By William Engdahl: Syria gas attack story has wiff of Saudi war propaganda!

The reports of massive chemical attacks in Syria might become the "red line" for the US for active military intervention. But even rudimentary analysis of the story shows it too early to believe its credibility. The Middle Eastern newspaper, Al Arabiya, reports that "At least 1,300 people have been killed in a nerve gas attack on Syria's Ghouta region, leading opposition figure George Sabra said on Wednesday" The paper went on to claim that the Government of President Bashar al Assad was responsible for the attacks. If confirmed it could be the "red line" that US President Obama previously stated would tip the US into active military intervention in Syria, using No Fly Zones and active military steps to depose Assad. That in turn could erupt into a conflagration across the Middle East and a Super Power confrontation with Russia and China and Iran on one side, and the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar on the opposite side. Not a happy prospect for world peace at all. Therefore the story is worth analyzing carefully. When we do, several things jump out as suspicious. First the newspaper breaking the story was Al Arabiya, initially saying that at least 500 people have been killed, according to activists. From there it got picked up by major international media. Making the story more fishy by the minute were reports from different media of the alleged number of dead that changed by the minute, 635 then to 800 by USA Today and 1,300 by Rupert Murdoch's Sky News. Al Arabiya, the origin if the story, is not neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the Saudi Royal Family in Dubai. It is majority-owned by the Saudi broadcaster, Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). Saudi Arabia is a major financial backer of the attempt to topple Syria's government. That is a matter of record, So on first glance Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad allegation might be taken with a dose of salt. When we examine the printed content of the story, it gets more suspicious still. First they cite "activists at the at the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council said regime fighter planes were flying over the area after the bombardment, accusing the forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical agents." This is doubtful on many levels. First we can imagine that anti-government "activists" fighting Assad's forces would not be exactly neutral. The story gets even murkier. Further in the text of the article we read that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said dozens of people were killed, including children, in a fierce bombardment." Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased.