After the pro-rebel White Helmets claimed over the weekend that Syria’s Assad has “again” gassed his own citizens, President Trump is threatening massive retaliation. Russia has stated that it would strike any source of incoming missiles into Syria. Will President Trump listen to his neocon advisors and ignore Russian warnings? Are we about to blunder into WWIII without even any evidence? Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
False flag? Surprised that the website endorses something so conspiratorial.
It doesn’t. Antiwar.com carries a variety of material from a variety of persons with a variety of viewpoints. If the website endorses something it will say so.
I would still expect it to be challenged, imagine if for a second Ron Paul said that 9/11 was partly conducted with the aid of US intelligence. Usually this website has been taking distance from such views and when it is not there I find it puzzling.
Well, you just challenged it, didn’t you?
Some people claim that every attack is a false flag (just like some people, often the same people, claim that every school shooting is a theatrical production featuring “crisis actors”).
Ron Paul is not one of those people, but he does seem to think that this particular attack bears the hallmarks of a false flag.
I’m not given to describing every attack as a false flag either, but I would say the circumstantial evidence indicates that this one was more likely …
1) A chemical attack carried out by either the rebels or US special operators so that it could be blamed on Assad; or
2) No chemical attack at all, just a made up story; than
3) A chemical attack carried out by Assad’s military.
The circumstantial evidence is simple:
Assad’s forces were winning in the area without chemical weapons, and Trump was talking about pulling out of Syria. The use of chemical weapons was not militarily called for, and the ONLY likely result of using them would be to reverse Trump’s stated withdrawal policy and provide an excuse for continued occupation and rebellion support by the US coalition.
Does that mean that Assad’s forces didn’t carry out the attack? Not necessarily. He could be completely stupid (the evidence indicates otherwise), or he could have a rogue commander who carried out the attack without authorization (but we haven’t heard of any heads rolling over that), or whatever.
Right now, Occam’s Razor says that “false flag” or something similar is the most reasonable conclusion.
It should at least be investigated before military action takes place that could start up World War III.
Hard to find a provocation and or war with the major players that isn’t one. Think about how many conflicts were not provoked by some sketchy incidents.
When the powerful want war, who needs evidence? Just promote lies and bomb away!