"US training Syria militants for false flag chemical attack as basis for airstrikes"

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I doubt it can be proven otherwise.

But who’s telling us this?

Russian state media, Russian military and Syrian government officials.

All who have a good reason to distance themselves from such acts, and all with an anti American agenda.

I know - it's a beautiful conundrum.

On the one hand we have US governments highest office saying Assad did it, and the US state sanctioned media parroting same, and 4-star generals and most politicians both rep and dem saying the same thing.

On the other hand we have Russia & Putin saying that the US did it, and RT, and Russian military generals and foreign ministers saying the same thing.

and to top it all off - no proof will ever be forthcoming. If I was a military contractor, I'd think that all my christmass's have just come at once - no end in sight for warpigs or liberals who suddenly endorse killing people without proof those people deserve killing.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Another poster brought a different thread to my attention a week or so ago. The thread is a year old and it's about yet another "chemical weapons" attack in rebel held areas and Putin's claims that the US planned to blame Assad and attack.

President Putin claims the US is preparing to strike areas around Damascus.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Another poster brought a different thread to my attention a week or so ago. The thread is a year old and it's about yet another "chemical weapons" attack in rebel held areas and Putin's claims that the US planned to blame Assad and attack.

President Putin claims the US is preparing to strike areas around Damascus.

From that thread, check this out - I'm simply putting 2 & 2 together....

a)

Putin also said he wants the international authorities to conduct a careful investigation of last week's chemical warfare attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun last week that left 89 dead.

b) On page 1 of this thread - OPCW Inspectors due to arrive in Syria only hours before the 'precision' strike on Syrian chemical weapons labs.

c)

d) *Crickets* - that's the sound of CNN & the tards regarding 'Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from the bitch' narrative they've been pushing as truth when its all been lies.

I swear, the deep state relies heavily on short term memories and the likes of the Kardashians to keep folks looking in the opposite direction.

As I said in the OP - until proven otherwise, the US, UK & France used, by proxy, chemical weapons on civilians so as to execute an incursion deep into Syrian future OPEC pipeline land. Besides making for awesome propaganda for the super-rich, the warpigs and the low-info liberals - dead women & children from chemical weapons is irrelevant

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Until proven otherwise, the US, France and the UK executed the correctly called (1 month prior) false flag chemical weapons attack by authorizing the rebels to use the chemical weapons on Syrian civilians and consequently the global propaganda behemoth (already on notice) took the premeditated story and ran with it, before the dust had even settled.

The rebels have helicopters ?
If it was a NATO helicopter how did it get to the scene of the attack in a city surrounded by government forces without being shot down or at least shot at ?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

All lies. Todays Special Word is HYPOCRAZY! Can you say HYPOCRAZY? Quote. 'Not you, Just People in General', Unquote. WE CAN.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm currently favoring that the rebels were behind the chemical attack as a last ditch effort to draw Western intervention.

I don't think anyone had to threaten Trump though. I think the man is a liar and you've made the mistake of taking him at his word when he's said what you wanted to believe and ignored the obvious signs.

His goal from day one was to dump vast sums on the MIC. Trump and the GOP just frame it as "rebuilding the military" or revamping the nuclear arsenal. Look at the people who surround him.

Private War: Erik Prince Has His Eye On Afghanistan's Rare Metals

Leaked Memo: GOP Fundraiser Pitched Trump On International Muslim Army To Fight America’s Wars

He's surrounded himself with all sorts of hawkish advisors, with a bunch of generals and now he's got John Bolton as a National Security Advisor.

John Bolton: No regrets about toppling Saddam

The hawkish former United Nations ambassador, 66, told the Washington Examiner in an interview this week that he stands by the decision made by his old boss, President George W. Bush, to invade Iraq and topple dictator Saddam Hussein. Bolton, long a strong supporter of the Iraq war, said his opinion wasn't altered by the post-war discovery that Hussein's regime did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

Here’s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” Bolton said. (The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.) “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton added. “The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

Bolton op-ed from 2012 in the National Review.

What do do about Syria?

Accordingly, regime change in Syria is prima facie in America’s interest as well as the interests of Israel and our Arab friends in the region, who see nothing but danger for themselves if Iran’s hegemonic ambitions unfold successfully. Why Republicans and Democrats alike have coddled Syria’s tyrants over the years is extraordinarily difficult to understand. Of course, as with overthrowing Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi, there is the question of what will replace a concededly distasteful regime. And today, that uncertainty is a major factor constraining our options for dealing with Syria’s conflict.

It would have been one thing to work with the Syrian diaspora to remove Assad and the Baath party when we had a massive military presence in Iraq, right on Syria’s border. In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests. We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces. Our mere presence in Iraq could have precluded Iran — or, what we see today, an Iraq under Iran’s influence — from trying to protect Assad.

Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should.

Some of Trump's own words that reveal his thinking.

Trump threatens 'military option' in Venezuela as crisis escalates

“We have many options for Venezuela and by the way, I’m not going to rule out a military option,” he said.

“We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbor,” Trump added. “We’re all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very very far away, Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering and dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.”

Trump to Mexico: Take care of ‘bad hombres’ or US might

“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt given to AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”

Trump supporters have cheered his "take the oil" rhetoric consistently. He's literally advocating raping the natural resources of a country after invading it. "To the victor go the spoils" yadda yadda.



This Hannity interview right after Trump began campaigning:

TRUMP: Take the oil. We're going out of Iraq. Take the oil. Give the families of the veterans and the families of the soldiers that died there and the wounded warriors -- give them millions of dollars each. It's peanuts compared to what we're talking about. I said, Take the oil. Everybody said -- not everybody -- the stupid people said, Don't do that.

HANNITY: Let them pay for their -- this was about paying for their liberation that we gave -- that we gave them

Hannity is big on this and that might be where Trump picked it up. He's been talking about it for years. Couple of examples:

Hannity in 2010

Hannity: I've actually had an idea -- no one listens to little ol' Sean Hannity. But I'm like -- I think the Iraqis, with all their oil resources, need to pay us back for their liberation. Every single solitary penny. Because we really need --

Hannity in 2011:

“ I say why isn’t Iraq paying us back with oil, and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers — and why didn’t they pay for their own liberation? For the Kuwait oil minister — how short his memory is. You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation.”

And so on and so forth.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Besides making for awesome propaganda for the super-rich, the warpigs and the low-info liberals - dead women & children from chemical weapons is irrelevant

Even though the narrative being pushed by the Syrian and Russian governments is that no chemical weapons attack happened and the scenes we see are fabricated.
Low information ?

a reply to: xuenchen

This seals the proof that Russia is behind every chem attack in Syria.

Could you explain to me why you think that.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Besides making for awesome propaganda for the super-rich, the warpigs and the low-info liberals - dead women & children from chemical weapons is irrelevant

Even though the narrative being pushed by the Syrian and Russian governments is that no chemical weapons attack happened and the scenes we see are fabricated.
Low information ?

From the past 24hrs......

Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claimed Moscow had “irrefutable” evidence that the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

The Guardian

Also - The Independent

a reply to: Sublimecraft

The narrative of the Syrian regime and Russia appeared to be contradictory with some accounts claiming that the rebels had staged their own chemical attack while others held that Russian chemical monitors who had visited Douma have found no sign of contamination. The Russian defence ministry has produced “testimony” from medical workers in Douma that a team with video cameras had entered medical facilities and started a panic by claiming there had been a chemical attack.
www.independent.co.uk...

Claim and counter claim ,it's hard to believe the accused when their story keeps changing.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

They've been doing this over and over since Iraq (and it seems to work almost every time.) Getting pretty good at it. A slick production, actually, and ready for prime time.

Get ready for the summer of gas babies. Hospitals, entire towns, over and over until Syria is completely demolished.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Anything is possible. But why does the U.S. think Syria is so important now? Before, Iraq was "all that".

I want President Trump to announce that the original time table for withdrawal from Syria has not been altered. In 6 months, we will be out of there.

Then see if another "chemical attack" is launched by President Assad, to keep us there, breathing down his neck. He enjoys it!

The main factor in the US aggression in Syria is the Israeli desire for Greater Israel. They want to destabilize Syria and eventually have it as part of Greater Israel, and they want US troops to die in that effort rather than Israeli troops.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: xuenchen

This seals the proof that Russia is behind every chem attack in Syria.

Could you explain to me why you think that.

You need to research all the natural gas interests involved.

Start with pipelines, pipeline agreements, and who profits.

Then look at competition and who's involved.

Any more explanation would take 100 pages.

Maps, Iran/Russia agreements, U.S./Qatar competition are some small hints.

Maybe look into an Iran/Russian agreement for gas to India.

-- (name withheld)

😎

a reply to: xuenchen

Both sides are fighting for pipeline routes, Russia isn't special here. According to your theory Russia is using chemical weapons against civilians to further this agenda. This makes zero sense as it would be much easier for Russia not to provoke the west during this process.

False flag attacks are almost never brought out into the light and if they are it isn't until many years or decades after the fact. Under your theory Russia is trying to stage fake false flag attacks on the west while using their media to convince the entire world that this is the case. This is an insurmountable task to do when you're battling the western propaganda machine and would be the most ridiculous tactic to take here. It makes much more sense for the west to conduct a false flag attack then use their ridiculously overpowered media weapons to hammer it into the heads of people who cannot critically think.

Let me pose it to you as a question, do you believe Russia has more to gain from catching the west in a legitimate false flag attack or more to gain by framing the west by conducting a fake false flag attack and risking the blow-back of being exposed?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Excellent thread

Seeing as how bureaucrats from all sides have lied to get into wars and be corrupt it seems wise to not take their word for anything they can’t provide evidence for

Especially when the story makes no sense

Like Assad being on the verge of winning, and then deciding to do the only thing that could cause his m to lose

Does that mean Assad couldn’t have done it? Of course not

But I won’t believe it based only on the word of proven liars that have lied again and again to drop bombs.

a reply to: Tenbatsu

Perpetual and continuous war in Syria guarantees a Qatar/US gas pipeline will never get into Europe.

In the meantime, Russia (and Iran on a small scale) reap profits from sales to Europe.

Very simple.

Look up all the Iran/Russia agreements and their active pipelines.

Very simple, but CNN will not tell anybody.

😎 as knee hits jaw 😎

The Media Coverage on Syria is the Biggest Media Lie of our Time' -- Interview with Flemish Priest in Syria

Interviewer: You say that the Syrian Army protects civilians, yet there are all sorts of reports about war crimes committed by Assad’s forces, such as the bombardments with barrel bombs.

Father Daniel: Do you not know that the media coverage on Syria is the biggest media lie of our time? They have sold pure nonsense about Assad. It was actually the rebels who plundered and killed. Do you think that the Syrian people are stupid? Do you think those people were forced to cheer for Assad and Putin? It is the Americans who have a hand in all of this, for pipelines and natural resources in this region and to thwart Putin.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to establish a Sunni state in Syria, without religious freedom. Therefore, Assad must go. You know, when the Syrian army was preparing for the battle in Aleppo, Muslim soldiers came to me to be blessed. Between ordinary Muslims and Christians, there is no problem. It is those radical Islamic, Western-backed rebels who want to massacre us. They are all al Qaeda and IS. There are not any moderate fighters anymore.

from source
«Flemish Father Daniël Maes (78) lives in Syria in the sixth-century-old Mar Yakub monastery in the city of Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus. Father Daniel has been a witness to the “civil war” and according to him, Western reports on the conflict in Syria are very misleading.»

Last weekend:

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 3-day visit to Paris from 8 of April to 10, buying "secret proof"!! Before he was at britan from 6 to 9 of march doing the same. Between he was in a 3 week visit to the US to ... you know... "disneyland!"

a reply to: xuenchen

Ending the Syrian War with Assad victorious is the only legitimate way to ensure the west never gets their pipeline. If Russia wanted endless war they wouldn't have supported Assad to such a strong position where he's capable of retaking the entire country. If you pay attention to the battle map, Syria is close to closing every pocket within its territory leaving only the Kurdish/Turkish held areas. This is not a path for endless war on Syria's side. The side looking for endless war is the west and its allies. Assad has also publicly stated that he will not stop until every inch of Syria is returned to the government of Syria. If Russia were not behind him with this tactic Syria would not be working with Russia.

a reply to: Tenbatsu

The only reason Russia sent direct military support was to stop the Sunnii threat from ISIS.

Russia is responsible for all the attacks with chemicals.

100% responsible.

They need the perpetual conflicts to never end.

Neither side (U.S. - Russia) has enough money to over-run the area and maintain stability.

Cost too high.

Iran is close to hooking into a Russian gas pipeline to Europe as we speak.

Turks getting paid well so far.

😀

Its Our Job To Control What People Think (watch until 45sec. mark)