting here is that Stonewall tried to intervene in the case, but the judge deemed that they did not have any relevant evidence. If there was fantastic evidence for this intervention, they should have tried presenting it to the court.

Neither of the organisations mention that Keira Bell is a lesbian, despite the fact that both of them claim to represent and support lesbians. They don’t even mention she is a detransitioner.

Why? The real truth is that Keira Bell destroys their narrative, and thus they don’t want to draw too much attention to her.

Transgender ideology says that there are two types of people, ‘trans’ and ‘cis’. ‘Trans’ people do not identify with their gender ‘assigned at birth’ whereas ‘cis’ people do identify with their gender ‘assigned at birth’. The narrative promoted around ‘trans children’ is that ‘they just know’. If a child says they are trans it’s because they know they are trans. Questioning their identity is thus harmful and amounts to conversion therapy.

If children ‘just know’ then it follows that interventions such as puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are perfectly fine for children. After all, their ‘trans identity’ is permanent, in the same way that sexual orientation is largely fixed. In fact, denying them this treatment is harmful.

Except for the fact that detransitioners prove that children don’t ‘just know’. When she identified as trans, would any trans activist draw a distinction between Bell and any other person who was transitioning (let’s take an individual who is happy with their decision, say, Blaire White)? No, they would not. They would say both are trans because they both say they are trans. Could they even draw such a distinction? No, they could not. There is no basis for any such distinction to be drawn according to their beliefs. Both ‘just know’ they are trans.

Except Keira Bell decided she didn’t ‘just know’ and was actually a woman and lesbian all along. And thus, the whole logic of transgender identification being permanent and children knowing that they have a ‘boy’s brain in a female body’ or vice versa falls to pieces.

Given that many gay and lesbian young people believe that they are ‘born in the wrong body’ due to homophobia and being gender non conforming, the protection of these children from harmful drugs should be celebrated by organisations that claim to represent them. Keira Bell should be considered as a hero who stood up to protect vulnerable children from medicalisation, despite the fact that that involved admitting her mistakes in public, in front of everyone (no easy decision). Instead these organisations that claim to represent us as lesbians barely mention her name as the woman who personified the case let alone praise her – or even show any basic sympathy that she was harmed by the Tavistock.

Gender identity ideologues are welcome to Stonewall and the LGBT foundation, because they sure as hell do not represent me.