Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Re: Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:49 pm

Hawkish Dems Cheer Trump Attack on Syria

Clinton Called for US to 'Take Out' Airfields Just Hours Before US Strike


http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/07/hawk ... -on-syria/
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:54 pm

Obama wants to unilaterally put a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Al Qaeda Islamists

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9641801728
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:21 pm

Russia suspends military communication line with US in Syria

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/32775 ... s-in-syria


Russia is suspending a communications channel with the United States set up to avoid midair incidents between Russian and U.S. pilots in the skies over the Syria.

The move is in response to a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airfield carried out on Thursday in retaliation for a chemical attack by the administration of Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday.

“Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Friday.

Russia and the United States set up the so-called deconfliction line in October 2015 after Russian air forces intervened in the ongoing Syrian civil war.

Prior to setting up the line, U.S. aircraft had a few close calls with Russian aircraft, getting as close as a couple of miles from each other.
Since setting up the channel, the U.S. and Russian militaries have communicated on a regular basis.

Recently, U.S. officials have said the line would be even more important as the battlefield constricts, with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) losing territory and competing rebel and administration forces moving in on its de facto capitol of Raqqa.

The line was used most recently Thursday night, when the United States notified Russia it would attack the Syrian airfield, allowing Russian troops there to move to safety.

The U.S. military, under the orders of President Trump, fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the airfield on Thursday night, or Friday morning in Syria.

The attack was in response to a sarin gas attack officials say Assad launched that killed more than 70 civilians.

The decision to take military action against Assad is a dramatic escalation in U.S. involvement in the 6-year-old civil war, which the U.S. military has never directly intervened in. It was also a notable departure for Trump, who has said he didn't want to push the U.S. deeper into the conflict.

Russia, which supports Assad, has responded by condemning the bombing as an “act of aggression.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry, too, said it was a “clear act of aggression against a sovereign Syria” based on “totally distorted” facts.

“Actions undertaken by the US today inflict further damage to the Russia-US relations,” it said in its statement. “It is obvious that the cruise missile attack was prepared in advance. Any expert understands that Washington’s decision on air strikes predates the Idlib events, which simply served as a pretext for a show of force.”
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:30 pm

Syria: Trump's Bush-Obama WMD Remix

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2017/0 ... remix.html

The United States finds its increasingly clumsy, circular foreign policy looping back once again to accusations of "weapons of mass destruction" being inexplicably used against a civilian population, this time in Syria's northern city of Idlib currently serving as the defacto capital of terrorist organizations including various Al Qaeda affiliates, most notably the US State Department designated foreign terrorist organization, al-Nusrah Front.

The allegations have already been used for a rushed US attack on Syrian forces, without any formal investigation or approval from the United Nations.

There are several serious factors being intentionally omitted from this quickly evolving US-driven narrative, including:
While the eastern Syrian city of Raqqa serves as the defacto capital of the Islamic State, the northern city of Idlib serves as the defacto capital for all remaining Al Qaeda affiliates in the country;

The Syrian government is already winning nationwide using much more effective, conventional tactics and weapon systems. Syria is also under immense scrutiny, thus using chemical weapons would be an egregious tactical, strategic, political and military blunder, serving no purpose besides to incriminate the government and invite US-led foreign intervention;

The US has already prepositioned troops in Syria, increasing their number recently and expanding the scope of their operations. It is not a coincidence that they were placed there to exert greater military force against Damascus, and now suddenly have a pretext to do so;
The US has a long and sordid history of arraying false accusations against targeted states, specifically regarding the possession or use of chemical weapons and;

Militant groups the US and its allies are currently arming, funding, training and providing aid to, have been caught staging serial chemical weapon attacks or fabricating evidence regarding alleged attacks that never took place.


US-Backed Groups Already Implicated in Chemical Attacks in Syria

The allegations of the most recent attack come from the same chorus of US-European backed organizations, fronts and media platforms that have repeatedly made similar accusations over the past six years, none of which have been verified with evidence, and with several instances being exposed as staged by militant groups themselves fighting the Syrian government.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who exposed plans to use militant groups associated with Al Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2007, would publish another report in 2014 titled, "The Red Line and the Rat Line," which would explain:

In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons.​ Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

Hersh would continue by explaining:

Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria’s infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.

