LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog - WordPress version



"--takin' the BS outa' the (B)logo(S)phere (and the MSM) one shovel-full at a time "



~ January 27, 2016 ~
Apr08|17 - Fig numbers, text errors, and links checked/repaired

Deconstructing Obama's false 
Syrian sarin syllogism

"Before deciding that question I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others. The Simpson incident had shown me that a dog was kept in the stables, and yet, though some one had been in and had fetched out a horse, he had not barked enough to arouse the two lads in the loft. Obviously the midnight visitor was some one whom the dog knew well."                     
                                                                              -- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sliver Blaze


Part 3 of 3 -- Premise I and the Sarin Myth

Denis O'Brien, PhD

Part 1 -- Sourcing the sarin

Part 2 -- "Assad's sarin-rockets" hoax


Fig. 1.  "Bunny" 
Frontispiece of Murder in the SunMorgue 

On Oct03|1995 people the world over learned something very important about the principles upon which the American criminal justice system is based.  That was the day a jury in Los Angeles returned a verdict of "not guilty" in the case of  The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.  What people learned is that in a legal context there can be a world of difference between being guilty in fact, on one hand, and being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (GBRD), on the other.  An American criminal jury really answers one question and one question only: Has the state proved that the defendant is GBRD?  The legal issue is not actual guilt vs. actual innocence but, rather, whether or not the state has proved guilt.  For, at least theoretically, the government punishes a person not for what that person is guilty of doing but for what the government can prove he/she is guilty of doing.  Procedurally speaking, innocence is almost never proved at trial and need not be, and that's because innocence is presumed at the outset.  The burden of proving GBRD is always with the government in criminal matters. 

The same GBRD standard should apply no less when the USG accuses another country of some heinous crime for which the USG proposes that it has a right to apply punishment or extract revenge. But it just don't work that way.  When the USG sets up a boogeyman that it then uses to justify attacking a country, normally a Muslim country, the opposite presumption applies: the boogeyman is presumed guilty and no proof of innocence is tolerated --  not by the government, not by the politicians, not by the press . . .  and not by the public.  When the USG labels someone an official boogeyman -- someone like Saddam, Gadaffi, or Assad -- the whole GBRD standard goes right out the window because, after all, they're a boogey-man, who would believe them anyway?  It's circular, dude.   

But the blogosphere often doesn't work the way Barak Obama, or John McCain, or the New York Times work.  The world's massive army of blogers and commentators do not hesitate to engage in robust conversations and deep analyses of the guilt or innocence of people the USG tars in the media and then attacks militarily without presenting a reasonable case of GBRD, and that's what this 3-part series has been about: analyzing allegations made by Obama that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Ghouta Massacre on Aug21|2013 -- allegations that Assad "gassed his own people."

Falsifying Premise I: Debunking the Sarin Myth

To help organize this analysis I have based it on Obama's Syrian Syllogism that he used repeatedly in 2013-2014 to explain to the American people why they should get behind him in attacking Syria in retaliation for the Ghouta Massacre.  Here's that syllogism again: 

  • Premise I
    The hundreds of dead people in Ghouta we see in the YT videos were killed by sarin.  
  • Premise II
    Only Assad's military had access to sarin and only they had the technology to handle it and weaponize it, which is to say load it into rockets that were fired into Ghouta.
  • Conclusion
    Therefore, only Assad's military could have been responsible for the Ghouta Massacre.  

QED: Assad "gassed his own people."

I started this analysis with a retrospective examination of Premise II -- does it stand up factually, knowing what we know now?  In Part 1 I argued that Obama's factual assertion that only Assad's people had access to sarin was almost certainly false, or, at the very least, the assertion  was highly dubious.  I linked to Seymour Hersh's bold allegations that not only did the terrorists in Syria have sarin, but Obama's people knew they had sarin even as Obama was telling the world that only Assad had sarin.  I noted how Turkish MP Eren Erdem more recently presented evidence and argument that Recep Erdoğan's government  covered up Turkey's role in helping the terrorists in Syria obtain and produce sarin, thus basically confirming  Hersh's allegations.    

In Part 2 I examined the second factual assertion in Obama's Premise II that Assad's rockets delivered the sarin to Ghouta.  After reviewing the allegations and MSM's "evidence" -- particularly the UN Report of Sep|2013 -- I concluded, rather indelicately, that that assertion, too, was almost certainly bullspit, and, at the very least, it had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  For instance, I provided clear video evidence that the terrorists were monkeying-around with the alleged "sarin-rockets" days before the UN people even started their investigation.  IOW, all of the rocket and sarin evidence collected by the UN Mission was tainted beyond any hope of rehabilitation.

Given what we now know, a fair synopsis of Obama's Premise II would be as follows:  

Although there is no doubt that Assad's Syrian Arab Army (SAA) had sarin in 2013, there is very strong evidence that wahhabi terrorist groups trying to bring Assad down also had access to sarin and, very likely, the wherewithal to produce sarin.  As for Assad firing sarin-rockets into Ghouta, there is not a shred of valid evidence supporting that allegation.  The only "evidence" that exists is that provided by the terrorists, either by way of videos and photographs they have produced and uploaded to the Internet or by way of orchestrating the UN/OPCW (Organization fo the Prevention of Chemical Weapons) investigation of Ghouta and restricting the investigators to only the tainted evidence that the terrorists wanted the investigators to see.  

In attacking Obama's Premise I in this Part 3, I hope to convince you that Premise II and my analysis of it are largely irrelevant because not only were there no sarin-missiles, there was no sarin, at least in the quantities required to kill the hundreds of people many of us have seen in the Ghouta videos.  All of that "Assad's sarin" yabber we've been hearing for 2+ years is a myth, which means that Obama and Kerry's accusations that Assad "gassed his own people" in Ghouta on Aug21|2013 are defamatory bunk. However guilty he may be of other atrocities, Assad is innocent of the charges that he attacked Ghouta with sarin missiles.  The perps were actually the wahhabi terrorists, and the world needs to recognize that for a number of reasons. 

The origins of the Sarin Myth

Winston Churchill said something along the lines that a lie will fly half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.  That was in the early 20th century; today he might say that an Internet lie can circle the earth twenty times before the truth can boot its browser.  No example of this is more extreme than the way the Sarin Myth was massively launched into cyberspace in the early hours of Aug21|2013, Damascus time. [The attacks were said to have occurred about 2-4 AM Damascus time, or 4-6 PM Aug20 Pacific time, which is the time zone used for YouTube time-stamps.]  Within just a couple of hours of the Ghouta Massacre the Internet absolutely filled up with accounts of how Assad had gassed hundreds or thousands of his own people with sarin -- and the titles on these early videos referred to "sarin" explicitly.  This was not an assertion made by experts in CW, or toxicology, or pharmacology; it was an assertion that the scruffy terrorists were making.  By the time the sun rose on New York City the assertion had been repeated so often it was being accepted as a fact, first by the MSM and soon thereafter by the Obama administration and politicians of all sorts.  The Sarin Myth was a PR fait accompli.  

It should have been a huge red flag when so soon after the attack the terrorists uploaded videos to YouTube claiming that Assad had used sarin. This is an agent that is invisible as a gas, colorless as a liquid, and tasteless and odorless in either form. It does not even cause eye irritation. Itís not like you can stick your head out the window, take a sniff, and realize -- just before you throw up, defecate, and go into violent convulsions -- that youíve been gassed with sarin. How could the terrorist PR people "know" right from the get-go this was sarin? Nobody could know that except the people who used it.  Even under the best of circumstances it would take forensic scientists days or weeks to analyze the samples the terrorists gave them, and to do that they would need gas chromatography gear, mass spectrometers, and large budgets. 

And itís not like one guy in Ghouta took a wild punt on sarin and the meme went viral from there; the Sarin Myth was published simultaneously en masse in a concerted PR effort that almost had to have been planned before Aug21. The release of these videos was well organized from the very first one.  They were being uploaded mostly by a terrorist PR coordinating group called Shaam News Network and by the Turkish state news agency Anadolu Agency -- PR reps for interests that wanted the US to attack Assad, IOW.  

With the terrorists screaming "SARIN!!!" the Western MSM picked up the drum-beat and next thing you know they were all screaming "SARIN!!!" -- mere hours after the "attack" happened. How could the US and UK press have known that this was a sarin attack at that point? They couldnít. No Western media had any reporters inside of Syria, much less inside the Ghouta combat zone. All the press had was hear-say from the terrorists and secondary sources such as Syria-CurveBalls Eliot Higgins and Rami Abdul Rahman living in London 2500 miles away (see Part  2 of this series).

But the sarin "fact" kept rolling, and within days Obama, Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein were all jumping up and down and screaming "SARIN!!!" And then all of Congress was jumping up and down and screaming "SARIN!!!" And the next thing you know F-16s and at least one B-52 were being rolled out of hangers in the Middle East and Obama was calling Bibi Netanyahu and telling him an attack on Assad was less than 48 hours away.

It was an absolutely breath-taking PR effort when you look back at it.  The US just about pounded Syria with huge super-bunker busters and who knows how many cruise missiles that would have caused who knows how many thousands of causalities in the short and long term -- all on the basis of the Syrin Myth.  And yet only a handful of people in the world, and, apparently, none at all in Washington were asking the obvious: "So, like . . . how do you guys know itís sarin?" In fact, so far as I know, to this day there has not been a public discussion by any politicians or journalists over the possibility that the Ghouta Massacre was not actually pulled off with sarin. Even as skeptics like Robert Parry and Hersh began to turn parts of Obama's sarin syllogism on its head, they, too, focused on who, not what, caused the deaths in Ghouta. Fait accompli. The perfect PR blitz is when the whole world is looking right where you're pointing.

I don't know of any CW or toxicology experts who are swimming against this sarin-tide, and certainly none are suggesting an alternative explanation for how all of those people were poisoned. But there are a few who are skeptical enough, at least, to refuse to swim with the sarin-tide.  For instance, Jean Paul Zanders, a CW expert who once directed the BioWeapons Prevention Project, and Paula Vanninen, director of the Finnish Institute for Verification of the CW convention.  These folks have expressed skepticism of the sarin allegations without saying, full stop, that sarin could not have been the toxin or suggesting an alternative toxin that fits what evidence we have. 

But the one thing that no one, including myself, has contested is Obama's assertion that the Ghouta Massacre was some sort of an chemical attack.  With few exceptions -- and one very important exception -- none of the victims appear to have bled.  They don't have any wounds that would suggest they died from bullets, or bombs, or beatings. The bodies are not contorted; none of them show signs of torture.  Most of them, particularly the kids, look like they could be asleep, like "Bunny" in Figure 1 at the beginning of this post.  And that is part of the problem with the Sarin Myth: people who die from sarin intoxication are the last people in the entire known universe who would look like they've just fallen asleep. What they would look like is someone who has defecated on themselves, urinated on themselves, vomited on themselves, and suffocated while having a full-blown grand-mal seizure.  More on that in a moment. 

Evidence of sarin use: some general thoughts

In Part 1 of this series I suggested that the world may not be paying enough attention to Hersh's accusations and to the evidence that Da'esh, al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam and the other bloody wahhabi terrorists in Syria have sarin and know how to produce it.  As I describe the bodily effects of sarin in the following paragraphs within the context of what happened in Ghouta, consider also the havoc that these terrorists could cause in any country, in any community, at any public gathering they choose, if they have sarin.   

All of the arguments I present here are based on accepted, mainstream textbook knowledge that is taught to every pharmacy student, pharmacology student, and medical student. And that's mostly what I have to back up my position: a very well established textbook description and explanation of what sarin does and how it does it.  I have never personally seen someone who has been exposed to sarin and, fortunately, neither have very many other people on this planet, including the world's doctors.  But Alfred Thornhill has.

In 1953 Thornhill was a 19 year-old ambulance driver in the British Army.  He was posted at Britain's nefarious CW research station, Porton Down.  According to a 2003 interview with the  Guardian's Anthony Barnett, in May of 1953 Thornhill answered an emergency call at a research lab where a "volunteer," 20 year-old Aircraftman Ronald Maddison, had been administered a small drop of a solution containing 200 mg of sarin, applied to two layers of cloth taped to his forearm.  The idea was to determine how much protection clothing provides from a sarin attack.  Apparently, not much because Ronald Maddison was dead within a few hours, even though he was in a research facility and a few blocks from a hospital.     

Porton Down tried to cover up their killing of Maddison; Thornhill, the ambulance driver, was threatened with prison if he told anyone what he saw.  And he kept his silence for 50 years, but now the story is out and Ronald Maddison is Porton Down's most famous Guinea pig.  Here is Thornhill's recollection of what he saw when he arrived at the Porton Down lab where Maddison had been poisoned:

" 'I had never seen anyone die before and what that lad went through was absolutely horrific... it was awful,' he said. 'It was like he was being electrocuted, his whole body was convulsing. I have seen somebody suffer an epileptic fit, but you have never seen anything like what happened to that lad... the skin was vibrating and there was all this terrible stuff coming out of his mouth... it looked like frogspawn or tapioca. . . There were four of us who picked him off the floor and put him in the back of the ambulance. He was still having these violent convulsions and we drove him to the medical unit at Porton. . . I saw his leg rise up from the bed and I saw his skin begin turning blue. It started from the ankle and started spreading up his leg. It was like watching somebody pouring a blue liquid into a glass, it just began filling up.' "


Fig. 2. Ronald Maddison

It is sobering to realize that Maddison's death wasn't nearly as horrible as it could have been.  For as soon as Maddison began displaying symptoms -- well before Thornhill arrived on the scene -- the Porton Down ghouls injected their human Guinea pig with atropine, a rapidly acting antidote used to block disturbing effects that are called "muscarinic symptons," described below.  The convulsions and signs of asphyxiation that Thornhill remembered all those 50 years are effects that atropine doesn't block.  

The pharmacology and patho-physiology related to sarin poisoning are not difficult to understand but they are time-consuming to the explain.  I am not going to go into all of these technical/biological details here; I've done that already in a 287-page (free) online book I titled Murder in the SunMorgue , or MITSM.  If you want the scientific details, check it out.  Throughout the present piece I will include parenthetical references to the relevant pages of MITSM where you will find lots of technical yabber on the point in question.  The present piece is intended to be a much more concise answer to two primary questions about the Ghouta Massacre: 1) How do we know they weren't killed with sarin?  2) What were they killed with?

Three types of evidence all point to the conclusion that the Ghouta Massacre was not carried out with sarin or any other organophosphate, which is the pharmacological class of drug sarin belongs to.  Those types of evidence are:

  • Direct negative evidence -- These are observations about what is missing from the Ghouta videos that should be evident if sarin was the toxin. IOW, the mere absence of certain necessary diagnostic symptoms of sarin intoxication is sufficient to prove the assertion that sarin was not the toxin.  No inferences are required to go from what is missing to the conclusion.
  • Direct positive evidence -- This class of evidence comprises clearly observed symptoms that would be impossible if sarin had been used in Ghouta.  Again, it is direct evidence because it stands as proof without the need to resort to inferences.
  • Circumstantial evidence -- These are observations, which can be either negative or positive, that raise one or more inferences that support the conclusion that sarin was not the toxin that was used.

Itís not often that a PhD in neuropharmacology comes in handy in a political dust-up, much less on an international scale. But from 15 years experience in research and teaching pharmacology and physiology, it was immediately clear to me from the very first videos that the Ghouta victims I was seeing could not have died from sarin intoxication, and I immediately wrote Congress an open Email telling them that. There was no way this was sarin.  Other than being added to Rand Paul's spam list, I never heard a word back.

For the next seven months I looked closely at more and more videos and still could not see the evidence that would be necessary in order to conclude that the people died from sarin. Because there were so many videos and so many victims, I concentrated on one building-complex in the town of Kafr Batna. [MITSM  pp. 48-106]  It appears to me that more Ghouta videos came from that one building than any place else -- and more bodies were filmed there than at any other single location.  Furthermore, Kafr Batna was important because videos from Kafr Batna figured in a big way in Obama's "proof" that Assad "gassed his own people."  

Fig. 3. The Kafr Batna complex as seen by 
GoogleEarth's satellite 3 days after the Ghouta 
Massacre    33į 30.907' N 36į 22.446' E

One large room on the ground level of the Kafr Batna complex was bathed in sunlight and was shown filling up with corpses in the morning of Aug21|2013 about dawn and then emptying out late in the day.  [MITSM  pp. 48-61]  When this room was completely full at about mid-day, scores of corpses can be seen and examined in strong light pouring in through large windows.  I called that large room the "SunMorgue."  

A basement level of the same building had multiple, windowless rooms containing a few dozen victims, mostly kids, either dead or, presumably, dying.  This was the "DarkMorgue."  [MITSM  pp. 82-106] 

The eleven videos I have found of the Kafr Batna complex show 120-125 victims of the Ghouta Massacre as they appeared on the day of the massacre, Aug21|2013.  Children, women, and men are all present, although most of the women's bodies are so well covered as to preclude meaningful examination.  Some victims are seen in the DarkMorgue and also in the SunMorgue.  A couple of victims in the Kafr Batna videos are also seen in "medical facilities" in other areas of Ghouta, suggesting that they are actors moving from place to place. [MITSM  pp. 101-102]    

Direct negative evidence disproving the Sarin Myth.

In the SunMorgue and DarkMorge I found virtually incontrovertible direct negative evidence that these people were not killed with sarin.  And by that I mean that many diagnostic symptoms of sarin that should have been observed were not observed.  Sarin produces many and very prominent symptoms, and so when those symptoms are not observed in a single one of hundreds of victims, the case against the Sarin Myth becomes virtually certain.    

Briefly, sarin-symptoms appear because of sarin's actions on three types of tissue: skeletal muscle, organs/glands, and the brain.  The stimulation of these tissues causes very obvious outward symptoms that are easily identified, but are seen in neither the Kafr Batna victims nor any of the other Ghouta victims I have seen. 

Here is a concise inventory of symptoms that should be seen in a large-scale sarin attack viz a viz what is seen in the Ghouta videos: 

  • Grand-mal seizures  [MITSM  pp. 145-147] 
    Sarin produces its most dramatic effects, including death, by causing skeletal muscles throughout the body to freeze-up in a state of contraction.  This is a direct effect at the level of the muscle.   

    A far more dramatic effect is grand-mal seizures caused by sarin's activation of motor circuits of the brain.  These seizures are large, violent, uncoordinated movements of the arms, legs, and torso.  When falling down or flailing around, a seizure victim can easily bang their head against furniture or the floor causing scalp wounds, which are notorious for bleeding profusely.  Also, as the person's jaw muscles are clenched tight, it is not uncommon for the person's tongue to be bitten, possibly severed.  

    Consequently if you have a group of 200 dead victims who have suffered sarin poisoning, many would have had seizures and would have died during those seizures -- and their bodies would be twisted as a result.  Many would be expected to show bleeding wounds of the head and tongue.  The posture, facial expression, and disarray/absence of clothing of the corpse of such a person should also indicate the chemical violence they were suffering at the time they died.  For those who are still alive, like many of those in the DarkMorgue, signs of massive convulsions would be even more clear.

    However, I have not seen a single photo or video of any victim in Kafr Batna or anywhere in Ghouta having a grand-mal seizure or showing any indications of having had a grand-mal seizure.  A number of videos show victims jerking their arms or flailing around with well-coordinated muscle movements.  One video featured by a Human Rights Watch report shows a man displaying wild movements as if he were riding a bicycle.  These are not the grand-mal seizures one would expect from sarin intoxication.  

    Given the large number of victims shown in the photos/videos, the absence of signs of wide-spread grand-mal seizures is a strong piece of evidence disproving the Sarin Myth.
  •   Cyanosis [MITSM  pp. 117-125] 
    When sarin causes the chest muscles to contract, the lungs are squeezed tight and sort of locked down causing the person to suffocate as surely as if they were in the coils of a python.  No new oxygen enters the blood and as the remaining oxygen is used up their blood becomes less red and more blue.  Areas of the skin that receive a lot of blood or where the arteries and capillaries lie close to the surface turn blue -- lips, forehead, ears, nose, nipples, and the tips of toes and fingers.  This blue state due to oxygen deprivation is called "cyanosis."  Very obvious cyanosis will be the primary sign of asphyxiation in a person dying of sarin intoxication.

Fig. 4. Cyanosis in a "blue baby" 

It is noteworthy that one of the memories that stuck in Alfred Thornhill's brain for 50 years was the way Ronald Maddison turned blue:

"I saw his skin begin turning blue. It started from the ankle and started spreading up his leg. It was like watching somebody pouring a blue liquid into a glass, it just began filling up."

Many of the victims in the DarkMorgue were alive when videoed.  The lighting there was not superb -- it was florescent -- but it was adequate.  What is seen in those living victims is not cyanosis.  Quite the opposite: the victim's lips, and noses, and cheeks are cherry red.  This reddish coloring has persisted even in death for most of the victims. I come back to the question of how people who are suffocating could look so healthy, but the point for the moment is that the absence of cyanosis in these victims is very strong negative evidence against the Sarin Myth.

In addition to activating skeletal muscle and brain circuits, sarin also stimulates organs and glands, in some cases by activating the organs or glands directly and in other cases by stimulating nerves that control the organs/glands.  Symptoms of sarin intoxication that are produced by stimulating organ and glands are referred to as "muscarinic effects."  With full-blown sarin intoxication these very intense effects are often referred to as "muscarinic storm."  

Compared to seizures and asphyxiation,  these effects occur at lower doses and will therefore almost always precede death.  Although they are not fatal, they are a lot messier than sarin's effects on skeletal muscle and the brain discussed previously, and so they are vivid diagnostic signs of sarin intoxication.  Generations of medical students have relied on the mnemonic "SLUDGE" to recall the components of muscarinic storm  seen when sain massively activates just about every organ system in the body. [MITSM pp. 125-126] 

  • S -- salivation
    This is a copious, watery saliva caused by direct activation of the salivary glands. 

    I have not seen a single victim in the Kafr Batna videos or any others from Ghouta in which a victim was discharging the copious watery saliva that would be expected from a sarin attack.  Some victims have thick foam around their noses and mouths, but in order to produce a foam there must be strong exhalations to force the air through mucus (not watery saliva). Unless a victim has immediately been injected with atropine, their respiratory muscles would be too compromised to push air out with enough force required to produce foam. [MITSM pp. 140-142] 
  • L -- lacrimation
    The tear ducts are also massively stimulated, resulting in copious release of tears.  Sarin, by the way, does not irritate the eyes.

    This symptom is ambiguous for the simple reason that we know the Ghouta victims were poisoned with something and were therefore traumatized, and when people are traumatized, particularly children, they cry.  The other complicating factor is that as the cameras get close to these victims invariably someone comes along with a green plastic 2-liter bottle full of water and splashes the victim in the face.  Consequently, one can't say that just because some of these victims have tears or water on their faces that is positive evidence for the Sarin Myth.  It isn't.  But the fact that so many of the victims show no tears at all is direct negative evidence against the Sarin Myth. 
  • U -- urinary incontinence
    Sarin causes the bladder to contract forcefully and thus causes uncontrollable urination. This effect would be expected in the early stages of sarin intoxication and would only occur once for each victim because once the bladder is emptied, that's it.  Consequently, one would not expect to see in the photos/videos people in the process of urinating, but one would expect to see soiled clothing.  Furthermore, because this attack occurred in the early hours of the morning, the victim's bladders would have been full and the amount of urine released would have been nearly maximal.  Signs of urinary incontinence should be evident on just about every one of the hundreds and hundreds of victims.  

    I have not seen a single unambiguous example of urinary incontinence in any of hundreds of victims I have examined in photos and videos.  Yet more direct negative evidence disproving the Sarin Myth. 
  • D -- defecation (fecal incontinence)
    Likewise, the bowels are forcefully contracted and, hence, emptied as a result of exposure to sarin.  And as with urinary incontinence, we must note that these people were supposedly exposed to sarin long after their last meal, hence their bowls would have been full.  If they had been attacked with sarin, signs of fecal incontinence in terms of fouled clothing would have been very evident for the living victims and dead victims seen in the photos/videos.  Furthermore, in rooms full of these victims, the stench would have been overbearing and would have been obvious by watching people walking around the rooms moving bodies & etc.

    Again, the absence of any signs of fecal incontinence is direct negative evidence disproving the Sarin Myth.  A very large percentage of the hundreds of victims that can be seen should have had obviously fouled clothing, and yet none of them did.  I identified one man in the DarkMorgue who had a white shirt on with obvious brown staining, but that was likely explained by him lying in muddy water on an adjacent patio with other victims seen lying in the water. [MITSM pg. 143]  Also, the manner in which people saunter through these rooms without any sign of distress or wanting to get out, is good evidence that the victims did not soil themselves. 
  • GE -- gastrointestinal activation/emesis
    It is not just the colon and intestines that are contracted by sarin; the entire gastrointestinal system, including the upper regions, is activated so that in addition to rampant defecation there is also uncontrollable vomiting.  Because these people would have empty stomachs by the early hours of the morning, one would not expect to see signs of copious vomitus.  However, there should be retching and signs of gastric fluids on the clothes of many victim.

    Again, it is striking how clean most of the victims' clothes are -- there are no signs of large numbers -- or any -- of these people having vomited.  

In summary, given scores or hundreds of victims suddenly and dramatically faced with a life-threatening situation, a handful of people might be observed with stained clothes for one reason or another.  In the face of sudden direct threats to one's life, some people, particularly small children, wet themselves, defecate, and/or throw up as the body's mechanisms for holding up against stress break down.  

On the other hand, if scores or hundreds of people were all simultaneously poisoned with sarin, then we would expect to see virtually every single one of them with grossly stained clothing, and we would expect to see the people around them reacting to the stench.  The complete absence of these signs in Kafr Batna is overwhelming direct negative evidence disproving the Sarin Myth.     

There is one other symptom of sarin that needs to be discussed.  This symptom is so non-specific and so general that I would not discuss it as evidence for or against the Sarin Myth but for the fact that it has been over-hyped by the MSM and the experts they interview.

  • miosis 
     Miosis is the clinical term for pin-point pupils. Technically, miosis means constriction of the pupil to smaller than 2 mm.  

5. Intense miosis that would 
be expected of a fatal dose of sarin

There are a few Ghouta videos that purport to show miosis, and the UN investigation claims to have observed miosis in some of the alleged sarin victims they examined.  Unfortunately, these observations have been interpreted by those who don't understand the pharmacology of miosis or sarin, and they have concluded that the presence of miosis means that sarin was used.  Not true.  

While it is true that sarin causes miosis, even at low doses, by itself miosis is not a good indicator of sarin poisoning because other drugs can cause miosis and it can be easily artificially induced; hence, the fact that UN investigators observed it in a relatively small fraction of alleged sarin victims means nothing.  If, for instance, the terrorists were running a flase flag spoof in Ghouta and wanted to the world to believe that the victims died of sarin, it would be a simple matter to put readily available miosis-inducing drugs in the eyes of volunteers faking symptoms or in the eyes of actual victims that were exposed to some other toxin.    

An "expert" that shows up on CNN and asserts, "Yeah, that was sarin because the victim's pupils are constricted," either doesn't know what they are talking about or is intentionally trying to sow misinformation.  If miosis had been observed along with the other symptoms of sarin intoxication listed above, then it would be additional evidence that sarin had been used.  But reports of miosis in the absence of any of these other sarin-symtoms is not evidence supporting the Sarin Myth.

Direct positive evidence disproving the Sarin Myth.

I want to discuss just one piece of direct positive evidence, but it is of enormous importance.  The evidence is important, not just because it is -- in and of itself -- sufficient to disprove the Sarin Myth, but also because it provides strong direct evidence as to what toxin was used, and it provides circumstantial evidence as to who the guilty party was. 

  • rubicundity
    Everybody's pink on the inside, as the old adage asserts.  But what is more relevant to this discussion is the equally true assertion that people with light skin are usually pink on the outside, too -- at least the healthy ones are.  This healthy reddish or pinkish hue in skin color is called "rubicundity."  It is caused by bright red, well oxygenated blood pouring through arteries and capillaries that are right next to the skin.  

    As noted above, sarin produces an effect that is the opposite of rubicundity: cyanosis.  Sarin causes the blood to turn bluish so that the victim's skin appears bluish.  The negative evidence about not seeing universal cyanosis in the Ghouta victims becomes 100x more powerful disproof of the Sarin Myth when it is combined with the positive evidence discussed here: Not only did the victims not display cyanosis, they were clearly and unmistakably rubicund.  Pink cheeks, pink lips, pink noses, pink fingers, pink ears -- and not just in the living victims.  Even the corpses are pink. Anyone who claims that sarin was used to kill all of those people would have the burden of explaining why so many victims, dead and living, have good, "healthy" color and why virtually none of them are blue.  It can't be done. In order to argue that sarin can turn a victim red, one would have to re-write all of the pharmacology textbooks with respect to the clinical picture of sarin toxicity as well as with respect to what we know about how sarin works.   

    The screen-grab of "Bunny" at the beginning of this post is one example of rubicundity in a Ghouta victim, and there are literally scores of other examples.  Here are three more:       

Fig. 6.  Examples of rubicund Ghouta victims.  The two children
on the left were alive when the videos were shot. The girl on the right was not.

These are all direct screen-grabs that went from the videos into the clipboard and then into the text document -- nothing was retouched.  

There were dozens of comments in the blogosphere in the days following the Ghouta Massacre about how the victims, particularly the kids, looked too healthy to be dead.  They must be sleeping, many people said.  Others speculated that they had been given a soporific drug and they would wake up after the PR cameras were turned off.  I referred to this as the "Juliet Hypothesis."  [MITSM  pg. 28 et seq. ]  But no, there is more than adequate evidence to conclude that the victims were not sleeping; they were dead and their healthy pink color is absolutely incontrovertible, direct positive evidence that these people could not have been poisoned with sarin.  This is not a political statement; it's not speculation.  It's a plain, cold, biological fact.

The direct evidence, both positive and negative, is overwhelming:  Obama's syllogism has fallen on its face on all counts.  Premise I and Premise II are comprised of false statements of fact -- or, at the very least, facts that cannot be established as true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Consequently, Obama's conclusion that Assad gassed his own people in Ghouta with sarin is false.  It is a false conclusion now, it was false when Obama asserted it, and Obama likely knew it was false -- at least he knew it by the time he pulled the plug on the B-52 raids on Syria.      

The circumstantial evidence   

While direct negative and direct positive evidence can be quite dramatic in the way they point right at the truth without any inferences being required, clean circumstantial evidence can be even more convincing.  Circumstantial evidence requires one or more inferences in order to move logically from an observation to a conclusion, but when the inference is unavoidable and is the only inference possible, then circumstantial evidence is as powerful as direct evidence at ferreting out the truth.

In this section I explain how the circumstantial evidence tells us two things: 1) most of the hundreds of people killed in Ghouta were gassed with carbon monoxide (CO) or cyanide (CN), and 2) the guilty parties are the terrorists -- Liwa al-Islam (now merged into Jaysh al-Islam), Da'esh, al-Nusra,  or some other bloody Sunni terrorist group operating in and around Damascus.

  • carbon monoxide and cyanide: the rubigenic toxins 
    The cherry-red noses and cheeks discussed above tell us more than that the hundreds of people killed in Ghouta were not killed with sarin.  We can infer from the victims' red coloration that the Ghouta Massacre was almost certainly carried out with CO or CN.  And the reason I say it is that, with the exception of a few exotic toxins, CO and CN are the only toxins known to consistently cause rubicundity, and they are certainly the most common and easily obtainable toxins that cause rubicundity.  I refer to this quality of a drug as being "rubigenic" -- a term coined long before, and totally unrelated to, Marco Rubio's attempt to win the Republican nomination for president.  

In MITSM I go into the biological details of how CO and CN turn a suffocating person red and leave the person red even as a cadaver. [MITSM  pg. 108 et seq.]  As I explain there, both the clinical picture and the post-mortem picture of CO/CN poisoning are precisely what we see in the Ghouta videos: the people who are not yet dead are quite pink/red, and the dead ones are as well.  I estimate the certainty level of the Ghouta Massacre being carried out by sarin is 0% (discounting the possibility of very small-scale, localized use of sarin as discussed below).  I guesstimate the certainty level of the toxin being either CO or CN as greater than 90% based on them being nearly unique as rubigenic agents and being easily obtained. 

The inference that CO/CN were used as the toxin in Ghouta leads us, necessarily, to the conclusion that Assad's people could not have carried out the Ghouta Massacre because CO/CN are duds as chemical weapons -- they cannot be effectively deployed from a distance.  In fact, they aren't even considered to be CWs.  Carbon monoxide has never been used as a CW except, perhaps, experimentally.  The OPCW does not list CO as a CW.  As for CN, while NATO does have official designations for hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride, the OPCW flatly states "There is no confirmed information on [CN] being used in chemical warfare."  The problem the CW experts see with these agents is that in large open arenas it would take enormous volumes of either of these gasses to kill anyone.  [MITSM  pp. 172-173] 

But in contrast to being useless in combat, CO/CN are historically notorious for being used to kill prisoners in small, air-tight rooms such as US execution chambers and Nazi mass gas chambers.  If, as Obama asserts, 1429 people were killed in Ghouta, then they had to be rounded up and gassed in chambers with CO or CN.  In other words, what we are seeing in the those Ghouta videos are the victims not of a CW attack, but victims of a mass-execution, and that execution had to be in Ghouta where all of those suffering people and fresh bodies were videoed. But the only combatants operating in that area on Aug21|2013 were the terrorists.  Only they could have produced so much carnage with CO or CN. [MITSM  pp. 175]

In summary, what we have developed from the unequivocal observation that the Ghouta victims are rubicund is a circumstantial case built on strong evidence and strong logic that leads to two specific conclusions: 1) the terrorists are responsible for the Ghouta Massacre; and, 2) the Ghouta Massacre was a mass-execution.  This forces us to turn a corner and to look at all of the evidence in a completely new context.  For instance, these conclusions mean that all of the people we see milling around in the morgues and "medical facilities" in the Ghouta videos are not trying to help the victims.  Au contraire, they would have to be part of the terrorist organization that carried out the mass-execution of those people.  Even the people taking the dozens and dozens of PR videos would have to be a part of that deadly enterprise, which could only have been orchestrated to try and shock the world -- and particularly the US -- into attacking Assad.  

This brings us to the final piece of circumstantial evidence I want to discuss: the corpse that was stabbed to death in the SunMorgue. 

The murder in the SunMorgue

When first viewing the videos of the SunMorgue, one naturally assumes that each one of the scores of people neatly assembled in rows on the floor were brought into the room dead and remained in that unenviable condition while the videos were taken, and thereafter to eternity. That assumption turns out to be not true.  

A second assumption one naturally jumps to is that the workers seen the SunMorgue moving the bodies around, moving around the bodies, and generally milling about like visitors at an art museum are members of the same group of people as the dead ones, only a lot luckier.  One presumes that the living people in the videos are respectfully tending to the bodies of their dead relatives and friends pending burial.  That presumption also turns out to be false.  

Fig. 7. A view of part of the "Ladies' Section" of 
the SunMorgue, and people just wandering around.

When the context changes from a CW attack carried out by the SAA against the terrorists in Ghouta to a mass-execution carried out by the terrorists in Ghouta, all of the previous assumptions fly out the window.  For instance, if it was an execution, then the people on the floor are the victims of the execution and the ones walking around are almost certainly the executioners.  And when one realizes that one of those people lying on the floor was brought into the SunMorgue still alive and then had his throat slit and he bled out onto the floor --  well, any benign interpretations or assumptions about what the SunMorgue is and about who the people working there are disappear altogether.  The SunMorgue and the people wandering around in it become emblematic of unspeakable evil. 

Back in April, 2014 when I published MITSM and first presented this evidence, these conclusions were a lot more contrarian and a much harder sell than they are today.  Two years ago it was a bit out there to suggest that anyone could be so evil as to execute a thousand men, women, and children, lay them out in morgues all over Ghouta, video them, and then upload the videos to YouTube, all for the sake of shocking the world and provoking Obama into attacking Assad.  

But in the intervening two years we have learned a lot about these bloody wahhbi pricks, and what was once a bit out there is now eminently believable.  We have seen dozens of videos and news stories of the way these Syrian terrorists behead people; the way they kidnap and rape women and sell them in a human market; the way they turn young boys into jihadi killers.  As sickening as it may be to any civilized person, the thought that these evil salafists would kill hundreds of children to use their bodies as bait to suck the Americans into war with Assad is no longer all that far out there.  It is totally consistent with what we know about Da'esh, al-Nusra, and Jaysh al-Islam.  And we can pretty well surmise that if these people wandering around in the SunMorgue are the terrorists, then they would not hesitate for a second to slit the throat of one of their victims they brought into the SunMorgue mistakenly thinking that he had succumbed in a gas chamber. 

