Two Former Hostages Go Against the Narrative

A Belgian writer named Pierre Piccinin and an Italian journalist named Domenico Quirico were captured and held hostage several months ago by the Syrian rebels. When they were finally released yesterday, they had devastating news to reveal: based on conversations among the rebels that they overheard, the sarin attack in Ghouta had not been ordered by the Syrian government, but was launched by the rebels themselves.

Many thanks to S. Victoria for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this news report from Belgian TV:

Further reading on the topic:

Video transcript:

00:01   Before talking about your kidnapping and release, you say you have this information
00:04   that could have the effect of a bombshell. You claim you have proof
00:08   it is the rebels themselves and not Bashar Al Assad’s regime that used
00:12   chemical weapons last August 21st, yes?
00:16   I didn’t exactly say this. For the moment, as a matter of ethics,
00:21   Dominico and I are determined not to divulge the information, it’s a bit logical.
00:25   In Italy, Dominico must first go through the judiciary
00:29   before releasing what he have witnessed on site.
00:33   So, when La Stampa thinks the moment is right
00:38   to reveal this information, I will also do so with
00:42   the media of my choice here in Belgium.
00:46   This said, it is a moral duty for Domenico and I to divulge this.
00:50   It is not the government of Bashar Al Assad that
00:55   used the Sarin or whatever other poison gas in the suburb town of Ghouta
01:04   This, we are certain of because of certain conversations we overhead
01:08   and, even though it is hard for me to say this,
01:12   since I have been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army since May 2012
01:16   in its true quest for democracy.
01:20   Do you realize Pierre Peccinin that you are sparking controversy by going against the narrative
01:25   of many countries such as the U.S. and France who have
01:30   committed to strikes against the Damascus regime?
01:34   Yes, it is definitely an issue that has given us problems as soon as we were confronted with this reality.
01:40   It was August 30th, we were in Bab al Ouad in the barracks, the headquarters, of the Free Army that
01:49   we shared with the Al-Farook movement
01:51   and for us, when we heard what we were hearing,
01:55   anger overtook us because we had received information before to the effect
01:59   the U.S. were planning to punish the regime, and intervene.
02:07   We were going crazy because here we were, unable to get out and we had
02:10   this information and it was impossible for us to relay it.

Hat tips for the articles: Insubria, C. Cantoni.

6 thoughts on “Two Former Hostages Go Against the Narrative

  1. Very interesting.

    Sort of confirms what many were suspecting.

    What’s happening here? The establishment’s case has fallen apart before our very eyes. It’s as if Cameron’s defeat in the British House of Commons kind of precipitated the collapse of the house of cards.

    There’s no doubt Obama (and whoever pulls his strings) wants to oust Asad – the reason is not clear but the intent is. And Cameron was on his coat tails.

    The US seems to need prior approval for its overseas adventures. In this case, after belligerent noises from the US and Britain (and to a lesser extent France) and with much support from the MSM and the world of celebrity, the do-gooders decided that something must be done.

    They searched hard for a reason to interfere, all the while conducting a propaganda campaign which sought to present Asad as Hitler. Eventually they came up with a cock and bull story about Asad’s use of chemical weapons which they tried to get the rest of us to believe.

    Cameron and Obama needed no such convincing; they believed their own propaganda. Curiously, Cameron acted first. Why else if not to provide prior approval for the US? It’s not as if Britain would be running the show – its role would be minor yet Cameron led the way.

    Interestingly Cameron sought Parliament’s approval when he had no need to. Under the Royal Prerogative, all decisions involving defence and the armed forces are exercised by the government, on behalf of the Crown; and in the event of taking military action, constitutional convention requires the authorisation only of the Prime Minister.

    Cameron’s appeal to Parliament was not an expression of his commitment to democracy. Had he thought there was any chance of his proposal being defeated he’d have been a lot more reluctant to put it to the vote. But he believed Parliament would give him the go-ahead and legitimise his intent.