Hersh would also reveal that intelligence assessments from within the US itself noted that militant groups, not the Syrian government, were the most likely culprits behind serial chemical attacks unfolding across Syrian territory:

The DIA paper went on: ‘Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW … Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.’ The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: ‘Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,’ it said, ‘were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.’

The Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, when its efforts to restore order across the nation are already successfully being executed using far more effective conventional means, and as it does so under the scrutiny of an "international order" led by the US eager to justify the direct use of US military might against Damascus would be absolutely inexplicable.

Omitted Evidence, Familiar Lies

The US-European media sources attempting to ratchet up the narrative implicating the Syrian government have conveniently left out whatever motive would have been behind this pointless, ineffective, and provocative use of chemical weapons the UN itself has already confirmed the government turned over years ago.

And if Hersh's narrative regarding former US President Barack Obama attempting to rush to war based on falsified information sounds familiar, it is because his predecessor, former US President George Bush did likewise in regards to the invasion and protracted occupation of Iraq.

A million would perish due to America's war with Iraq, based on what is now verified as intentionally falsified intelligence built upon the same collection of US-European backed organizations, fronts and media platforms now being used against Syria.

Playing the part of Bush-Obama, is current US President Donald Trump, who, like Bush-Obama ran on a platform of reversing dangerous and unpopular US foreign interventions, but who is now entirely backtracking on campaign promises and has become merely the latest to take up the regime change torch.


Trump's Turn to Carry the Regime-Change Torch

The Associated Press in an article titled, "Trump has strong words after Syria attack — but what next?," would attempt to claim:

Eager to show strength after a major provocation, President Donald Trump is forcefully denouncing a chemical attack he blames on Syrian President Bashar Assad but staying coy about how, if at all, the U.S. may respond.

Trump split the blame Tuesday between Syria’s embattled leader and former President Barack Obama for the country’s worst chemical weapons attack in years. While calling the attack “reprehensible” and intolerable, Trump reserved some of his harshest critique for his predecessor, who he said “did nothing” after Assad in 2013 crossed Obama’s own “red line.”


With US troops already prepositioned in Syria, Russia reeling from US-organized mobs in the streets and US-Persian Gulf sponsored terrorism unfolding beneath them in its metro systems, the latest alleged "sarin attack" is most certainly yet another staged event, just as was exposed and described by Seymour Hersh in 2014.

Trump, like Obama and Bush before him, has omitted any substantial evidence implicating the Syrian government, and like his predecessors, he is attempting to rush the nation and its allies into a course of action before evidence and reason can be applied to unraveling the events surrounding this latest incident.

Also omitted from the Trump administration's rhetoric, as well as that of voices across US-European media, is the fact that Idlib is the defacto capital of Al Qaeda affiliates. In other words, the US is attempting to rush into action in defense of one of the last remaining, and now endangered bastions of Al Qaeda in Syria.

With US missiles already sailing into Syrian military targets and as the US attempts to stampede the world into further action, even notoriously dishonest propagators of US propaganda, including the Associated Press, have aired doubts about the latest attack. In AP's aforementioned article, it also states:

U.S. officials said there were some indications nerve gas had been used, though they suggested it could also be another in a series of chlorine gas attacks by Assad’s military. Chlorine isn’t a banned chemical substance, though it cannot be used as a weapon of war.
AP also claims that "witnesses" saw Syrian and Russian jets engaged in the alleged attacks. Russia's motivation for deploying chemical weapons across a battlefield it has utterly frustrated America's agenda upon defies logic and reason.


A US-sponsored, staged attack, however, makes perfect sense and fits well into a pattern of deceit, murder and mayhem that has punctuated virtually all aspects of modern American foreign policy. Even as the repercussions of American deceit versus Iraq continue to unfold in cities like Mosul, the US appears poised to predicate another entire war and the destruction of another entire nation on tales of "weapons of mass destruction."
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:55 pm

Virginia senator: Assad not behind chemical weapons attack
http://wavy.com/2017/04/07/virginia-senator-assad-not-behind-chemical-weapons-attack/

Image

LEESBURG, Va. (WAVY) — On Friday, a Virginia state senator said President Donald Trump is making a mistake about Syria.

