Another Obama War: All signs point to Syria chemical attack being a false flag

UPDATE (Aug. 31, 2013):

Without the support of Britain, the United States’ most loyal ally, President Lucifer is forced to do an about-face.

Today, while lamely insisting that the U. S. will take “military action” against Syria and, at the same time, claiming that he has the Constitutional authority to act alone, Obama nevertheless says he will defer to the will of the American people — as represented by Congress.

Since Congress is in summer “session” vacation, and it may be 10 days or more before the Congress critters return to Washington, D.C., I think we can safely say that an attack on Syria won’t be happening anytime in the near future.

Or even at all.

All of which means that the POS’s reputation in the world is even more tarnished. Other countries and governments now know that when Barack Obama draws a line in the sand (as he did a year ago about the use of chemical weapons in Syria), the “line” he draws might as well be in quick sand.

As my friend Jay Gaskill, Esq. so perfectly puts it:

Obama’s foreign policy: “Bully like a flea, sting like a butterfly.”

~Eowyn

To war

Another war is upon us.

Do you want America to start yet another war?

Do you want our already overburdened soldiers, suffering from unprecedented high rates of suicide and PTSD, to be stretched even more?

Do you want our government, already in debt to the (official) tune of $17 TRILLION, spend even more tens and hundreds of millions that we don’t have?

Do you want to see gas prices shoot to stratospheric levels, just as you’re getting ready to drive miles and miles on Labor Day extended weekend?

If you answer “No,” then please read this post and, afterwards, link this to your Facebook page and Twitter account, and email this to your contacts. It is THAT important.

When I began researching into the August 21 chemical attack, I honestly had no preconceived opinion. I scoured the web for information and examined them with a critical eye. This post is necessarily long, though I’ve tried to condense the many source articles I use to concise bullet points.

~Eowyn

map_of_syria

A year ago, Obama said the United States would not get directly involved in Syria’s civil war unless a clear “red line” is crossed. That “red line” is the Bashar al-Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons against its people.

Two days ago, on August 26, Secretary of State John Kerry said that line has been crossed, pointing the finger at the Assad regime as the perpetrator of a chemical (poison gas) attack near Damascus on August 21 which killed hundreds of men, women, and children — if the images of multiple dead bodies are to be believed. (See pics of fakery here.)

Update! The AP reports that U.S. intelligence officials now admit that intelligence linking Assad to the chemical attack is no “slam dunk”. (Translation: “We don’t have evidence that Assad did it!”)

Top Democrats and Republicans in Congress chimed in, urging prompt action in response to Assad’s use of  chemical weapons. Eliot Engle, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said “We have to move, and we have to move quickly.” Senator Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said “I think we will respond in a surgical way.” Engle and Corker are just the latest banging on the war drums long sounded by Sen. John McCain, who has been urging a U.S. war in Syria for two years now.

Israel, Turkey, Britain, France all blame the Assad regime and are urging “intervention”.

While no one in Congress is (yet) urging U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria, the warmongers are urging deployment of cruise missiles. Already our war ships have moved into the region.

An unnamed senior Obama regime official tells NBC’s Richard Engel “we’re past the point of no return” and that U.S. air strikes against Syria are inevitable, “within days.” I’ve seen the date of August 30, which is tomorrow, Friday.

But U.S. strikes against Syria are sure to precipitate reaction not only from the Assad regime, but also from Syria’s friends — Russia, China, Iran — who are warning Washington not to “meddle.” Invoking an apocalyptic scenario, Russia threatens that U.S. intervention will lead to “catastrophic consequences.” In the meantime, Moscow isn’t taking any chances and is evacuating its citizens from Syria and sending, “over the next few days,” an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean.

More alarming still, the Assyrian International News Agency reports that a Catholic bishop in Syria, Antoine Audo, warns that Western intervention could lead to a world war: “If there is an armed intervention, that would mean, I believe, a world war.”

For his part, Assad rejects the accusations that his government forces used chemical weapons as “preposterous” and “completely politicized.” Claiming government forces were in the targeted area, Assad asks, “How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located? This is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicized and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.”

Indeed, according to a CBS News report, since June, Assad’s forces have been winning, whereas victories for the Muslim Brotherhood-backed rebels, the Rebel Free Syrian Army, not only had become “increasingly rare,” they were sustaining “some of their heaviest losses” near Damascus.

