A Belgian teacher and an Italian journalist held captive by Obama-backed Syrian rebels have blown the whistle on what Human Rights Watch, a front group for the United States Department of State, said was “compelling evidence” that the Assad government gassed its people.
The two freed hostages have indicated that Obama-backed Syrian rebels were behind the chemical weapon atrocity.
A Belgian researcher, freed from Obama-backed Syrian rebels, has denied what Human Rights Watch, a front group for the United States Department of State stated Thursday: that it had "compelling evidence showing the Assad government was responsible for the August 21 gas attack on a village near Damascus.
The gas attack resulted in over a thousand civilians allegedly gassed to death with nerve agent sarin and Barack Obama’s justification to strike Syria.
“Pierre Piccinin da Prata has given a sensational interview to Belgium’s RTL-TVI radio station where he stressed it was his “moral duty” to say that Bashar Assad’s government did not stand behind using sarin or any other gas on the outskirts of Damascus,” Voice of Russia radio station reports.
“The Belgian national said he learned as much from what he overheard in an exchange between his captors.”
Both the Italian journalist Domenico Quirico and the Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin were flown home Wednesday after kidnapped and held for five months by Syrian rebel’s as hostages.
Quirico, 62, is a well-known war correspondent in Italy.
Qurico and Piccinin have indicated that Obama-bcked Syrian insurgents were behind the gas attack on a village near Damascus.
Human Rights Watch, a front group for the United States Department of State, said Thursday that it had compelling evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for the gas attack.
“Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an arm of the U.S. Department of State,” political analyst Don DeBar stated in a brief Skype interview Thursday morning. ”It and Amnesty International’s U.S. chapter have shared Clinton State Department functionaries as CEOs.
“Human Rights Watch always carries the U.S. Department of State line with respect to U.S. military actions against other states,” DeBar said.
Nevertheless, the front group's “findings” on the recent chemical attack of Syrians were splashed across United States news headlines Thursday, as though the reporters were from an independent group ethically investigating and reporting true findings.
Unlike legal authorities and genuine human rights groups, Human Rights Watch is, as usual, toeing the U.S. administration’s party line, this time defending the Obama regime’s intent to use military aggression against Syria – for humanitarian reasons.
Any U.S. strike on Syria would constitute a war crime.
Obama is replicating the war crime he committed in Libya with impunity. His CIA is now overtly transferring arms to the Syrian rebels, who are committing the worst atrocities in the nation, and blaming Assad. In Libya, Obama's Navy cluster-bombed Libya and blamed Gaddafi.
“[T]he entire region is suffering, damaged already from the Libyan expedition, the Iraq expedition, even the Afghanistan war that was started by the US in the late 70’s or 80’s which continues today,” DeBar told Press TV. ”Unfortunately I do not see peace in the near future because the government here in the United States will not allow it.”
International lawyer and Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre reported to Dupré today about the HRW's “compelling evidence.”
“It is important to wait for the final reports.”
”One preliminary UN report suggest that both the Syrian government and factions within the rebels used poison gas on the Syrian population. Another report notes that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad did not give the order ro use poison gas.”
Weber's reasoning might surprise some readers.
“If these reports prove to be true,” Webre stated, “then it may be the case that the reported uses of poison gas by both the Syrian government and the rebels were in fact a coordinated ‘false flag attack’ to trigger a U.S. armed intervention and an escalation into regional and perhaps global conflict.”