Excerpted from Global Research: The Mail quickly pulled the story down within 24 hours, offering no formal retraction, but simply wiped it clean from their website, but we have a screen shot and a link to a cached version.
The Mail was later sued by Britam Defense, and forced to publish a retraction. The Guardian reported on June 26th:
“The Daily Mail has apologised and paid £110,000 in libel damages to a London defence firm it wrongly linked with an alleged chemical weapons plot in Syria.
Britam Defence Limited complained that an article on the Daily Mail’s website Mail Online falsely accused two of its executives of conspiring in a “nefarious and illegal plot” in the Middle Eastern state “for enormous financial reward”.
The article quoted one email supposedly sent between two executives at the company which claimed to show that Britam had agreed to supply chemical weapons to Homs for use in an attack. However, the emails turned out to be forged.”
One of the original leaks which led to this brief, but buried story, was contained in the Britam Leaks, which detailed the alleged plan to be carried out which was said to have received a green light from Washington and was to be financed by Qatar.
Although a libel settlement was reached regarding naming the two Britam executives mentioned in the Mail article, it’s hard to prove that the plot itself did not happen – and herein lies the problem with the secretive shadow state and its array of private contractors in both the US and UK.
Screenshot from Cyber War News report on hacking of Britam:
Excerpted from SyriaTheTruth: In January 29, 2013, Britain’s most popular Daily Newspaper, in its online version Dailymail.co.uk published an article titled:
U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’
A few days later they pulled the article.
What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:
There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:
See scan of complete deleted article below:
One day later, on January 30, a moderated news board thread was created, which is still online, at Mail Online about that article. “Thread: Syrian WMD False Flag – Are False Flags a way of life now?“
In their initial article Mail Online refers to an Infowars.com article (dated January 28, 2013), that’s where they probably found the information on the leaked e-mail and other documents.
CapitalBay (who published the wrong areal pictures of the school in Sandy Hook), Mail Online,Infowars, Yahoo News India, News Track India, Whale.to, Philippine Times, Uganda News,LiveLeak, Truth Media TV and others all claim in their mirrored articles that the alleged e-mail from Britam’s David Goulding to Philip Doughty was dated December 25, 2012.
However, at Neftegaz.ru (translated with Google) there also exists another version of the alleged e-mail. There the e-mail is dated December 24, 2012.
Whether the content of the alleged e-mail is correct, that’s open for debate. Fact is that PressTV has an article online which supports the claims in the alleged e-mail. And RT‘s article from last year (June 10, 2012) still claims that “Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons,” to then blame Assad for it. Those weapons came from Libya, according to RT. This begs the question: Did Christopher Stevens know about those weapons when he died in the CIA villa in Benghazi last year?
But why was the article pulled by Mail Online?
Why do there exist at least 2 versions of the same alleged e-mail?
And what about Britam admitting that they were hacked, according to Ruvr.co.uk (The Voice of Russia)?
But there’s also this, according to Mail Online it was a Malaysian hacker who got to the alleged e-mail(s), while Infowars claims that the e-mail was “obtained by a hacker in Germany.”
Either way, whoever initiated the Britam e-mail escapade did a good job at fooling both mainstream and alternative news outlets because it’s a real mess and few know what really happened and why.
Yet it’s ironic that Mail Online did not delete their other article where they wrote about the UN’s Carla Del Ponte who claims that Syrian rebels are responsible for “sarin gas attacks, which had been blamed on Assad’s troops.” The same rebels who now receive resources from the EU and the U.S., since the EU is buying oil from those “rebels” and the US is arming them for a proxy war as the Washington Post describes it.