In other words, it simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for Assad to unleash chemical weapons when he is winning, against the losing rebels. As a Stratfor email puts it:

“The general consensus is Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons against his enemies. The problem is trying to figure out why he would do it. He was not losing the civil war. In fact, he had achieved some limited military success recently. He knew that U.S. President Obama had said the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. Yet Assad did it.

Or did he? Could the rebels have staged the attack in order to draw in an attack on al-Assad? Could the pictures have been faked? Could a third party, hoping to bog the United States down in another war, have done it? […] We can’t shy away from alternative explanations simply because they seem outlandish and conspiratorial. Nor can we embrace them.”

So let’s take a look at those “alternative explanations,” no matter how “outlandish and conspiratorial” by asking the question that is on so many Americans’ minds:

Was the August 21 chemical attack a false flag event?

As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic public event that is:

  • False: The public are given an untruthful version of the event by the government and the media. The falsity can range from no one actually had been killed or hurt (it was all theater); to some of the alleged victims are real; to all the alleged victims are real but the alleged perpetrator(s) is a fall guy who was set up by the “real” conspirators behind the scenes.
  • Results in a “rallying around the flag” effect: Whatever the true nature of the “false flag” event, the objective is to arouse and manipulate the emotions (fear, anger, outrage, indignation) of the American people so that they’ll “rally around the flag” in an outburst of patriotism, supplying the current White House occupant and his (and his party’s) policies with their support and loyalty.

I propose that we approach the question of whether the August 21 Syrian chemical attack was a false flag by asking these questions:

  1. Who has the motive?
  2. Who has the means?
  3. Who has a prior record (precedent) of instigating chemical attacks?
  4. What evidence do we have that the rebels perpetrated the Aug. 21 chemical attack?
  5. What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military “intervention”?

1. Who has the motive?

As discussed above, Syrian government forces have been winning the civil war since June. It makes no sense for the winning side to suddenly up the stakes by resorting to chemical weapons, especially since Obama had declared the use of the same chemical weapons to be the “red line” that will trigger the United States’ intervention. In other words, by resorting to chemical weapons, Assad has everything to lose and nothing to gain. As Stratfor’s George Friedman puts it:

“Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst.”

In contrast, the jihadist rebels have been losing the civil war. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. Launching a chemical attack and killing their own people but putting the blame on the Syrian government, would bring the condemnation of the world as well as the most powerful military in the world, the United States, against their enemy — the Assad regime.

2. Who has the means?

Both the Syrian regime and the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

According to ABCNews, April 23, 2013: “Videos have surfaced online of Islamist rebel fighters with vast supplies of chemicals, carrying out experiments on animals and saying they will use chemical weapons against the Assad regime.

The Assad regime is believed to have one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world which contains the VX nerve agent and mustard gas, in addition to sarin.”

3. Who undertook previous chemical attacks?

Previous chemical attacks in the Syrian civil war had been undertaken by the jihadist rebels:

  • Sarin attack on March 19, 2013 in Khan al-Asal (near Aleppo): Although Israel, Britain, France and the U.S. blamed Assad, a United Nations investigation found “strong, concrete suspicions” that the rebels were responsible.
  • A UN report in June 2013 says a UN panel has compiled evidence that chemical weapons were not used by Assad but instead by the Muslim Brotherhood rebels.

4. Where’s the evidence? 

A, Whatever evidence we have all point to the jihadist rebels as the perpetrators:

  • Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says the Aug. 21 chemical weapon (“a homemade missile” with “chemical poison gas”) was shot “from the positions” of the rebels and is similar to the March 19 sarin-gas missile used by Syrian rebels. (Source: Voice of Russia)
  • Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich says “there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the [chemical attack] incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack.” (Source: Russia Today)
  • Syrian Arab News Agency claims that the government had intercepted two phone calls of the rebels which show that the rebels are responsible for the chemical attack. The first phone call was between a rebel and “his boss” or financier from Saudi Arabia, in which the rebel boasted that one of his battalion’s achievements was the Aug. 21 attack. The second phone call revealed the cooperation between two rebel groups in bringing two  bottles of sarin gas to Damascus.
  • A video from a Syrian TV news report claims to show chemicals and weapons seized by the Syrian government in the rebel stronghold of Jobar. Note at the :10 mark a label that reads:  “Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalies”.
  • Walid Shoebat’s Shoebat Foundation has several videos uploaded by “Free Syrian” rebels showing them threatening to use chemical weapons, loading a rocket armed with a chemical agent, as well as the voice of a rebel about using sarin gas.
  • The behavior of the Assad regime is not consistent with their being the guilty party:
    • It was Syrian government soldiers who found the chemical agents in rebel tunnels in Jobar, a suburb of Damascus.
    • Assad has allowed — and is allowing — UN experts to investigate sites of chemical weapon attacks. In contrast, the rebels don’t display a similar cooperative willingness.