    Obama hung on waiting for the British go ahead but much to his and Cameron’s surprise, the vote was lost in Parliament. The joke, and British politics is a joke, is that the majority of British MP’s were in favour of military action – that they didn’t OK it was down to a combination of party-political games and classic British cock-up!

    This threw the establishment into turmoil.

    They thought it was a done deal and that British support would pave the way for Obama’s intention to save Syria by bombing it. As it was Obama was in a situation where he had to act alone – his new found ‘special relationship’ with France just wasn’t convincing.

    My understanding is that past presidents have gone to war contrary to the wishes of Congress, and Obama has already said he’d be “comfortable” about going ahead without the support of the people. But it seems as though the executive in Britain and in America is not as strong as it once was and that presidents and prime ministers are more reluctant to go it alone.

    And now it seems that the former belligerents are making as much of an effort to avoid military action as they were previously to engage in it. What’s changed?

    Just a few thoughts over a couple of pints…

  2. Pingback: Something To Add To The Mix | Right Wing Granny

  3. From the very start, I thought this was nothing more than a provocation by the Al-Nusra group. I still think so. If you are a Muslim engaged in Jihad, then certainly you are willing to kill even your own to destroy your enemy. The struggle is existential for Assad, and that may seem to motivate the Syrian president to use chem weapons. But his benefit from them would be short-lived.
    The benefit to the “opposition” of the use of chemical weapons is long-term and encompasses many opportunities for killing Westerners.
    Too good to pass up, really.
    The Muhajid does not love life.
    He kills indifferently.
    Assad is fighting for his life.
    I respect his objectives, I have nothing but contempt for those of the Islamists that are now the majority of the opposition.

  4. Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Lyndon McCain Meets Woodrow Obama | Preppers Universe

  5. Now the problem is really going to any length mainly, the Obama supported rebels such as MB/AQ/Al Nusra among other jihadists group will feel betrayed by Obama. They counted on the military strike by the US to pave the way of a takeover in Syria.

    Putin made even more of a laughing stock of barry – by undercutting him due to Kerry’s gaffe. Our government is run by the three stooges. Escalation of chemical weapons use is a given; although our government/Obama/CIA must give them more. Don’t forget Turkey – also a player in bringing Assad down.

    For two years, Obama has tried without success to overthrow Assad ala Ghaddafi. Don’t believe for one minute that the planned attack was on a ‘small’ scale – the intent was to murder Assad as they murdered Ghaddafi. It also connects to Benghazi – the best kept secret – a cover up so obscene it blows the mind. Our government watched live the murder and, torture of our men; giving the ‘stand down order not to rescue them. Why????

    The truth will out sooner or later!

  6. If America is being driven out of the Middle East then I say GOOD. What do we get out of all the blood and treasure that we expend on it? Do we need lots of sand? And we don’t need its oil.

    If Europe, China, and Japan need its oil (or even lots of sand) then let them expend their blood and treasure on it. Even the Christians of the Middle East are sick of our ‘help’ that always supports the jihadis in the region that are killing them and even Muslims that say No to the 7th century. Even the Christians in the region are sick of us and want us out. The Egyptians are sick of us.

    So let Russia have it and get indigestion from it. Let them have their wars and kill each other. Israel without the US can take care of itself and will be stronger by being self sufficient and disentangled from the US.

    US out of the Middle East and Central Asia! We have nuclear weapons. Who can invade the US?

    How much we have sacrificed to maintain the Petrodollar and the US Empire. It is killing us. We need to kill the Petrodollar that ties us to Saudi Arabia before we collapse.

    We need to live in peace and reestablish the best of our Founding principles and the Constitution. Maintaining the US Empire is destroying our center, the heart of our civilization.

    Otherwise we will continue the path we are on to eventual collapse, and then nothing we think or say will make any difference in the end that are racing toward.

  7. I must agree that a sharp reduction of U.S. involvement in the Middle East would be a good thing. But I can’t agree that being driven out is a good thing, just the least bad thing that can happen given the current administration.

Comments are closed.