Swiss lab exposed Ang Moh US & UK BZ Toxin used to Poison ex-Russian Spy & Daughter! Not Russian!

[tun_dr_m]

This explains why the 2 had survived and can be discharged from hospital instead of dying in the spot. If Novichok was used they would had died on the spot and possibly the British police man would also die on the spot. He also survived and not seem to be getting a lethal chemical agent.




https://www.rt.com/news/424149-skripal-poisoning-bz-lavrov/


Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
Published time: 14 Apr, 2018 14:37 Edited time: 14 Apr, 2018 15:24
Get short URL

© Adrian Dennis / Reuters

• 16047
• 5

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.
Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Read more
UK appears to be ‘destroying’ evidence in Skripal case – Russian envoy
The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.

The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.

The scandal erupted in early March, when former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found in critical condition in the town of Salisbury. Top UK officials almost immediately pinned the blame on Russia.

Moscow believes that the entire Skripal case lacks transparency and that the UK is in fact not interested in an independent inquiry. "We get the impression that the British government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence, classifying all remaining materials and making a transparent investigation impossible," the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said during a press conference on Friday.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

• 16047
• 5

 

[zhihau]

So it was the Coalition of the willing previously to ransack Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction... What would it be this time round?

 

[tun_dr_m]

So it was the Coalition of the willing previously to ransack Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction... What would it be this time round?

Similar Dirty Trick.

They now stage their own Chemical Attack and then frame you, and fabricate excuse to attack you. Dirty bastard stunt!

 

[syed putra]

They want to stop the coming world cup.

 

[Leongsam]

Reminds me of what Phey Yew Kok did to Tan Wah Piow. This sort of trick is as old as the hills.

 

[Taksama_b_l]

Reminds me of what Phey Yew Kok did to Tan Wah Piow. This sort of trick is as old as the hills.

Pay-You-Cock meh? I tot was LKY?

I doubt Pay-You-Cock can live through his Changi Hilton stay, he may just die inside.


https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/

Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.
Published time: 15 Apr, 2018 04:33
Get short URL

A Syrian firefighter inside the destroyed Scientific Research Center in Damascus, Syria April 14, 2018 © Omar Sanadiki / Reuters

• 103

The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.
After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.

For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.

This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the highly partial, USAID-funded, US State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.

On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.

Read more
Russia’s UNSC resolution calling to stop aggression against Syria does not receive enough votes
Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.

President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.

General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”

But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:

“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism has been committed.”

What if chemicals had been at targeted locations?
In the same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”

This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close to the homes of the people around.”

Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”

If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in or near densely populated areas?

Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as developing “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.

Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”

Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.

Read more
Moscow questions French report claiming Syrian govt ‘retained chemical weapons since 2013’
Bombings based on Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims
The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and allies would benefit from staged attacks.

The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of Syria’s culpability, including the following:

"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients' seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are seen in the background working on a real patient.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred. One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.

In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.

“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s not even a dodgy dossier this time.”

Israel and America benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to the ongoing Israeli slaughter and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17 unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions. Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.

According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”

Read more
‘Let’s start by destroying US chemical weapons’: Russia responds to Trump’s plea to ‘end arms race’
The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.

In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented numerous instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.

If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations — and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should outrage.

However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely Trump’s threats to Syria:

“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.”

By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had global ramifications, to say the least.

The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.

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

• 103

 

[Taksama_b_l]

https://www.rt.com/news/423842-trump-zakharova-chemical-weapons/

‘Let’s start by destroying US chemical weapons’: Russia responds to Trump’s plea to ‘end arms race’
Published time: 11 Apr, 2018 15:35 Edited time: 12 Apr, 2018 08:45
Get short URL

Mustard gas-filled 155mm projectiles at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado. © Reuters

• 4867
• 1

The message-for-message spat between Washington and Moscow continues apace, after Russia reminded President Trump that the US still hasn’t got rid of its chemical weapons stockpile.
“Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?” Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

To which Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, shot back on her Facebook page: “Great idea. Let’s start by getting rid of chemical weapons. American ones.”

After signing the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997, the US pledged to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile – the second biggest in the world – by 2012. After repeatedly missing the deadline, it now promises to do so by 2023.
Russia, which once owned more chemical weapons than any other state, declared itself free of them in 2017.

READ MORE: Moscow to Trump: Are ‘smart’ missiles an attempt to destroy alleged chem attack evidence in Syria?

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump urged Russia “to get ready” for “nice, new and ‘smart’” missiles to rain down on Syria, in response for the alleged chemical attack on Douma on April 7. In turn, Zakharova wondered if Washington plans “to cover up all evidence of this fabricated attack with smart missile strikes, so that international inspectors had no evidence to look for?”

• 4867
• 1

 

[Taksama_b_l]

https://www.rt.com/usa/424184-syria-trump-corner-tweet-strike/

‘Trump boxed himself into a corner with incendiary tweets before Syria strike’ – Senator Black to RT
Published time: 15 Apr, 2018 03:02 Edited time: 15 Apr, 2018 06:58
Get short URL

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to announce military strikes on Syria during a statement at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 13, 2018. © Yuri Gripas / Reuters

• 569

Friday's attack on Syria was a face-lifting move by Donald Trump after he boasted about his missiles on Twitter, Virginia Senator Richard Black said. He told RT that Trump would not have won Congress' approval had he asked for it.
Trump chose to bypass the Congress, drawing the ire of some within his own Republican party, because he had next to no chance of drumming up their support to start a war, Republican Virginia Senator Richard Black told RT.

"It was very clear from what happened under President Obama that the Congress would not [approve a military strike]. Once the people had an opportunity to have a voice there is no way that they would have approved an attack on Syria," Black said.

In August 2013, shortly after an alleged chemical attack in Syria's Ghouta, then-US President Barack Obama announced that he would seek congressional approval to use force against the Syrian government in response to the incident. However, the respective bill never got past the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with Obama "postponing" the vote in Congress after it became obvious he was not getting enough votes. According to a whip count by ThinkProgress at the time, only 42 members of the 416 in the House of Representatives indicated they would definitely or likely side with Obama.

Read more
UK claim of ‘humanitarian reasons’ for Syria strikes picked apart online
"If you recall, under President Obama, the prime minister did go to legislature and was rebuffed and they refused to go in, and it had a reverberating effect on the United States," Black said, adding that at that point it became clear that the same motion would continue losing with lawmakers in the future.

Whether Trump really wanted to rain missiles down on Syria or not, he cut off his own escape routes by tweeting that "nice and new and 'smart'" missiles were all but on their way.

"I think, to some extent, the president, through some of his tweets, had boxed himself into a corner and he was forced to do something. Fortunately, he chose the best option that he could, which was a very limited attack," the senator told RT.

'West didn't have any confidence in Syria's guilt, only power'
Both prior to and right after the coordinated strikes on Syria, Washington, Paris and London reiterated that they were sure the Syrian government had attacked civilians in Douma with chemical weapons on April 7. Hours before the missiles were launched, the US State Department said that there was "a very high level of confidence" that Damascus was to blame. Then, the White House cited social media, Richard Black argued that these allegations, made without the support of factual evidence, are less than trustworthy.

"They don't have any confidence, what they have is they have the power to simply attack," Black said, noting that the US claimed to be equally sure in the case with Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found.

"They always have complete confidence, but they never have proof." The case for Syria's culpability is so weak that it would crumble under a proper investigation, Black believes. "If you tried to prosecute Syria for this in a legitimate court of law, you could never get a conviction."

'Damascus has no motive, hence no crime'
The Syrian government had "no motive whatsoever" to use a toxic agent on civilians at a time when it had already negotiated an agreement with militants to leave the area, Black said, calling the idea that Damascus would employ chlorine-filled munitions "childishly absurd."

"It's clear that Syria did not deliberately attack, because there was no motive. If there is no motive, there is no crime."

He echoed concerns that the strikes were aimed at hampering the UN chemical watchdog's fact-finding mission that was set to start its work hours after the strike on Saturday.

"It was clear that the United States did not want to have the Organization [for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] sending chemical investigators, and they wanted to have this attack over before they ran the risk that the investigators say either there was no attack or that it was staged by the terrorists," Black said.

Read more
UN Security Council trio: The false license to invade
He also voiced another version of what had happened: an accidental release of chlorine from some kind of industrial process.

'US threat of new strike invites new hoaxes'
While the US, the UK and France said that the purpose of their military action was to avert new chemical incidents in Syria, the timing of the strike is a signal for militants to stage another provocation with chemical agents, Black said.

At the UN Security Council after the attack, US envoy Nikki Haley said that the US is "locked and loaded," should another "chemical attack" happen.

"You really have just invited another propaganda attack by them," Black said, referring specifically to the rebel-linked, Western-funded White Helmets, who he argued are spreading propaganda when they are not fighting on the side of the rebels.

"Of course, Syria does not have the wealth and the power over the media to counteract it."

• 569

Trends:Donald TrumpSyria US-led airstrikes in Syria

 

[Truth_Hurts]

The russkies would have used the toxins from other countries to cover its tracks. During the cold war..they used the Bulgarians w their umbrellas to do their dirty work. So of course the toxins are not from Russia