Was Chemical Attack in Syria a “False Flag” to Trigger U.S. War?
While there is no proof yet either way, there are good reasons to at least consider the prospect that the sarin gas attack on civilians in Syria this week could have been a “false flag” operation. The last time Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad supposedly used chemical weapons, the story quickly collapsed under scrutiny . The more likely scenario, according to United Nations investigators and virtually every credible analyst who looked at the 2013 crime , was that globalist-backed jihadist “rebels” used the chemicals in a “false-flag” scheme. The goal: Blame Syrian authorities in a bid to trigger U.S. government intervention against Assad. Foreign officials and more than a few prominent analysts have suggested the same deception may have just played out once again, albeit more successfully this time. Former Congressman and longtime non-interventionist Ron Paul, for example, declared that there was “zero chance” that Assad had ordered the chemical attack. “It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poisonous gases,” he said, noting that the situation for Assad and his regime was looking better until the chemical attack this week. In a tweet that sparked headlines around the world, Paul called the attack a “false flag.”
Syrian officials were among the first to allege that a false-flag operation was underway in the chemical attack that killed over 100 civilians in northern Syria this week. In a statement released by the Assad regime's Foreign Ministry, authorities denied responsibility for the deadly attack. Instead, the regime said the gruesome killings with banned weapons were actually a “premeditated action that aimed to justify the launching of a U.S. attack on the Syrian army.” The regime claims it destroyed all its WMDs under United Nations supervision years ago. Russian authorities, allied with Assad, agreed.
Of course, even if Damascus did use chemical weapons on civilians, it would be unlikely to admit that. But a simple analysis of motives — a basic first step in any serious investigation — would suggest that Assad had every reason to avoid the use of chemical weapons at all costs. On the other hand, jihadist rebels on the verge of annihilation had every reason to use them. After years of fighting globalist-backed jihadists and terrorists , the dictatorship in Damascus was reportedly close to victory — at least until Trump intervened by firing dozens of missiles at Syrian targets.
Russian authorities, which have stood by Assad in the war against jihadist groups backed by Western governments and Sunni dictatorships , echoed the claims of Syrian officials and blasted certain globalist governments for being “obsessed” with regime change in Syria. Kremlin officials suggested that a strike by Assad's war planes in the rebel-held area hit a jihadist weapons-production depot that was manufacturing chemical weapons for terrorists in the region. That explanation would appear to make more sense, multiple analysts said.
Russian officials, also citing intelligence, were unequivocal in explaining what happened. “Yesterday [Tuesday], from 11:30am to 12:30pm local time, Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun town,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konoshenkov was quoted as saying in media reports. “On the territory of the depot there were workshops which produced chemical warfare munitions.”
Western governments and supposed “experts” trotted out by establishment propaganda organs promptly ridiculed the claims. Instead, they claimed to have alleged “intelligence” that supposedly showed Assad was guilty. Despite the non-stop videos on TV of dying children from emotional manipulation, the alleged intelligence proving Assad's guilt was not released to the public. First, the attack had Assad's “fingerprints” on it, alleged "anonymous" and potentially fake “U.S. intelligence” sources were quoted as saying. Then, there was “no doubt.” However, when Obama cited alleged “intelligence” purporting to blame Assad for a similar 2013 attack, a very similar situation unfolded . Top Obama officials claimed with certainty that their “intelligence” proved Assad was guilty. But as the days, weeks, and months went on, it quickly became evident to virtually every credible analyst that it was, in fact, the Obama-backed jihadist rebels who had used chemical weapons in a bid to set up Assad's regime for elimination via international intervention. Only a massive outcry by Americans and Congress stopped the plot.
But the evidence showing what really happened was clear. A 2014 MIT report and analysis on that attack the year prior, for example, offered evidence that the Obama administration almost certainly used deception and bogus “intelligence” in its failed bid to more deeply embroil the United States and its military in Syria’s ongoing war. Entitled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” the report found the nerve-agent attack in Syria “could not possibly” have come from the center or even the Eastern edge of regime-controlled territory. Other evidence also showed that the rebels, not the regime, deployed the chemical weapons. Citing “egregious errors in the intelligence,” the explosive MIT report warned that the process by which those errors were made must be rectified to avoid future tragedy. “If the source of these errors is not identified, the procedures that led to this intelligence failure will go uncorrected, and the chances of a future policy disaster will grow with certainty,” concluded the authors, former United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and MIT Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Professor Theodore Postol. It seems likely that the warning went unheeded, and many of the same “Deep State” operatives behind the previous scam remain employed in the federal bureaucracy. U.S. officials already knew that the jihadist “rebels” had access to chemical weapons at the time of that 2013 attack, too.
A classified U.S. military document obtained by WND the month after the attack confirmed that al-Qaeda-led fighters with the “rebel” Jabhat al-Nusra Front in Syria, which top officials admitted was supported and armed by Obama's “coalition,” were in possession of sarin gas . U.S. officials knew that because about five pounds of the toxic gas was confiscated from the terror group earlier that same year by authorities in Turkey. And after the previous use of chemical weapons in Syria, which Obama claimed was perpetrated by Assad, even UN investigators concluded “rebels” were responsible . “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of Sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” said Carla Del Ponte, the former attorney general of Switzerland and a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria.
“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.” According to a January 29, 2013, article published by leading British newspaper the Daily Mail , the Obama administration actually backed a scheme to have jihadist rebels use chemical weapons — and then blame it on Assad. The article, which received widespread publicity at the time but has since been deleted for reasons that remain unclear, pointed to an alleged leaked e-mail from defense contractor Britam. The December, 2012, document in question refers to chemical weapons and claims the scheme is “approved by Washington.” Ironically, certain Western governments, as well as establishment and globalist war propaganda organs, pretended to be shocked at the mere mention of the term false flag following the latest attack. However, more than a few establishment sources suggested the recent terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, Russia, may have been just such an event. Putin's regime has previously been accused — credibly — of having staged such attacks as a pretext to advance certain policies. But the double standard is glaring. How establishment propaganda organs can be so sure that designated terror groups and jihadists — or rogue Western bureaucrats — would not perpetrate a false flag was not explained.
Just last month, though, left-wing extremist Noam Chomsky suggested President Trump might stage a false-flag terrorist attack to rally his supporters and distract from his failure to follow through on his promises. “We shouldn't put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky declared, with establishment media voices dutifully reporting the remarks by the “left-wing intellectual” as if they were perfectly sane and reasonable. A false-flag attack by an embattled jihadist terror group in Syria with nothing left to lose is almost certainly a more likely possibility than a false flag by Trump to rally supporters.
Already, smoking-gun evidence exists proving that the globalist establishment was willing to facilitate unspeakable crimes to remove Assad from power. In fact, the Obama administration, Sunni Muslim dictators, and others were so determined to achieve regime change that they were willing to support a rebellion that they knew was led by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, according to a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document . That same document outlines an illegal plot to help create a “salafist principality” — known today as the Islamic State, or ISIS — in Eastern Syria to destabilize Assad. Trump is well aware of this scheme. And top Obama officials admitted it in public. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), among America's most prominent lawmakers, has taken what may be the most sensible approach to the issue: Demanding to see the evidence. Speaking of Assad, Paul said “he’s either the dumbest dictator in the world, or it may be more confusing.” Speaking on The Laura Ingraham Show , the senator noted the obvious: It would not make sense for Assad to use such weapons when he was winning the war, had strong Russian support, and had already learned that the Trump administration was abandoning the Obama administration's failed “regime change” scheming. “I would like to see the evidence,” Paul added, saying he did not dispute it but would like to see it.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Good job seeder. Your formatting makes the article unreadable. That might be appropriate for more of your seeds.
John,
The formatting issue has been cleared. It was a conflict with the sites editor. Next time please just get me.
whoop de doo
Stop being nasty for no reason.
Excellent article
What is the fascination with defending Assad?
I think so and have said so. Assad was winning and things were going very well for him. It doesn't add up. I'm glad you posted this.
Had the Congress not coward away from Obama's request for its vote to take actions against Assad, we might have avoided the latest horror.
If the chicken-shit Republicans now blame Obama for failing to act, that is insult to injury.
These threads are a waste of time any more since the truth, when given, is rejected out of hand even when posted as a correction to an intentional lie.
I am not going to try and argue with ignorance any more.
"Had the Congress not coward away from Obama's request for its vote to take actions against Assad, we might have avoided the latest horror."
BO didn't need congresses approval for anything else. Including dropping bombs on American citizens and turning Libya into an ISIS training ground. The only reason he asked for it that time so people like you would excuse him for not taking action because he knew how the vote would end and he did not WANT to take action. He was very smart in how he handled it. So the one single time he actually does what he is supposed to you are going to say it was congresses fault? How convenient. I'm afraid I have to call BS on that.
BTW I think BO was wrong to draw the line but not to attack. It is sad however that his foolishness made the US look weak in order to do the right thing. I was glad we did not attack at that time I thought it was a false flag just as I do now. I don't agree with Trumps actions either. Assad was doing very well and there was no positive outcome for him in doing this. It is a false flag IMO. The pictures that were offered of dead children were about 7 years old. Some were the same ones used to try to convince you BO should attack.
No way Assad would do such a thing; he is way too reasonable, and has an abiding love for the citizens of Syria.
Why on earth would he do it when he was so far up on top and after the condemnation that happened last time there was a chemichal attack? He was almost attacked last time and Trump has been hinting he will flex military muscle when necessary. Peace talks were going well, ISIS and AL quida were on the run, and he was gaining ground daily. I don't buy that he did it because he is crazy. Nothing adds up here.
Why on Earth has Assad killed many of his countryman? Because it made sense, was positively motivated, or promoted Assad's ability to govern? Pppphhhhtttt....
Whether it is false flag or not doesn't make any difference. This mission had one purpose and that was to let anyone suspected of using chemical weapons know they should expect the wrath of the United States Military upon them if they use chemical weapons.
Informing the Russians is no different than informing a visitor in your home where illegal activities are going on the house is going up in flames tonight. Of course the visitor will tell you and both of you are getting out of the house asap if you believe the threat holds any credence. When you come back and find your house has burned down to the ground, you will think twice in the future before doing the same thing, because you realize there may not be a warning the next time.
If the Rebels did it, which I suspect they did, if it was done at all, then they also know the USA will not be standing by drawing red lines in the sand if they are exposed as well.
I'm not for getting into a long drawn out war with anyone. George HW Bush did it right. He blew the smithereens out of Iraq, but left Hussein in power and then set up situations for their potential progress, which was coming along pretty good until George Bush killed the guard dog. Then George Bush was on the right track in getting Iraq back in order, but Obama blew that to smithereens. Some people say he was following George Bush's prepared timeline and that was true, although Obama took credit for getting us out of Iraq originally, he later said he didn't have anything to do with it when ISIS started taking over the country.
We can blame many people along the way, but the fact is all these radicals and enemies of this country and our allies have been emboldened even more so over the last number of years. They only respect strength. Sorry, but that is the way the world works, unfortunately. You can't be nice to them and expect them to like you.
The whole world is a false flag in my opinion. We think we know something, but we are the most ignorant of all.
If the Rebels did it, which I suspect they did, if it was done at all, then they also know the USA will not be standing by drawing red lines in the sand if they are exposed as well.
All Trump has done is show that he will leap before he looks, violate international law, kill non combatants (we're not at war with Syria), and waste nearly $100 million dollars doing it to the cheers of ISIS. Plus, he has laid the foundation for a possible lawsuit by the victims of his attack since Congress has paved the way for eroding our own sovereign immunity by allowing the victims of 911 to sue Saudi Arabia.
But putting all that aside, how exactly does he think he can drop a bomb on a rebel chemical weapons factory without risking a spill that would kill all the same innocent people Trump claims to be protecting? If Trump doesn't know what he's doing (and he clearly doesn't), then it would be better to stay out of it because he will do more harm than good.
Wag the dog.
Yep.
It was a waste of $100 million worth of weapons from a company that Trump owns stock in. It scared no one, least of all Assad or his pilots or flight crews. The are already flying and landing on the same airstrip and have been since less the a day after the "attack". He might as well have ordered our Destroyers to fire the Cruise Missiles into the Damascus garbage dump for all the good it did.
How many starving kids can you feed with $100,000,000? That's a lot of zeros.
It is indeed. And how much of the $100,000,000.00 was profit to Raytheon's armaments section who manufactured the cruise missiles. Did their stocks go up. I certainly hope so for Trump's sake since he is a major stock holder in the company.
I would imagine that would save a lot of hungry children's lives. Even more then who were gassed.
It's like throwing a solid gold brick through the window of an abandoned factory to show the owner he means business and then threatening to throw more. Perhaps the goal is to make Assad and Putin laugh themselves to death or maybe to encourage them to invest in gold bricks.
How many lives might have been spared from the hand of Asad, had Trump allowed Syrian refugees to seek refuge in America?
While the answer is purely speculative, for Trump to lament about their deaths, is pure grandstanding for political reasons.
He got the hater vote for keeping them out, and then got praise for allegedly destroying Syrian planes.
What a POS he is!
Can you say "War Profiteer" boys and girls?
Tell us again about your bombing grid plan.
Tell us again about your bombing grid plan.
My grid plan began with months of leafleting in areas that were known to hold terrorists, telling residents to identify and hand out the names and residences of terrorists/suspects.
And it DID NOT INCLUDE BOMBING PER SE! Jog your selective memory and recall that the sanction for non-compliance was to "render areas of the grid as temporarily uninhabitable" as in dropping tons of cat urine-type, non-lethal substances.
You boys need to ask fewer rhetorical "gotcha'" questions and dropping one-line, brainless quip-insult-ad-hominem-dismissive comments … and contribute worthwhile discussion
"How many starving kids can you feed with $100,000,000?"
How much did the 12,000 bombs Obama dropped on Syria cost? Hmm?
Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strikeBy Andrew Kaczynski, Nathan McDermott, and Chris Massie, CNN
Updated 8:27 PM ET, Sat April 8, 2017
Obama, unlike Trump, did not deny refuge to Syrian children!
What does that have to do with my point? Nothing.
What does that have to do with my point? Nothing.
It has to do with the selective indignation and your failure to address the important differences between tow situations.
It's the usual "gotcha'" question that ultimately, only gets the one who posited it in the first place.
What selective indignation is that? I oppose accepting unlimited numbers of potentially deadly "refugees" from a civil war. I also opposed bombing Syria by Obama and Trump. Take your false premises somewhere else.
Trump is just getting started, and when Obama drops bombs it's to destroy enemies. Trump does it to distract attention away from his crime of colluding with Russia to beat Hillary Clinton.
So it's ok for Obama to starve children?
So it's ok for Obama to starve children?
So it's ok for you to fabricate allegations but offer no specifics?
On June 12, 2013, through the Departments of State, Commerce, and Treasury, the Administration took several significant steps to ease U.S. economic sanctions, enable additional relief and reconstruction activities in opposition-controlled areas of Syria, and support the Syrian opposition and the people of Syria.
Export Waiver for U.S.-Origin Items Benefitting the Syrian People
A limited waiver of the restrictions implemented under the SAA, consistent with Section 5(b) of the Act was signed. The waiver will allow U.S. companies and persons to export and re-export, subject to case by case review by the Department of Commerce , a wide range of items necessary to support the Syrian people, including reconstruction-related equipment to opposition areas.
Statement of Licensing Policy on Economic Activities Benefitting the Syrian People
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) , in consultation with the State Department, issued a Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) inviting U.S. persons to apply to OFAC for specific licenses that would enable them to participate in certain economic activities in Syria. The SLP specifically focuses on applications by U.S. persons seeking to engage in oil-related transactions that benefit the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, or its supporters, and transactions involving Syria’s agricultural and telecommunications sectors.
Protecting Syria’s Cultural Heritage
OFAC also amended Syria general license 11 to authorize the exportation of services and funds transfers in support of not-for-profit activities to preserve Syria’s cultural heritage sites. Rebuilding Syria’s future requires helping preserve the country’s cultural heritage and we want to ensure that sanctions do not impede that important effort.
Irrelevant to the point I replied to.
Instead of wasting a $100 million blowing up an abandoned base to save the children from a gas attack, why not save the children from all attack by brokering a peace deal? Saving them from a gas attack doesn't do much good if they're blown to pieces by conventional weapons. And, although exploding missiles on their behalf is a generous gesture amidst the daily rain of bombs, I think the children probably would be more thankful for shelter, a crust or bread, and a drink of water.