Another False Flag attack in Syria to fan the flames of war. . .

[Phil Perry]

Phil, here's one from your backyard, an article by Jon Gaunt. Highly emotive, but interesting regardless.

I am Ashamed to be a BRIT

Yes Willie. . . .I saw that. 'Gaunty' is a little emotional I agree. ( You should hear his 'Rants' on 'Talk to me Radio' ! ) He writes for, amongst other Organs, 'Sputnik' ( as with this article ) and is a contributor to RT ( Russia Today ) online and appears on their TV news progs. Which is why I tend to view his articles with some care, as Pro-Russian bias of some sort must be expected. I can't see anything other than commonsense in that piece though to be fair. It's only what a significant number of the Brit public are saying anyway. It is interesting to note that he has been skeptical of Government military actions for a very long time, He tried his best to stop the bombing of Libya, even going to talk to Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi and being filmed making a speech there supporting the Libyan leader, as the removal of him would cause chaos. He was vilified by the UK MSM for doing that and called a 'Traitor' He turned out to be Bang On the money in that regard. The 'Victory' press conference in Tripoli following the very public video 'murder by mob' of Colonel Ghaddafi, featuring the liberating 'Heroes' David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozi was cringeworthy at best.

 

What has happened since, is that lots of NGO faux 'Rescue' ships stand a few nautical miles off the Libyan coastline, waiting for overloaded rubber boatloads of African migrants, all of whom have paid lots of money to Libyan crooks for the cheap boats, and Privilege of being trafficked to Italy and Greece. All these Military interventions and regime changes seem to have unforeseen consequences highlighting the complete and utter Lack of forethought and strategic planning for 'What to do next' The only winners here are the Traffickers and the sharks in the Mediterranean. Not forgetting financiers of the NGO ships, such as offshoots of the George Soros and his Open (borders) foundation amongst other ratbags.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

One America News channel - broadly confirms what Robert Fisk reported from Douma, Syria. According to Wikipedia, The owner of this channel is very Pro -Trump. . .( ? ) not doing him any favours with this then.

 

Runtime 10 Min.

 

 

[octave]

One America News channel - broadly confirms what Robert Fisk reported from Douma, Syria. According to Wikipedia, The owner of this channel is very Pro -Trump. . .( ? ) not doing him any favours with this then.

Runtime 10 Min.

 

This vid is no longer available. I believe that Asad is popular in Damascus. Pollies in any country will go walkabout when they know they are in friendly territory. Not necessarily dismissing it just applying a skeptical filter.

 

We seem to be living in a time where people seem to be drifting to extreme and often hysterical views (on all sides) Don't want Hilary Clinton as president why use verifiable facts when you suggest involvement in pizza parlour pedo ring (pizzagate) Pizzagate conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

 

Some people who oppose strikes on Syria (which I do) seem to need to believe that US UK and France etc are evil and Asad Putin and Iran are quite delightful and merely misunderstood, this and indeed the opposite of this are unlikely to be totally true.

 

I guess the truth will come out eventually.

 

Again I oppose missile strikes on Syria. I also oppose all the parties who continue this civil war. I especially oppose the use of indiscriminate weapons whether it be chemical or barrel bombs etc. I do not want kids blown apart (whether or not their parents are terrorists) merely to make me feel more secure.

 

 

[willedoo]

One America News channel - broadly confirms what Robert Fisk reported from Douma, Syria. According to Wikipedia, The owner of this channel is very Pro -Trump. . .( ? ) not doing him any favours with this then.

An interesting clip, Phil. To add something purely speculative, I think from here on, it all hinges on the integrity of the OPCW inspectors. Their brief is not to determine blame, only to look for possible evidence. So publicly, they can only state the position that they found evidence of a chemical attack, or that they found no evidence of the same. That's a lot of pressure on those people, especially if they don't find evidence. If they make that publicly known, then it makes the Three Stooges look bad. Plan B is already in action with the media reporting on fears that the dreaded Russians may have tampered with evidence. So the fall back position seems to be that The Ruskies scraped up all the chemical evidence, gathered up all the victims, living and dead, beamed them up to some other world and then exercised some sort of mind control over witnesses to make them change their story.

 

I think we would have to be rocket scientists to determine the truth from the many sources now days. As Octave said 'We seem to be living in a time where people seem to be drifting to extreme and often hysterical views (on all sides) '. Unfortunately the MSM is as prone to extreme and often hysterical views as is the alternative media. Many discount alternative media, social media, bloggers etc. as credible news sources, but when the U.S.A. is pressed to provide evidence to back their bombings or unilateral sanctions, they always quote social media reports as the new gospel. When pressed further by journalists, the next line is always that they have indisputable evidence that cannot be divulged due to national security issues. And because of that indisputable evidence that they can't tell anyone, they are confident that they are right. 'Confident' is now enough to justify an act of war against against a sovereign state. Hell yeah, why not. A good old bombing, a few high fives and we all feel much better about ourselves.

 

It certainly is the fog of war.

 

And to Octave, I can understand your logic in looking to facts and not emotion with these issues. As you can see, the above part of my post is more emotive that verifiable fact. I did say it was speculative. And we can look at the bright side; if we weren't having these debates, we'd be sitting around talking about little rag and pipe aeroplanes ( probably just as controversial ).

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Whilst this clip is interesting, I do try to apply the same skeptical filters I would apply to any news story. I do not have any direct evidence to challenge this explanation of events but I would have preferred it if there was video of the conversations this man had with the locals, some video of the town square some video taken in the hospital, perhaps a video interview with the doctor he talked to. To be ultra-skeptical this is a clip of a man telling us what people told him without any supporting evidence..

I must again point out that we hold a similar position with regards to going to war.Whether the chemical attacks are real or not does not change my belief of the folly of going to war.

 

I think what made me get into this conversation was the provocative title you gave to this thread. the term "false flag" immediately makes many of us think of the conspiracy nuts. I can't really tell whether you think it never happened or was a so-called "false flag" attack.

 

This vid is no longer available. I believe that Asad is popular in Damascus. Pollies in any country will go walkabout when they know they are in friendly territory. Not necessarily dismissing it just applying a skeptical filter.

 

We seem to be living in a time where people seem to be drifting to extreme and often hysterical views (on all sides) Don't want Hilary Clinton as president why use verifiable facts when you suggest involvement in pizza parlour pedo ring (pizzagate) Pizzagate conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

 

Some people who oppose strikes on Syria (which I do) seem to need to believe that US UK and France etc are evil and Asad Putin and Iran are quite delightful and merely misunderstood, this and indeed the opposite of this are unlikely to be totally true.

 

I guess the truth will come out eventually.

 

Again I oppose missile strikes on Syria. I also oppose all the parties who continue this civil war. I especially oppose the use of indiscriminate weapons whether it be chemical or barrel bombs etc. I do not want kids blown apart (whether or not their parents are terrorists) merely to make me feel more secure.

Quickie from Pearson Sharp, the reporter shown in the OAN video. I doubt if it was MY pathetic email that prompted this, ( HAHAHA ) but others have obviously asked for more information.

 

[ATTACH]49299._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

If there is no internet,. . .I wonder how he got that Twitter message out. . .

 

As many people predicted, and to be honest, I fully expected. . .( anything which goes against the Establishment narrative always IS ) well respected UK Journoe Robert Fisk and his report from Douma has been hysterically trashed, mainly by social media in the UK today as an 'Arab Loving Scumbag' etc. It has been comprehensively ignored by UK MSN.

 

I'm waiting for Sharp's report. This also, I predict, will be denied as false, however it turns out. He currently needs a film crew, and a translator or two, as he has admitted to being alone on the site. . .. Since there have been reports of the OPCW inspectors being shot at . . .this may be a big ask. I wonder who is doing the alleged shooting ( rhet )

 

[octave]

Since there have been reports of the OPCW inspectors being shot at . . .this may be a big ask. I wonder who is doing the alleged shooting ( rhet )

 

It is a shame that the inspection team could not inspect earlier. it would seem to me that it would be in the Russians/Syrians interest if there is nothing to see to get the inspectors in at the earliest opportunity.

 

I guess you are suggesting that shooting at the inspection team must have been done by locals to deter an inspection that might find no evidence. I can see a motive here BUT rationally there is also great motivation for Russia/Syria to create security concerns in order to deter or delay inspection. Why is it that Pearson Sharp was able to go in without being shot at but the inspection tream cannot ?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Good Question. Who has the most to gain in a propaganda 'war' such as this ? again rhetorical as the guesses will be no doubt many and varied since there is so much geopolitik going on in that region orchestrated by interests both large and small. Syria, Russia, Iran, then U.S. / Uk proxies, plus Israel stirring the pudding with it's own non-coordinated air attack on a Syrian air base. . .

 

Highly complex situation.

 

It is also interesting to note that neither the Syrian Govt. nor the Russians have even Mentioned any casualties resulting from the US /UK /France missile strike. 'Up to' 105 missiles fired from three directions, including eight fired by four UK Tornado crews, but not a lot of damage SEEN to be reported by Syrian news. Odd or deliberate safe targeting ? Russian military commander insisting that seventy one incoming missiles were intercepted and destroyed, although there is only video of ONE of these actually being blown up in flight. . . Many large gaps in the story here. My apologies also, I should have added above, that the report about the OPCW team being shot at were 'Unconfirmed' source of this was LBC radio news in London. The big four have not mentioned this AFAIK.

 

In the meantime we wait for more on the spot reports. Assuming that there ARE any moderately beleiveable ones forthcoming.

 

Here is a screenshot ( I have no twitter account ) of a social media report I saw early this morning. According to the person who posted it, this is from a Russian reporter in Syria. . .

 

[ATTACH]49302._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[willedoo]

Now Roger's put in his two bob's worth:

 

 

[Downunder]

It is a shame that the inspection team could not inspect earlier. it would seem to me that it would be in the Russians/Syrians interest if there is nothing to see to get the inspectors in at the earliest opportunity.

I guess you are suggesting that shooting at the inspection team must have been done by locals to deter an inspection that might find no evidence. I can see a motive here BUT rationally there is also great motivation for Russia/Syria to create security concerns in order to deter or delay inspection. Why is it that Pearson Sharp was able to go in without being shot at but the inspection tream cannot ?

Russians were there on April 10......

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I didn't suggest anything actually, if anyone really DID shoot at the inspoection team, it is my contention that it would have been rebels, as they were the only people which could gain from this. iN ANY EVENT, if this CW attack really DID happen, are you suggesting that the OPCW with all their technical instrumentation could not find a trace of chemical weapon agents ? To be quite honest I have lost interest in the whole affair. IF there is a propaganda narrative, widely supported by anti-Assad factions in the West, then they will make sure that the appropriate conclusion is reached and the whole thing will rumble on until the next time.

 

Here is a 7 minute video of Bashar Al Assad driving himself around Damascus in a small car. He does not appear to be very concerned for all the people who hate him so much for dropping chemical bombs on them regularly over the last seven years. The whole thing feels wrong to me.

 

Shane Keshken ( American 'Journalist' )

 

Assad Drives himself along with a sole reporter. No huge convoys. No Armoured Cars. No Closed roads. Obeys traffic rules. Stops at TRAFFIC lights. Unheard of by any leader. Especially in a country that is at war for past 7 years. Does this look like someone that kills his Own people? There is extra effort on the part of intelligence agencies to wage propaganda and information war in Syria like they have done before.

 

 

I have sifted through loads of various reports on this subject and I think further speculation is pointless. I doubt if anyone will ever get the actual truth.

 

 

[spacesailor]

They're sending in

 

SUPERMAN

 

he'll fix everything. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

Looks like another one coming if the sources are right.

 

White Helmets are helping Syrian militants prepare ‘false flag’ chemical attack – Idlib residents

 

The Russian intelligence was right about the last chemical incident, having warned about it for a couple of weeks prior to the incident. It will be interesting to see if they're right this time. A case of watch this space I guess.

 

 

[octave]

Looks like another one coming if the sources are right.

White Helmets are helping Syrian militants prepare ‘false flag’ chemical attack – Idlib residents

 

The Russian intelligence was right about the last chemical incident, having warned about it for a couple of weeks prior to the incident. It will be interesting to see if they're right this time. A case of watch this space I guess.

 

I find it amusing that the "can't trust the mainstream media" crowd have such low standards when assessing nonmainstream media. This article is pretty vague and shoddy.

 

"The notorious White Helmets have brought chemicals, protective gear and cameras to militant-controlled Idlib in Syria, in an apparent preparation of yet another false-flag attack, locals told the Russian Reconciliation Center.

 

A convoy of six vehicles, bearing the emblems of the White Helmets, reportedly arrived in the capital of Idlib province over the weekend, the head of the Russian Reconciliation Center, major general Aleksey Tsygankov, told journalists on Wednesday."

 

The "notorious" (this is asserted without supplying any evidence). Then the detailed assertion is supported only by a quote by Major General Aleksey Tsygankov a Russian military officer, no hard evidence is a quoted or referred to. To take this a gospel is rather naive, it might be true but as a rational and intelligent person I ask myself is there any advantage in this person being less than truthful. He may be telling the truth or he may be lying, but again no evidence.

