Thursday, April 6, 2017

Trump Falls For Fake News About Syria

All they had to do was stage one false flag attack, and Trump threw his plans for Syria out the window:

THIS is why we need an "intelligence community" which can be trusted. In the US there is no such thing.

Here are the biggest questions about this whole affair, from Peter Hitchens:

Today’s frenzy over alleged use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair’s WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it inexactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.

How *can* trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told? How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports of gas attacks as ‘suspected’ or alleged, but most present them as established fact. ‘All the hallmarks’ means in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true.

Well, how can facts *be* independently established about such events? Not easily. Alas, that makes it appalling simple to make propaganda without ever facing serious checks.

The pressures on anyone communicating with western media from such places can only be imagined.

And then there is this simple point. Why would the Syrian government use gas at this stage in a war it has recently begun to win with conventional munitions? You don’t have to believe that the Assad state is saintly to ask this question, and I don’t believe that ...

Wicked and brutal they may well be, but they would have to be stupid and possibly mad to do such an thing, just as an important conference convenes in Brussels ... to discuss the future of Syria.

The military advantages would be tiny. Chemical weapons have not been widely used since the 1914-18 war not because soldiers have been especially tender, but because, though very nasty, they are not an especially effective weapon of war. In the 1939-45 war, many barbarous things were done, especially by largely lawless nations such as Germany and Japan, and indeed by the USSR. But gas was not used on the battlefield.

The political and diplomatic disadvantages would be huge. If Syria could be shown (as it has not yet been) to have used gas to kill children, it would mean total diplomatic isolation, and renewed calls in Britain and the USA (which only a few days ago abandoned its aim of overthrowing Assad ...) to intervene against Assad.

You can read the rest @

Clearly, logic strongly suggests that this was a false flag attack. Possible suspects include the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and/or Turkey.

REAL intelligence might help sort this out, but it's never about the intelligence, is it?


  1. Here is a study which suggests we should allow apes to make such important decisions for us (e.g., whether we should go to war):

  2. Here is another assessment suggesting Syria was not responsible for this "attack":

  3. And another, this one from Dr. Ron Paul: