Stop the attack on Damascus before it's too late by Bernardo Cervellera.

Stop the attack on Damascus before it's too lateby Bernardo Cervellera.

Too many contradictions in the U.S. version on the use of chemical weapons. You do not want to wait even the results of the UN. It is false to think that a military strike will help the peace conference. Instead it will help the Islamists, who want to dominate the opposition.

Rome (AsiaNews) - United States, Britain, France, the Arab League are in a hurry to launch a punitive action against Syria: it is guilty, in their eyes, that they had used chemical weapons against the population of the suburbs of Ghouta (Damascus) , last August 21. To accuse Syria there are rebels who have circulated on the Internet chilling images of people who died asphyxiated, wrapped in the shroud of children, young people in the throes of seizures or with oxygen mask.

Almost immediately the tam tam media pointed out that with the use of chemical weapons had crossed the "red line" mail from Obama for military intervention against Damascus. Use the declarations - tentative at first, then more and more "safe" - were added to those of Great Britain, then that of France, Turkey, Canada, Australia and the Arab League. Against the intervention are Russia, China, Iran has always been allies of Damascus. More weak, even Italy, Germany and Poland were opposed to military action, favoring political action.

While the U.S. fleet you are placing in front of the Syrian coast, at this time you are also deciding how the intervention: it will only last a few days; strike targeted goals (communicated by the rebels) will not help to bring down Assad will not brake the conference of peace that the UN and the Arab League are slowly preparing. Indeed, according to Arab sources, an attack against Syria will facilitate the introduction of such a conference!

From the day of the attack of Ghouta until now there has been a crescendo of statements, threats and promises to punish "crimes against humanity", is designated as the use of chemical weapons by the UN. At the same time there has been a steady slide towards the obvious conclusion that the chemical responsible for the attack is the regime in Damascus.

I have first asked an interventionist countries of the United Nations, and then, when Syria and the rebels have accepted the presence of inspectors - ensuring the cease-fire - the same countries have said that "it is too late" and that action is needed because "almost certainly" Damascus was responsible for the attack. Finally, last night, Joe Biden, U.S. Vice President, said that the Syrian government was "no doubt". So did David Cameron, British Prime Minister. Yet we all have some doubts.

On 25 August, speaking to the faithful in St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis has expressed "great distress and concern" about the "war between brothers" in Syria. He also asked the international community that "monsters you more sensitive to this tragic situation and put all his efforts to help the Syrian beloved nation to find a solution to a war that sows death and destruction."

It is precisely in the name of this "sensitivity" - which brings reasonableness and solidarity - that we point out some contradictions that make us against attack planned with a lot of speed, but without too much intellect.

For the U.S., the "proof" that Damascus has launched chemical weapons by the interception of a telephone dialogue is a personality of the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask for news of an attack with chemical weapons: a test perhaps indirect, but insufficient. Especially as these "proofs" have not yet been shared with anyone, not even the UN and what we know comes from anonymous statements made to some media.

In contrast there are declarations and documentation satellite of Russia showing two missiles with chemical warhead launched from an area of ​​the rebels, Douma, and ended up on Ghouta, where they killed hundreds of people.

UN Investigators in Syria have begun their work of gathering evidence on the use of chemical weapons. At the beginning they had difficulties because - in the area controlled by the rebels - were subject to some stroke of the sniper. The enthusiasm in wanting to launch the attack makes us forget that they are there to see if there was a chemical attack and (maybe.

 but it is not in their tasks) to gather clues about possible culprit. But the U.S. and Britain have vilified this research, saying that after a few days testing a chemical attack evaporate. In fact, according to scholars, traces of sarin gas remain attached air, the walls, the hair, the skin of the victims and may remain for months. Wait for the completion of the investigation the UN, so it can shed light on many aspects of the story.

Especially since there are military experts and doctors who question the truthfulness of the images displayed by rebels since the sarin gas attack and remains active on the skin of the affected, why the volunteers and doctors who treat victims we see are portrayed quietly without any gas mask? And how come we move now to punish the perpetrators of the heinous massacre of Ghouta, but you are allowed to die more than 100 thousand people in two years of civil war, without scandalized the same way?

1. It seems to us that it is "too late" to leave the UN the time of the investigation, also because today Ban Ki-moon said that its experts have made "valid findings."

It seems out of place (or head) saying that a military attack facilitates the peace conference. The military attack certainly help the rebels, who at this moment are increasingly losing ground, despite the great help war western states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In addition, the strengthening of the opposition front, does not automatically mean a secular aid to the part of the Free Syrian Army, but also to the jihadist linked to Al-Qaeda.

 One of the reasons why you are unable to launch the peace conference is precisely the conflict between these two souls, the secular and the Islamist, who is to present the opposition. The military attack would weaken Assad perhaps, but would not solve the problem that is internal to the rebels, in fact exacerbate it.

Finally a question on possible scenarios Middle East. At the geopolitical level, there is the risk of a war in the region, if not the world, with Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iran, Russia, China on the one hand and the USA, France, Great Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc.. other. At the local level can not imagine what can happen in Syria.

now that it has become the fiefdom of many fundamentalist Muslims: some speak of disintegration according to ethnic boundaries, others will be born with a Kurdistan parts of Syria, Iraq, Turkey ... In any case a military attack now would be the perfect trigger for a violent instability of the Middle East lasting many years. The result is to impoverish these countries of the best minds of society, whether Christian or Muslim.

soruce,,.http://www.asianews.it/notizie-it/Fermare-lattacco-contro-Damasco-prima-che-sia-troppo-tardi-28861.htmlhaymanoteabow@gmail.com