It was around this time last year that Sen. Richard Black (R-Leesburg) was in Syria. While there, he met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“My point was to bring peace to the Middle East,” said Sen. Black.

Now, in 2017, people in the Middle East are still dying. Dozens of civilians died after a chemical weapons attack earlier this week.

As a result, Trump took action by launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase.

Sen. Black immediately took to social media in response. He sent out a stream of tweets and a statement. The state senator says there’s no motive for Assad to have launched any chemical attacks within his own country and “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

As a former top prosecutor and head of the criminal law division at the Pentagon, he says motive is the first thing to look for. He can’t find it.

“[Assad’s] winning on every front,” he said. “Why — if he felt that it was so compelling to drop sarin gas and to cause the condemnation of the world — why would he not attack enemy armored formations, enemy soldiers who were dug in and entrenched. Why on earth would he make a small attack on a group of civilians?”

Sen. Black insists the chemical attack was the work of terrorists, tweeting: “Only way ISIS can defeat Pres. Assad is to draw U.S. into the war. What better way than stage an attack on women/children?”

“Why would we take the word of terrorists about the gas attack when killing innocent civilians is what they engage in, not President Assad,” said Sen. Black.

President Trump, however, disagrees.

“I think what Assad did is terrible,” the president said Thursday.

Sen. Black says he’s been a supporter of Trump, but not of his latest move.

“I’m deeply, deeply concerned that he is making a major blunder that is going to be very costly for the United States,” said Sen. Black. “I still have his bumper sticker on my car, but if we do an all-out war against Syria, the bumper sticker comes off.”




At a time when all the foreign policy "experts" in Washington want us to believe they know it all, that what is needed is US force to overthrow the Syrian government, Virginia State Senator Richard Black (R-Loudoun) traveled to Syria to see for himself what's going on. We get his impressions in today's Liberty Report.


Image

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 18295
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 8226

Postby Masato » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:58 pm

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:25 pm

Redneck wrote:This is probably what was needed to happen in order to reawaken a lot of truth researchers who thought that Trump represented genuine change.

The really tragic part about it is that his popularity will increase from this massively. He's now being praised by the MSM that has done nothing but trash him until now, and he's in agreement with the likes of Hillary, McCain, Merkel and the Neocons.

Trump advocates such as Ann Coulter, Milo Y and Paul Joseph Watson have condemned Trump for the attack, but he can afford to lose their support when he's just gained the support of the people that until now, were making his Presidency difficult.

He's also dispelled the in bed with Russia theory by attacking Syria.


if only it hadn't had to come to this... if only someone had tried to warn us...

Image

you nailed it. I have a feeling Trump would drop his anti-establishment support in a heartbeat for MSM & establishment acceptance (which he has always wanted IMO, despite saying otherwise). this was proven (IMO) in how hard & fast he went after the Freedom Caucus. you know I never thought he was ever anti-establishment to begin with, but the way he turned on a quickness was kind of a surprise. he's not even faking it anymore.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:35 pm

Rep. Gabbard under fire after refusing to accept ‘Assad did chemical attack’ without proof
https://www.rt.com/usa/384169-tulsi-gabbard-syria-strike-assad/

Image

Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has provoked a backlash from senior Democrats after refusing to take Syrian President Bashar Assad’s complicity in the Idlib chemical attack at face value and demanding proof.

Speaking live on CNN in the aftermath of the US missile strike against the Syrian airfield near Homs, Gabbard said she remained “skeptical” of the allegations, and reminded the host of the destructive invasions in Libya and Iraq, the latter based on a false intelligence pretext. The Democratic representative from Hawaii also called out US President Donald Trump for the “reckless” and “unconstitutional” attack.




The remarks infuriated some “progressive” Democratic figures, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Howard Dean and former Hillary Clinton policy director Neera Tanden, now the President of the Center for American Progress, a pro-Democratic Party think tank. The two suggested on Twitter that Gabbard, who also famously visited Syria for a covert “fact-finding” mission, should be expelled from Congress for her doubt of Assad’s guilt.

“People of Hawaii’s 2nd district – was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?” Tander wrote on Twitter on Friday, referring to Gabbard’s recent comments she made to CNN.