B. Evidence of the Obama regime training and arming Syrian rebels:

  • According to a December 2011 email leaked by Wikileaks (see above), SOF (Special Operations Forces) teams from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey are already on the ground in Syria “focused on recce (reconnaissance) missions and training opposition forces.” The email was from a member of Stratfor who had spent an afternoon at the Pentagon with the USAF strategic studies group. From the email: “They [USAF] dont believe [U.S.] air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn’t reach that very public stage.”
  • Even worse, on January 29, 2013, the UK’s Daily Mail published an article on leaked emails proving the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action against Syria. A week after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, Patriot Action Network discovered that Daily Mail had scrubbed the article. But you can still read the original article on web archive.

Here’s a screenshot of the article as it was published on January 29th, 2013:

5. What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military intervention?

Reportedly, options being considered by the Obama regime include cruise missile strikes, an air campaign, and cross-border shelling, among others.

The day after the chemical attack, on August 22, 2013, Stars and Stripes, an official Defense Department publication, published an AP report saying US officials are divided on how to respond to the chemical attack incident, with “top military leaders” cautioning against even limited action in Syria. “[Army General Martin E.] Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said in a letter this week to a congressman that the US military is clearly capable of taking out Assad’s air force and shifting the balance of the war toward the armed opposition. But such an approach would plunge the US into the war without offering any (end game) strategy.”

In other words, what may begin with air strikes inevitably will lead to the U.S. being stuck in yet another long drawn-out war.

Indeed, I woke up this morning to a reporter on the overnight ABC news saying that U.S. air strikes had never been successful at stopping whatever government from doing anything.

An Aug. 19-23 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9% thought  Obama should act. But Obama and Congress are hell bent on war.

Tell your so-called representatives in D.C. that you don’t want another war!!!!!

Advertisements

43 responses to “Another Obama War: All signs point to Syria chemical attack being a false flag

  1. Thank you for doing the research on this assertion, Dr. Eowyn,

    Not everyone knows all the reasons for our concern. Listing them out in one place makes your warning very compelling.

    Like

  2. According to Reuters 91% of America wants to stay out of a war with Syria. But Obama does not serve America, he serves the Rothschild banking empire, just like his fellows before him. And they want to take over Syria and set up a Rothschild central banking system. Just like they have done with every other country. The Rothschild’s want control of the banking system in every government of the world bar none, and they don’t care how many people they have to kill to make that happen.

    England just said they have decided to wait for confirmation of who fired the chemical weapons in Syria, which has not yet been confirmed. Obama has now backed off also saying he has not yet made a decision.

    Here is why England and Obama backed off. Egypt closed the Suez Canal to all American ships. Russia said if Syria is attacked Russia will attack Saudi Arabia. The reason being is that Saudi Arabia threatened Russia with a terrorist attack if they do not back out of Syria. Russia ordered Russian troops to stand by for a full attack on Saudi Arabia if war starts in Syria. That would cut off all oil to Europe. China sided with Russia at the United Nations security council but they walked out when Obama’s representative wanted an immediate strike against Syria. Russia said all parties need to wait because no one knows who fired the chemical weapons. Obama and England did not want to wait. Obama at first ordered four war ships to Syria with plans to make ready for targeted strikes. That’s what set off the chain of events. Russia then threatened Saudi Arabia and Egypt closed the Suez Canal and Russia ordered twelve war ships to Syria. Russia is also said to have began evacuating Russian citizens from Syria. Things were looking ugly in a very short time frame. That’s when England decided to wait for confirmation of who fired the chemical weapons and then Obama followed by saying he has not made a decision yet. Obama is clearly England’s war dog.

    And not once has Obama received any permission from congress to strike Syria. Obama has gone totally rogue as England’s war dog. He has zero intention of honoring his oath of office. He needs to be removed from office immediately as a threat to the national security of the United States. And I mean immediately removed and by force if necessary. Immediately means right now. He has gone rogue.

    Like

    • Someone in the cabinet would have to do it by means of the fact that he isn’t capable of doing his job, as was the case after Kennedy was assasinated. In this instance he is acting unconstitutionally for years now which proves that he is incapable of honoring his presidential oath. He can’t be trusted to remain in office. So……who will it be? Are there any patriots in the cabinet?

      Like

  3. Obama’s handlers are going to start a world war,hell maybe thats what they want,but it will be bad news down the road for an already struggling U.S.economy.When I saw the first video of the so called chem. attack,I told my father that they looked fake,and told him that this situation had the makings for world war,something we could all do without.

    Like

  4. Thank you for a thorough article about this pending disaster, Dr. E. That is what this will truly be if the Imposter-in-Chief gets his way.

    Like

    • Thanks, randy and Trail Dust! 😀

      Like

      • No prob Dr. E. Here is a vid of a recent town hall meeting featuring my congressman Jim Bridenstine, himself a Navy Reserve Pilot.
        Enjoy!

        Like

        • Bravo, Congressman Bridenstine! Indeed, whatever “authority” Obama has to go to war against Syria (or any country/group) comes NOT from the UN — which is the way the POS is presenting it — but from the American People as they are represented by Congress. Indeed, before Congress grants the POS that authority, they should insist that he tell them clearly exactly what U.S. national interests are at stake which justify us starting yet another war.

          Thank you, randy!

          Like

          • You’re welcome. This is a little OT, but it is another issue dear to our hearts from Rep. Bridenstine. Even an old agnostic heart like mine, lol.

            He has a real interest in this issue because of a mutual friend of the Congressman and myself, a young UH-60 Blackhawk pilot I deployed with who happens to be an ordained Methodist minister and is aspiring to become an Army National Guard Chaplain.

            Like

  5. Oh, but when Bush cited chemical weapons to invade Iraq, that was bad…

    Like

    • Sour taste in your mouth? Then swear off grapes, troll.

      Like

      • I took Anon’s post to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dem leadership – Clinton, Kerry, et al. Remember all the Iraq “exit strategy” talk from them back then?

        My guess is we were lied to then all the same. Hussein was selling oil for Euros, contrary to the Nixon era agreement for all OPEC producers to only export for US dollars (or else). We rectified that right away after occupation – then leased oil fields to China.

        Like

    • It is not so much sour grapes, but rather sour crow feathers I’m spitting out right now for misjudging your comments. many apologies for my rashness as Number 41 pointed out and for which I am grateful. You are correct. The Dems slammed Bush on the issue of chemical weapons, yet they (as well as a few Repukelican RINO’s) seem hell bent on using the issue to flog Assad with right now. Yes, Assad is evil, but the MB rebels are far worse. Again, I’m sorry for the troll tag.

      Like

  6. Dr. E, good post. I had already come to the same conclusion after researching the subject online. Here is a good video about how faking online is done. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgEgW5KfsI&feature=share

    Like

  7. In Bosnia Srebrenica, the vicious attack which got blamed on the serbs was in fact carried out by the jihadis – this was written by Daniel Pearl after his visit there.
    On another example I have seen a film on youtube showing how the western media reported false stories of Israeli advances – the video shows TV transmission as well as the uncut original film in which the lies become obvious.
    So cheers we may be in for more taqiya

    Like

  8. Pingback: Anonymous – Syria & The Drums of War | Hidden Agendas

  9. Whatever or whoever is promoting this atrocious idea is SATANIC. This is EVIL EVIL EVIL. There is no justification for the funding of jihadists to topply Assad the Arab Spring was engineered to involve a showdown between the oligarchs and anyone who would dare to champion sovreignty of nation states. I say shut down their monetary system, STEP ONE, reinstate Glass Steagall.

    Like

  10. Here’s a new slogan going around on YouTube:

    No War! Not in My Name.

    Pass it on

    Like

  11. All words of russian orcs must be read with “NO” prefix. They own UN and now intended to have the entire world as red playground. Eternal commies may be brutal savages but they know how to incite a conflict and gain from it.
    Whatever way the U.S. will choose, it will be a defeat until everyone realizes that the worldwide evil is coming from the russian Mordor.

    Like

  12. Think of it, Nancy Pelosi is talking like a hawk, and calling for a war.

    Stop… read that again, please.