  • bloody floor+ bleeding "corpse" + bloody rag = a murder in the SunMorgue
    Chapter 12 of MITSM [pp. 179-196] tells the story of a SunMorgue victim I have labeled "M-015" in my Table of Male Victims.  There is also an excellent YT produced by Adam Larsen that summarizes that material and the points made below.  You might want to look at that video before continuing here; it's short.  

    M-015 was a large man, probably 230 pounds or more.  He looks like he was in his mid-50's.  When he died, he had a day's beard growth  and was dressed in a grey, collared pull-over shirt and black trousers.  I won't go into all of the details here about how we know he his throat was slit in the SunMorgue, those details are all explained in MITSM and Mr. Larsen's video.  Here I'll just do a bullet-list of what the video-evidence tells us about M-015's unhappy sojourn in the SunMorgue on what was almost certainly Aug21|2013, the day of the Ghouta Massacre Mass-execution.

    -- Early morning.  Figure 8 is a photo of M-015 being carried into the SunMorgue on a cot in the early hours.  At the time he was brought in, the men's side of the room was almost full.  He was placed on the floor at the end of a row that comprised the bodies of three men and a young boy, who is in the teal nylon trousers in Fig 8.  They were to M-015's right.  Later a final addition to that row would be placed to his left.  

Fig. 8. M-015 being brought into the SunMorgue.  
The source says the date was Aug21|2013

M-015 was not bleeding when he was carried into the SunMorgue and laid on the floor. Like the other victims, there were no signs of him having been wounded or injured in any way. There were no signs of trauma.  No blood can be seen on the floor.  A clean white towel was placed over his face, which might have concealed from the terrorists carrying his cot that the man was not yet dead.  

When executing a large group of victims with CO/CN, it would not be difficult to overlook a few survivors and not realize they are still alive. Unlike sarin, these drugs do not induce convulsions, or cause the skin to turn blue, or produce any of the many other signs that would indicate that the drug had done its job.  As noted above, CO/CN produce cadavers that look like healthy people sleeping.  And large people like M-015 are more difficult to poison in general than smaller people -- the drugs are taken up by the fat, which decreases the drug's concentration in the bloodstream, which can obviate or slow the onset of it's fatal effects.    

--  Mid-day.  By the time the PR guys with the video cameras showed up at the SunMorgue around mid-day, M-015's appearance and situation had changed drastically.  Two cameramen passed him slowly and videoed him carefully.  One of video guys reached the end of the room, then turned around and passed M-015 slowly again, showing us what M-015 looked like from two opposite angles.  It wasn't pretty. 

What we see in those videos is M-015 lying face up on the floor next to the young boy, right were they were placed earlier.  Only now M-015 is lying in his own very bright red blood.  His face is no longer covered by the clean white towel; it is now blood-stained and covering his throat.  A blue kiddie-blanket has been packed around the left side of his neck -- part of it is soaked with blood.  The blood forms a good sized pool on the left of M-015's head. On the right side of M-015's head the blood has run down a trough formed by the grout between two tiles.  

Fig. 9  The bleeding "corpse" of M-015 and 
the blue blanket, not yet full of blood

It is a ghastly scene because it is obvious that M-015 suffered a throat-wound after he was laid on the SunMorgue floor.  And judging by the large volume of blood he lost, we can deduce that his circulatory system was pressurized and his heart was beating even though he might not have been conscious when he suffered the fatal wound. His throat was almost certainly slit.  

The brilliant red color of the blood -- even after it left his body and coagulated on the floor -- is evidence that the man had been exposed to a rubigenic agent.  His color, like that of his companions in death on either side of him, is excellent.  As we see him lying there in those mid-day videos, M-015 may still be alive and bleeding out.  And the reason I say it is that the blue kiddie-blanket that is being used to soak up the blood is not nearly as full of blood as it's going to be. 

-- Late afternoon.  Late in the afternoon of Aug21|2013 photographer Mohammad al-Abdullah stopped by the SunMorgue to take some photos before the sun set.  He took quite a few that have made their way onto the Internet by way of the terrorists' PR machine.  At this time of day the SunMorgue had been largely emptied.  All that remained was a few lingering bodies awaiting transport to their final resting place.  M-015 was gone, but the blue blanket remained precisely where it was when the earlier videos were shot.  However, it was no longer blue.  

Fig. 10.  The blue blanket still in the exact same 
place after M-015 was removed

Figure 10 above was snipped from a larger al-Abdullah image that I was able to use to line up the tile lines to show that this is the same blanket in precisely the same spot on the floor as shown in Fig. 9.  [MITSM  pp. 187-190]  It is obvious that between the time the blanket was videoed near mid-day and the time it was photographed in the late afternoon, M-015 had lost a lot more blood.  This can only mean that M-015 was still alive when the PR guys shot their videos at mid-day.  

Think about this: In Fig. 9 we see the man lying there with his throat slit, and no one doing any thing to help him as he bleeds out into the blue kiddie blanket, absolutely saturating it with his blood as seen in Fig. 10.  I think this tells us everything we need to know about who those people are we see wandering around in the Kafr Batna SunMorgue, and, by extension, who all of these people are we see in the Ghouat videos. 

The death of M-015 belies all of the demotic assumptions about the people we see wandering around in the videos of the SunMorgue being good people trying to either help their dying friends and family members or tend to the bodies of family members and friends who are beyond help. John Kerry referred to these people as "heroic first responders." Therein lies the fraud. They werenít heroic, they werenít first responders, and they werenít helping. They are the murderers. They are the terrorists. Why else would they kill this man who was brought into the SunMorgue and laid out on the floor instead of helping him once they realized he was still alive?

Was there no sarin at all?

The evidence we can see in the videos of the Kafr Batna complex proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the people were killed not with sarin but with CO or CN or some other rubigenic toxin.  The question then becomes: Was anyone in Ghouta killed with sarin?  It's a good question.  

I have tried to be careful to avoid making the claim that no one in Ghouta was poisoned with sarin.  After all, how could one know that?  All I can say for certain is that if anyone was poisoned with sarin, they were not among the hundreds of victims I have seen in dozens of videos.  While there are odd instances of people that may by cyanotic, or throwing up, or exhibiting miosis, I have seen no instance in which an alleged sarin victim displays more than one sarin-symptom.  I would not, personally, conclude that anyone was a victim of sarin unless I could see indications of at least three of the symptoms sarin produces -- I have not seen any such victim.  Au contraire, what I have seen is hundreds of people with red lips, ears, nose, fingers -- all of whom must be automatically disqualified as sarin victims for the reasons stated above and in much greater detail in MITSM.  