Dean, who served as Vermont Governor from 1991 to 2003 and led the DNC from 2005 to 2009, branded Gabbard’s stance on Syria “a disgrace.”

“Gabbard should not be in Congress,” he wrote on Twitter on Sunday. Asked by one of the users why the former Governor did not display a similar indignation over “Hillary Clinton’s mistakes,” Dean responded: “Engaging in dialogue isn’t the problem. It’s claiming there is doubt Assad uses chemical warfare.”

In an interview to the channel which aired on Saturday, Gabbard refused to be convinced by the undisclosed evidence that Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have cited when justifying the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian airbase.

Despite being repeatedly pressed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to unconditionally accept the so far unrevealed intelligence, Gabbard retorted: “Last time I checked, Wolf, the Congress has the authority and responsibility for declaring war, for authorizing use of military force.”

“Whether the President or the Pentagon or the Secretary of State say they have the evidence the fact remains that they have not brought that evidence before Congress, they have not brought that evidence before the American people and have not sought authorization from Congress to launch this military attack on another country,” Gabbard said.


Image

She went on to argue that the US has been waging an illegal proxy war aimed at toppling the Syrian government “for years,” which has only resulted in the “suffering of the Syrian people, hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions of refugees and the strengthening of terrorist groups in Syria like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

Gabbard, who is an Iraq War veteran and sits on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, cited the Iraqi invasion as an example of “completely destructive, counterproductive war.”

The congresswoman courted controversy after going on a private fact-finding mission to Syria earlier this year, after it was revealed that she met with Assad, as well as with civil, religious, and opposition leaders and civilians.

“Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and Al-Qaeda / Al-Nusra or ISIS – they are all the same,” Gabbard said at the time, drawing strong criticism from the US establishment, with many accusing her of cozying up to Assad.

She has been a vocal opponent of Washington’s support for the rebels in Syria, arguing that weapons often end up in the hands of the terrorists.

In December, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, designed to stop the US government from providing direct assistance to terrorist entities, urging to “prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups.”



User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm

‘They’re terrified that peace was going to break out’ – Ron Paul on US Syria strike
https://www.rt.com/usa/384021-ron-paul-syria-strike/#.WOlakZrOgIM.facebook

Image

“A victory of neo-conservatives” – that’s how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon.

Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus’ guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.

“I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn’t been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition.”

This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said, but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately.

“If any of this was true, I don’t know why they couldn’t wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn’t go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can’t think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it’s helping ISIS, because it’s helping Al-Qaeda.”

“From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things,” Paul added.

A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician told RT.

“I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn’t want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on.”

The Syrian situation now is “a victory for neo-conservatives, who’ve been looking for Assad to go,” Paul said.

“They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we’re there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess.

“I don’t believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it’s hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty.”

This policy clearly does not lead to peace, Paul told RT.

“The peace talks have ended now. They’re terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don’t expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future.”

Last but not least, the politician spoke out about the deeper reasons – and potential disastrous consequences – of the latest attack’s timing.

“I was wondering about the fact that the announcement came when Trump was talking to Xi [Jinping, the Chinese president]. And of course, [North] Korea’s high on the list of targets for our president and our administration. It might be a warning: this is what’s going to happen to you if you don’t do what we tell you. I just don’t like us being involved in so many countries, in their internal affairs; I think it’s so detrimental.”


Image

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 352

Postby Redneck » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:47 am

I never thought he was anti-establishment, he made it quite clear that he was pro the Military Industrial Complex and he was mouthing off about Iran and China the entire time. I did hope that his view on Syria that it was Obama's "rebels" who were the terrorists, was genuine, but it seems that he has delegated foreign policy to Mattis and the Neocons, and he has quickly learned that a President always becomes more popular when he starts bombing other countries, or threatening them, like he's going to do now with North Korea. The 'deplorable groups' on social media are now acting exactly like conservatives did when Bush attacked Iraq, blindly supporting it because 'Murica.

All I'm seeing in the Pro-Trump groups is that "it took balls' to do this, and they were "balls that Obama didn't have".

Fucking retards, Obama tried this exact scam in 2013 and now Trump is doing it for him.


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests