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.”
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.
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:
- Who has the motive?
- Who has the means?
- Who has a prior record (precedent) of instigating chemical attacks?
- What evidence do we have that the rebels perpetrated the Aug. 21 chemical attack?
- 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.