    If Pelosi is masquerading as a hawk to demand a strike against ANYPLACE, there is something else going on, some kind of deception.

    John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi calling for the President to flex his muscles, and do something warlike. All this while most conservatives are warning against it.

    I don’t know exactly what their agenda is, but I am certain it is very bad.

    ~TD

    Like

    • Maybe she’s got her mind on the debt ceiling and is hoping to drum up some business for potential Syria attackers. The way things are going the Saudis could end up being the aggressor together with littler Arab countries who have an agenda that coincides with Saudi Arabias’. What do I know? Prince Bandar is involved with Chechen militants and will go for the overthrow of Russia.

      Like

  13. Excellent post! America is waking up- at last. We have been so lied to for so long.

    Like

  14. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this professional, well-documented, clear and significant post. The Daily Mail news article is significant, especially since it was scrubbed; the rebel jihadists’ previous use of chemical warfare is most important; and, Britain’s conclusion that they must investigate who is actually responsible for this alleged chemical warfare convinces me that compelling evidence exists that this warfare was not exercised by the Syrian government. And finally, the lack of motive and purpose is also extremely compelling to me.

    And, as to honesty and integrity, I believe nothing that the king and his administration tell me-nothing.

    Like

  15. Pingback: Anonymous – Syria The Drums of War | anonymatter - Anonymous do Matter - News

  16. I think the President’s call for an attack on Syria is an intentional distraction. Perhaps to avert the public away from the Benghazi balls-up that is still simmering – hopefully to eventually burst into flames.

    Or else something even worse is about to break loose. Maybe draconian new Executive Orders for – name your poison – whatever these clowns have in mind. Can’t trust these SOB’s.

    Like

  17. Wouldn’t it be better if whoever is found to have used forbidden nerve gas to be tried at the INternational Court in the Hague for war crimes? If Barack Obama goes ahead and attacks Syria under the current circumstances then that is a war crime as defined at Nurembourg. If Barack Obama were to start a war without Congress saying OK it’s impeachable.

    Like

  18. The G 20 meeting is next week………… The French parliament has been called back to Paris to debate Syria starting Sept.4th. Our Congress isn’t due back in DC until Sept. 9th. The Brits already had their debate and decided that they would kick the can down the road ……
    Where’s the Syrian opposition leader and his home boys? All the key players seem to be AWOL. Who is running this show?

    Like

  19. Pingback: Obama about to start another illegal war « Musings of the Angry Webmaster

  20. We do NOT need to be waging war against the Assad regime. We need to be waging war against the (o)bama regime.

    Like

  21. UPDATE (Aug. 31, 2013):

    Without the support of Britain, the United States’ most loyal ally, President Lucifer is forced to do an about-face.

    Today, while lamely insisting that the U. S. will take “military action” against Syria and, at the same time, claiming that he has the Constitutional authority to act alone, Obama nevertheless says he will defer to the will of the American people — as represented by Congress.

    Since Congress is in summer “session” vacation, and it may be 10 days or more before the Congress critters return to Washington, D.C., I think we can safely say that an attack on Syria won’t be happening anytime soon — or ever.

    All of which means that the POS’s reputation in the world is even more tarnished. Other countries and governments now know that when Barack Obama draws a line in the sand (as he did a year ago about the use of chemical weapons in Syria), the “line” he draws might as well be in quick sand.

    As my friend Jay Gaskill, Esq. so perfectly puts it:

    Obama’s foreign policy: “Bully like a flea, sting like a butterfly.”

    Like

  22. Pingback: Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began. | seachranaidhe1

  23. Bama says that his integrity is not in question, and he is right, BECAUSE HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY! He is bound and determined to start WWIII, the first thing is that he has underestimated his opponents, and that is the first thing you learn NOT to do in real life. But Bama has never had a real life, he has always been living in a fantasy world, and has been taken care of all his life! And the STUPID American people elected an IDIOT to lead us, when he has never lead anything! Not even his dog, he has a handler for that! The American people had better wake up before, 3/4 of us are dead, over Bama’s stupid pride! They (the foreign media) has already proved that the rebels turned the gas lose! Trying to blame Assad, and the people that ask Bama for the proof, he said he didn’t have any! Because it is locked up with his birth & school records! Semper Fi.

    Like

  24. Pingback: U.S. war against Syria: No clear goals, no good guys, will cost tens of millions |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s