 

"One of the trucks was loaded with missiles and canisters containing unknown substances, as well as protective gear and filming equipment. Local residents reported seeing four persons, wearing hazmat protection gear, filling the warheads with this liquid and some unknown powder. The convoy then reportedly left for the small town of Maarat al-Numaan, south of the city of Idlib"

 

Whilst missiles, I suppose are likely to be loaded on the back of a truck, I am wondering how likely it would be for bystanders to see filming equipment which is likely to be gopro sized equipment. I would seem illogical to film "eyewitness" style footage of a "staged" attack" on professional large equipment, doesn't make sense to me. Why do this in such a way that there are so many witnesses (who decline to be named)

 

Finally, I feel that the pictures in this article are a bit misleading. To those who do not look deeper, these pictures may seem to support the assertions in the article but the first picture is a file picture and to be fair is acknowledged as such. I am quite familiar with the work of Hasam Katan and the second picture was first posted in 2015 and is titled as being rebels launching conventional shells against the Syrian army (according to the original title)

 

If this article is correct I would assume that such a staged attack will no longer take place being that the cat is out of the bag, pretty shoddy false flag operation really. Should such an attack actually occur I, being hopefully, being a rational and intelligent person would ask my self who would have a motive or something to gain? It would seem to me to be foolish to deny that now would be the perfect time for the Syrian government IF THEY WERE SO INCLINED to launch a chemical attack since it would be easy to say. "see we predicted this"

 

I totally understand that western governments do tell lies but to then assume that the Russian government does not tell lies is naive and stupid.

 

Whenever I read an article that supports what I tend to believe I am much more meticulous with my fact-checking.

 

 

[willedoo]

Yes Octave, the first photo is a file photo and is obviously there just to visually depict the White helmets for any reader unfamiliar with them. The second photo is a link to an older article on a related subject and has nothing to do with the article in question. RT always have such links on a news page as do most other media outlets.

 

I also like to look at these things rationally and especially motive as you mentioned. In my way of thinking, the government has nothing to gain and and everything to lose by launching chemical attacks on civilians. Strategically, they are of no military value and would only alienate them more with the rest of the world. On the reverse side of the coin, the insurgents have nothing to lose and everything to gain with a false flag attack putting pressure on the government and gaining a reaction against them by western powers. They have the motive, the government doesn't.

 

As I said, it will be interesting to see if it does unfold in the next weeks. I doubt the rebels would hold back just because it's predicted by Russian military intelligence and is reported in their press. It didn't change things last time and they know their targeted Western audience doesn't follow those news sources.

 

Just curious as to who are the "can't trust the mainstream media" crowd that have such low standards when assessing nonmainstream media that you are referring to. In relation to the link I posted, we haven't heard from anyone else on the forum since posting, and I would certainly hope you are not referring to myself. If you re read my post you will see that I did write if the sources are right. I'm personally not that naive that I quote any news item, MSM or non MSM, as gospel.

 

The evidence supporting this article is as equally flimsy as the evidence proving guilt with the last chemical incident.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[octave]

. Strategically, they are of no military value and would only alienate them more with the rest of the world

They could alienate the rest of the world unless they could convince the rest of the world that they did not do it. Convincing the rest of the world that the separatist did it would alienate them from the rest of the world - surely?

 

What would the Syrian government have to gain? Terrorizing the civilian population into losing the will to fight has been tried many times before for instance v1 and v2 bombs during WW2 were not designed to remove strategic targets but to convince the civilian population to give up. Assad, of course, would like to win the war and surely a frightened civilian population could work towards this end, I can't see my logic is flawed here but always willing to consider well-constructed argument.

 

Just curious as to who are the "can't trust the mainstream media" crowd that have such low standards when assessing nonmainstream media that you are referring to. In relation to the link I posted, we haven't heard from anyone else on the forum since posting, and I would certainly hope you are not referring to myself. If you re read my post you will see that I did write if the sources are right. I'm personally not that naive that I quote any news item, MSM or non MSM, as gospel.

I am being more general here. It has become quite common for people to post claims with the rider that "I read fact x, I don't know if it is true but this is what I read" This has become the hallmark of fake news. People like Alex Jones say they have heard about the paedophile pizza parlor and report it Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Apologizes For Promoting 'Pizzagate' his defence, "I only reported what others said" but of course there are now people who still believe it. Not accusing you of this but it is quite common.

 

In terms of quality of analysis, as an example read this article. Note how it rules out some evidence because it is not solid enough. Note how it is more analytical. Syria chemical attack: the evidence

 

I have argued this with a friend of mine and eventually, I realized that his logic was this - Some of the rebels are islamists therefore since Assad is against them then that is good. I do understand this somewhat, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. but for me, these issues are never that simple and I am unwilling to jump to conclusions to support my gut feeling.