But I suspect that there are sarin victims (or volunteers) that I have not seen.  I mean, if this was a false flag operation orchestrated to convince the UN Mission and the world that Assad had used sarin against those opposing him, then the terrorists would surely have sprayed sarin on the buildings, and dirt, and rockets they showed to the Mission.  And they likely would have administered sarin or, more likely, administered a safer oganophosphate similar to sarin, to volunteers so that their blood and urine would contain breakdown products that could be attributed to sarin -- and that is what the UN Mission claims it found. But this use of sarin would have been extremely limited.  Terrorists who want to show the world hundreds of dead children would not kill those children with sarin -- unlike CO and CN sarin is far too dangerous to use in that manner, and the results would be too messy to handle. That is the reason we do not see hundreds of sarin victims in the videos. 

If you want to safely plant evidence of sarin on, say, a rocket, you merely mix the sarin with water in a spray bottle.  The water deactivates the sarin making it harmless and produces breakdown products that investigators will find and attribute to Assad.  You then spray the inactive solution on the rocket, pick up you cell phone and call the UN Mission to come and take samples. 

In Part 2 I cited correspondence sent to Obama and his administration officials by a group of retired US intelligence officers who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). They are led by the estimable Ray McGovern.  Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I believe it is fair to say that Seymour Hersh, VIPS, and myself are all on the same page here. At the very least my conclusions are in general accord with the most important point made by Hersh and VIPS: The Ghouta Massacre was not carried out by Assadís side; it was carried out by the terrorists who were in control of Ghouta at the time.  Here is an excerpt from a VIPS Memo sent to Obama on Sep06|2013.

  • Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public Ė and perhaps even you. 
  • According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

The event McGovern and his colleagues allege happened would probably not be sufficient to cause the numbers of bodies we see in the Ghouta videos.  Unless the canister was opened in a crowded room or gas chamber, it would not likely have much of an effect.  Sarin rockets, for instance, explode in order to spread the toxin as far as possible.  But the scenario VIPS describes does suggest a small-scale sarin release by the terrorists in order to synthesize evidence of a large-scale sarin attack. 

And so it would not in the least surprise me -- or negate any of the conclusions reached herein -- if sarin was used on a small scale to produce a "sarin trail" for the UN investigators to find when they started their investigation almost a week after the event.  After all, as noted in Part 1 of this series, we now have Seymour Hersh and  Eren Erdem, the MP from Turkey, providing evidence and allegations that the terrorists in Syria were obtaining sarin and its precursors from Turkey in May|2103, just three months prior to the Ghouta Massacre Mass-execution.  And we have the results of UN Mission who went into Ein Tarma/Zamalka, not far from Kafr Batna, and -- sure 'nuf -- found a few traces of chemicals associated with sarin in the places the terrorists told them to sample.    

Summarizing the Series: Q.E.D.

By using Obama's Syrian Syllogism as a platform from which to work, this series has highlighted the following pieces of evidence and made the following conclusions:

  • Obama's assertion that only Assad's Syrian Arab Army had sarin in August|2013 is almost certainly false.  There is firm evidence, including Turkish police reports, that the Syrian terrorists were obtaining sarin and/or its precursors from Turkish sources in the months prior to the Ghouta Mass-execution.  Some have twisted Obama's assertion by saying that only the SAA had access to large amounts of sarin, but that modified assertion is irrelevant because there is no evidence, and there have been no allegations, that large amounts of sarin were used by anybody. 
  • Obama's assertion that sarin-filled rockets were fired into Ghouta is so flimsy as to be risible.  The only physical evidence of rockets being used was under the exclusive control of the terrorists for almost a week before UN/OPCW investigators looked at it.  And then the investigators were shown only the evidence the terrorists wanted them to see.  As a result, there is not a shred of reliable evidence supporting Obama's assertion, nor has his administration provided a shred of evidence.  Risible.
  • The direct negative evidence proves that sarin was not used to kill large numbers of people in Ghouta  None of hundreds of victims I have seen in the videos that came out of Ghouta show enough signs of sarin intoxication to conclude that they were poisoned with the toxin. 
  • The direct positive evidence is wholly consistent with the negative evidence and proves that sarin was not used to kill large numbers of people in Ghouta.  Which is to say, the near universal red/pink coloring of the victims -- both those alive and those dead -- establishes beyond any doubt that they could not have been killed with sarin.  
  • It is possible, and logically likely, that the terrorists used sarin on a small scale in order to plant evidence that would enhance the legitimacy of false claims that Assad had "gassed his own people" in Ghouta.
  • There is no reasonable doubt or question that the victims seen in the Ghouta videos were poisoned with something.  Given the widespread, near universal, red/pink coloring of their features, there is a near certainty that they were poisoned with a rubigenic agent, probably carbon monoxide or cyanide. 
  • Consequently, the Ghouta event can only reasonably be seen, not as a CW attack by Assad's army or anyone else, but as a mass-execution. Since only the terrorist groups had control of the Ghouta area in August|2013, only they could have carried out such a mass-execution.
  • Circumstantial evidence provides very, very strong support for the conclusion that the Ghouta victims were executed by the terrorists.  The circumstantial evidence includes: 1) the use of CO/CN as the toxin; 2) the efficient, well-coordinated manner in which the terrorists' PR websites were claiming a sarin attack within a couple hours of the alleged attack when no one could have possibly known it was sarin that soon, even if it had been; and, 3) overwhelming evidence that at least one person was brought into a make-shift Ghouta morgue while still alive and was then murdered there.    

The Ghouta Massacre was not a CW attack by Syrian forces using sarin.  It was a mass-execution carried out by Sunni terrorists opposing Assad and using carbon monoxide or cyanide.  The world needs to understand that Obama's Sarin Myth is a fabrication.  Not only does that fabrication implicate the wrong people, it protects the real perpetrators from being hunted down, tried, and punished.  The Sarin Myth also obfuscates the truth about the extreme evil these Sunni terrorists are capable of.  If they will so willingly execute hundreds of Syrian Muslim children, they will happily execute the children of American, British, German, and French infidels. 

 --- Denis O'Brien, PhD/Esq.



Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.