Putin declares Syria gas attack a false flag; says more are coming

originally posted by: Meimou

originally posted by: bphi1908

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Lab4Us

Where is the benefit in killing civilians with chemical weapons? Hoping the US will send more Tomahawks so they can spur their economy through rebuilding projects?

Maybe I'm missing something here - I just don't see how they benefit from gassing civilians.

Assad attempted to test a new administration's resolve. Trump's foreign policy statements, twitter feed, had indicated he was not going to take an active role in the Syrian civil war. If there was no action by the US to this sarin gas attack then Assad might have racketed up the use of these weapons to help turn the tide and end the civil war.

Turns out Trump changed his mind.

originally posted by: olaru12
Trump warned Russia before he sent the missiles to the air base. And Russia warned Assad... That doesn't set of any alarm bells?


www.cnbc.com...

Trump warning the Russians and thereby Assad is really inconsequential. The strike was a message, it wasn't designed to remove his capabilities. The one thing we wanted to avoid was Russian loss of life, things would be much worse in Syria today if we hadn't and Russians were found in the rubble.

1) Assad attempted to test a new administration's resolve when the war was all but won.
2) Assad need to test Trumps resolve, why?
3) Assad didn't use the gas on the rebels, no, he need to kill civilians..because, reasons.

1) Assad attempted to test a new administration's resolve when the war was all but won.

This is a statement not a question but I'll field it anyway. The war is not all but won, who told you that? CNN is still putting Syrians on the news to plead for more foreign intervention (the U.S. in particular.) Propaganda is just a powerful a tool as a bullet or bomb. The sooner he can stamp out the uprising the better his odds are to remain in power. The things rulers will do to maintain control are pretty horrific.

2) Assad need to test Trumps resolve, why?

First Trump indicated via twitter that and in his campaign that he would not intervene in Syria. If this was the case, using sarin gas might help him achieve stamping out the uprising sooner and remain in power.

Second testing a new administration's willingness to engage is nothing new. We have seen many nations test new US administrations in various ways over the years.

3) Assad didn't use the gas on the rebels, no, he need to kill civilians..because, reasons

Yes he did. The town that was struck was a rebel held city. Assad doesn't have precision guided munitions. Even if he did targeting civilians is nothing new to the Assad regime. As a matter of fact he bombed that same rebel held town less than 24 hours after Trump sent in the cruise missile strike. He kills civilians in rebel held towns as punishment for their support for the rebels, in his eyes there is no distinction between a rebel and rebel supporter. The other reason he kills civilians is he is a terrible person.

www.thedailybeast.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
Well, if Putin says it, it must be true, right?

This thread's about discussing the evidence at hand..if you actually read through it you'll see a ton of insight into this....or you can just say that and move on.

originally posted by: face23785
The pipeline theories are hilarious considering for all the money the US or Russia have to waste in military actions and other expenses trying to create the right conditions to build their dream pipeline they could've shipped oil via sea for decades. Makes no logical or financial sense, like most hair-brained conspiracy theories.

Also, give this a read. Russia's story doesn't hold up. Besides, any "independent" investigation is going to be blasted by whoever doesn't like the results as biased, no matter who does it. So whatever. Most people will believer what they want, no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented, because it's all part of the conspiracy.

I agree that the pipeline issue isn't worth the trouble. But there's other reasons as well. One of the major reasons that the west wants Assad out is the Golan Heights. The oil deposits are said to be the 3rd largest in the world. Which of course brings Israel makes Israel's role more significant.

And I read the Charle's Lister article previously. The problem with his input is that he only takes one scenario into account; the idea that chemical weapons were detonated from an airstrike. What if that wasn't the case?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

That's what they claimed happened initially. And I still don't buy the oil nonsense. People still insist we went into Iraq for oil and we've yet to remove a single barrel. If these rich powerful people were after oil they're playing a very long game. Some of them will be dead before they reap the supposed benefits from Iraq.

If the US just loves excuses to invade countries for oil we would've invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and the entire country would've been behind it.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Wait....Putin is a crusader for truth & justice now?

I thought he hacked the Presidential election!

Why can't he do both. Playing both sides works. Maybe he helped get trump elected because he knew trump could be easily manipulated. What if the plan is to get America to look so bad on the world stage that if (when) ww3 does finally happen more countries will be on the side against the US?

a reply to: face23785

I think you need to read a bit. The articles below just skim the surface, you may want to dig a bit on your own.

There is no need for a "long game" they are there and have been for years. The US military was the muscle big oil needed to kick in the door..oh and Iraq was involved in 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction or some crazy crap like that. You always need an excuse no matter how flimsy.


www.nytimes.com...

www.aljazeera.com...

www.counterpunch.org...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I believe it was ether a false flag or it was the rebels trying to make Assad look bad. Someone asked what would be the reason behind a gas attack at all. The reason was to get America to attack Assad. Now who wanted that to happen is the question.

a reply to: Meimou

One, sad you are beyond reason you trust a murderous tyranny.

Two, this is not the place, it's off topic? Start a new thread. But I would research what you post. Same arguments that have been debunked over and over again for 15 years now.

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Does anyone else get the feeling that we are from the future?

Because every time a politician tries to expose something its something we know already.

Am i a time traveler?

It's because ATS gets it's info not only from all the news organizations , big and small, from around the world but we hear from lots of different people too. Getting all the info available helps to "tell the future" more accurately.

originally posted by: Meimou

originally posted by: bphi1908

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Lab4Us

Where is the benefit in killing civilians with chemical weapons? Hoping the US will send more Tomahawks so they can spur their economy through rebuilding projects?

Maybe I'm missing something here - I just don't see how they benefit from gassing civilians.

Assad attempted to test a new administration's resolve. Trump's foreign policy statements, twitter feed, had indicated he was not going to take an active role in the Syrian civil war. If there was no action by the US to this sarin gas attack then Assad might have racketed up the use of these weapons to help turn the tide and end the civil war.

Turns out Trump changed his mind.

originally posted by: olaru12
Trump warned Russia before he sent the missiles to the air base. And Russia warned Assad... That doesn't set of any alarm bells?


www.cnbc.com...

Trump warning the Russians and thereby Assad is really inconsequential. The strike was a message, it wasn't designed to remove his capabilities. The one thing we wanted to avoid was Russian loss of life, things would be much worse in Syria today if we hadn't and Russians were found in the rubble.

1) Assad attempted to test a new administration's resolve when the war was all but won.
2) Assad need to test Trumps resolve, why?
3) Assad didn't use the gas on the rebels, no, he need to kill civilians..because, reasons.

Did Hitler, or another person committing genocide have a valid reason?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Excellent reporting.

youtube.com...




Won't someone please think of the children

The same alphabet agencies that tried to falsely accuse Trump of working with the Russians are giving Trump a pass for your false narrative of a false flag attack?

An old member of the KBG passed up the long established working relationship with the democrats to work with Trump?

Media Bites on Trump’s Kremlin Ties, But Clinton’s Are Long-Standing and Deep
www.observer.com...

Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election
www.dailysignal.com...

All I know, Putin is getting his wish of a divided American.

And who can forget....

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Personally, I do believe it was a false flag in a sense but Putin is being extremely manipulative in his statement. I recently read Moscow vetoed a UN investigation into the chemical attack, which signals to me that Russia planted the chems and advised Assad to bomb which triggered the response from Trump.

I'll say this, both sides are complicit in false flags and so pointing fingers is meaningless. Trump and Putin are proving to the world that they are not friends afterall to sweep under the rug the election hacks against Hillary.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's not even a good script either, I half expected some WWE like politics to come about with Trump at the helm.

As for the thread...

Coming from a left-leaning POV that I've come to hold, Putin might not be wrong, he's still an evil man with strong dictatorship qualities.

It's all the same crap, different day.

In two years time, Western corporations will still have a similar foreign policy to that of the nations that support them. They'll still plunder destabilized nations, having first dibs on the loaned money to said nations to help rebuild them and the people will still be piss poor and worse off for it.

I don't know why we bother calling this a conspiracy theory site when we all "know" exactly what's going on...

I just don't know anymore, was Syria started due to impoverished Syrians struggling due to a drought or was it an Arab spring gone loose in the mattress?

Do the people of the world get distracted whilst the plunderers plunder along and our wage packets get smaller, our prospects of a warm home and a stocked fridge becomes a pipe dream?

Honestly, I don't know anymore. I'm too busy watching TV, a TV I probably don't need that's also probably too big but it's ok. I haven't paid for it yet.

You'd think a dollar costs a lot more than it's worth wouldn't you?

a reply to: Boss413

Meh...

People seeking power are not the one's you want holding it, that whole show that was the last US election cycle just helped blind people of the elephant in the room.

That our democracies are ill representative of the people.

Whether it's draining the swamp to fill it with lobbyist sludge or bombing Syria to the stone age, we had little to nothing to do about it.

Still don't and I don't see that changing any time soon.

We live fake lives within a fake democracy, all paid for with fake money. The victims are real, everything else is a really bad sitcom.

Russia vetoed UN investigation. It's like confession.

a reply to: Zmurfix

Russia vetoes West’s 'misconceived' Syria resolution at UN Security Council

Russia, which has veto power as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, was joined by Bolivia in voting down the resolution. China, Ethiopia and Kazakhstan abstained.

Ten states, including the US, the UK and France – the Troika that put together the text of the resolution – voted in favor.

“The main objection to the resolution is that it apportioned blame prior to an objective outside investigation of the incident... The outcome of the vote was predestined, because we disagreed categorically with a document that was fundamentally misconceived,” said Vladimir Safronkov, Russia’s deputy envoy at the Security Council, who also accused other states and international organizations of making “no effort” to inspect the site of the alleged attack.

Accepting the resolution would also “legitimize” the April 7 air strike carried out by the US on the Shayrat airbase in northern Syria, from which Washington claims government planes carrying the deadly sarin nerve gas took off, Safronkov said.

Syria ready to provide OPCW investigators access to Shayrat airbase — UN envoy

Syria is ready to provide experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) access to Shayrat airbase to check whether sarin, which Western countries claim was used during the attack against the city of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, was stored there, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, told a meeting of the UN Security Council.

He noted that Damascus had sent a letter to the OPCW Director General, Ahmet Uzumcu, asking him "to send an unbiased and professional mission to Khan Sheikhoun and Shayrat airbase to determine what exactly happened." "Syria emphasizes its willingness to provide the mission access to Shayrat airbase to determine whether sarin was stored there," the diplomat said.

According to Jaafari, security guarantees from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups operating in this area and "the countries providing assistance to them" will be necessary to provide OPCW experts access to Khan Sheikhoun.

On Wednesday, Russia blocked the draft resolution, which said that Damascus must hand over all data on April 4 flights to the OPCW and provide access to the airbases that could be used to carry out a strike against Khan Sheikhoun.

Jaafari noted that the Syrian government is interested as nobody else in shedding light on what happened in that city. However, he spoke out against "the draft resolutions that have the insidious wording that forestall the results of any probes" and are aimed at "accusing the Syrian government in advance" of wrongdoings. The diplomat thanked Russia for vetoing the document.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh were taking Putin's word are we?

Or we could buy the narrative that Assad uses sarin on civilians but not militants. What kind of sense does that make?

Or buy the narrative that the US military is in Syria to help Assad rid his country of terrorism.