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

[Phil Perry]

I guess with a thing like this, either the truth will eventually come out in the wash or it will be lost in the fog of war.

For what it's worth, here's my two bob's worth.

 

At this stage, no internationally verified evidence has been produced. So far, the world has seen video of wet children.

 

Now hypothetically, if it really did happen it would be a crime scene. Standard procedure in any criminal investigation is to establish who had motive.

 

Assad, who has been on a roll for a long time, had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He has the least motive of all suspects.

 

The rebels, who are losing badly, have nothing to lose and everything to gain. They have the most motive of all players. Trump has just recently announced a desire to pull out of Syria and spoil their game and they don't want that. They also know that a large number of countries are dead against the Assad regime and will gladly grasp at anything the rebels accuse the regime of. They could say he's a transvestite and we'd believe them.

 

Somehow I don't believe the major powers would have had much of a hand in this, regardless whether is is real or fake. The main suspects in my opinion are the rebels wanting to prolong the war with the support of the former.

 

And here's the kicker. The last time this happened, Trumpet launched a heap of cruise missiles from U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean. The SAA shot down a few of them with their air defences, but the Russians, despite having S-400 systems based at Latakia, didn't intervene. Today, they have warned the U.S. that if they launch a strike, the Russians will shoot down the missiles and strike the launch site. Launch site means the U.S.S. Donald Cook and others converging in the Mediterranean.

 

So Russia is saying to the U.S., if you launch a response, we will attack U.S. Navy vessels. This would mean war between the U.S. and Russia. My point is this: Russia has claimed that their intelligence has determined it's false. It went public three weeks ago and they have had that time frame to prepare for it. If Assad did it and Russia is covering their tracks, why would Russia be prepared to enter global warfare for something like that.

 

It does point to the theory that the Russians know 100% that it's a fake, and have drawn a line in the sand. Otherwise why would they threaten something that could lead to WW3 and the the destruction of this planet. They're not fools.

Here is a short video from Euronews.

 

 

Your move Trumpy.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_Z1f84Ps8

[octave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_Z1f84Ps8

Phil, as I say I don't have a strong opinion because I do not have enough verified facts and I would suggest that you do not either. Whilst you dismiss MSM sources as being biased I wonder if you apply the same filters to people who espouse positions you agree with. What makes Peter Ford's information any more reliable than anyone else's. The first question I ask myself when I read a story or an interview is who is the author or interviewee. Where is their point of view coming from and what expertise do they have? Who is Peter Ford

 

In February 2017 Ford became a Director of the British Syrian Society, alongside President Assad's father-in-law Dr Fawaz Akhras.[6][7]

 

Peter Ford (diplomat) - Wikipedia

 

To, me it is important to apply the same rigour to those sources that happen to coincide with what I think as it is to those sources that I might feel are incorrect.

 

The big issue here is whether we should go to war and to that I say no we shouldn't. If chemical attacks occurred then I believe going to war will not help these people and will almost certainly make their lives worse and by the way perhaps another world war.

 

We seem to live in times of great polarisation. It seems one can only voice opposition to going to war if one accepts that Assad and Putin are misunderstood heroes and the governments of the west are evil (and by extension the people who voted for them) or that Assad and Putin are evil and west are saints (black hats and white hats).

 

I would just humbly suggest that a mature sophisticated analysis would suggest that nothing is that black and white.

 

 

[Downunder]

[Phil Perry]

Phil, as I say I don't have a strong opinion because I do not have enough verified facts and I would suggest that you do not either. Whilst you dismiss MSM sources as being biased I wonder if you apply the same filters to people who espouse positions you agree with. What makes Peter Ford's information any more reliable than anyone else's. The first question I ask myself when I read a story or an interview is who is the author or interviewee. Where is their point of view coming from and what expertise do they have? Who is Peter Ford

In February 2017 Ford became a Director of the British Syrian Society, alongside President Assad's father-in-law Dr Fawaz Akhras.[6][7]

 

Peter Ford (diplomat) - Wikipedia

 

To, me it is important to apply the same rigour to those sources that happen to coincide with what I think as it is to those sources that I might feel are incorrect.

 

The big issue here is whether we should go to war and to that I say no we shouldn't. If chemical attacks occurred then I believe going to war will not help these people and will almost certainly make their lives worse and by the way perhaps another world war.

 

We seem to live in times of great polarisation. It seems one can only voice opposition to going to war if one accepts that Assad and Putin are misunderstood heroes and the governments of the west are evil (and by extension the people who voted for them) or that Assad and Putin are evil and west are saints (black hats and white hats).

 

I would just humbly suggest that a mature sophisticated analysis would suggest that nothing is that black and white.

 

Thank you for your post and appraisal of the situation Octave. I appreciate it.

 

I would also suggest that another analysis suggests that Governments and media together seem to be urgently pushing for immediate action with precious little evidence other than that from one source. Precisely the same thing occurred with Afghanistan, following the World trade centre attack. Then Gulf war One. Same with Libya. All now proven beyond doubt to have been entered into on false evidence, loudly hailed and supported enthusiastically by the same Governments and Mainstream media. All of these places have descended into chaos, despite repeated Western interdiction and are all now failed states and hotbeds of jihadist violence with 'Our' military personnel still there after all this time.

 

I am sorry that you do not approve of my cynicism with regard to the output of the msm, regrettably; mine is reinforced on a regular basis due to other ( non militaristic) subjects.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Hi Downunder,

 

I didn't watch the video, but I noticed on the still it says "The truth about..." and then "Fox News".

 

The two are mutually incompatible.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Hi Downunder,

I didn't watch the video, but I noticed on the still it says "The truth about..." and then "Fox News".

 

The two are mutually incompatible.

Yes, odd though,. . that they are the only media outlet urging caution about bombing Syria. Still, as you say, they're just a bunch of hard right looney Trumpist rednecks as we know.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Phil, I don't think Octave is disputing your cynicism. I sure don't. We are just saying that it would take multiple trusted sources, all reporting the same background to a story, before believing a story. And consistency over time. Such is the depth of my cynicism of all reports about wars (and politics in general). As you rightly point out, media have been instrumental in starting international agression far Too often in our recent past. And as you say, those 'interventions' have not turned out well for anybody.

 

 

[octave]

s you rightly point out, media have been instrumental in starting international agression far Too often in our recent past.

 

My memory of the coverage of the 2003 Iraq war was that the ABC was heavily chastised for it's critical coverage of our involvement

 

Standard fare for 'biased' ABC to come under attack

 

May 31 2003

 

Senator Alston has attacked the ABC for its critical reportage of Australian involvement in Iraq. This is not exactly new. The ABC is continuously under attack from the Government for bias when it shows "critical" reportage of Government policy.

 

I also have vague memories of the BBC reporting about the government 'sexing up" their dossier to build a case for war

 

I am not a cynic but a skeptic, I welcome evidence.

 

Apart from that, I am totally in agreement that we should not go to war (but then I am a lefty, we never want to go to war).

 

.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yes, odd though,. . that they are the only media outlet urging caution about bombing Syria. Still, as you say, they're just a bunch of hard right looney Trumpist rednecks as we know.

Coming over to the dark side, Phil?

 

 

[Downunder]

Hi Downunder,I didn't watch the video, but I noticed on the still it says "The truth about..." and then "Fox News".

 

The two are mutually incompatible.

That's what is so extraordinary about it! They are calling it (the gas attack) a lie .....

 

 

[spacesailor]

AND

 

Now the bombs drop,!

 

Where to from here ? hopefully Peace will win through.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Downunder]

Them bloody yanks are war mongers!

 

 

[spacesailor]

OR

 

The English

 

They went to war with Hitler on the last big one, Maybe THERESA MAY wants to get one UP on (Chamberlain declared war on Germany on 3 September, 1939.).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Coming over to the dark side, Phil?

Ooooooh. . .I dunno. . .gimme time to think about it Marty. . . . . .it's not that I'm FAR RIGHT. . .I'm just not FAR FAR FAR FAR LEFT. And that is not directed at you, as an admitted Left leaning person. . Far Right is what the UK media and Establishment use to dismiss criticism from anyone who doesn't agree with their Sabre rattling stance.

 

Curious that all the targets of the Tomahawks were an empty, evacuated airfield, . . .Empty buildings, and in one case, one that the IAF ( Israelis) had flattened a couple of days earlier. . . The OPCW inspectors were supposed to be going in to Douma, Eastern Ghouta Today, irrespective of the raid, and from what I can gather from Arabic, Turkish and other outlets, none of the missiles were targeted at the building where the alleged chemical attack took place. So what evidence there is, should be readily available. We shall see. Or perhaps have more evidence to see if this attack was pure Theatre for Trumpy to use to placate the NeoCons. . .who knows ?.

 

Kind regards,. . .

 

Phil ( aka Ghengis )

 

 

[nomadpete]

Ok Atilla.

 

I get your drift......

 

 

[octave]

.I'm just not FAR FAR FAR FAR LEFT.

 

It seems to me that the idea of left and right has become outdated as both of these sides have fractured into subgroups. During most of my life right meant pro-intervention in other countries free trade anti protectionism less social welfare and less universal health care. The left was going to war, pro protectionism pro low-cost education and healthcare and for a social welfare safety net (OK these are generalizations but reasonably accurate.)

 

I left the military just as gulf war one was starting up (under conservative George Bush Snr.) My military colleagues regarded anyone who opposed the war (me) as a bleeding heart liberal peacenik.

 

It has always been the left that has opposed war, certainly in my lifetime. From my earliest memories of the Vietnam war, I can only remember lefties wanting the troops brought home or opposing our involvement i.e. Gulf war 1 gulf war 2 Afghanistan etc.

 

It is not so easy now to use the terms left and right in politics. Amongst our conservative (Liberal party) we have wets and dries, social progressives and social conservatives and many more. On one hand, the orange buffoon is hard right but then seems to favour protectionism and tariffs rather than free trade.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Can't argue with that.

 

[ATTACH]49291._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[willedoo]

I see on the news tonight that our fearless leader has stated that there's no place in the world for chemical weapons, not in Syria, nor in the streets of the U.K..

 

No mention of the fact that the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world is in the good old U.S.A.

 

No mention of the fact that Russia complied on time with the chemical weapons treaty between them and the U.S. and destroyed their stockpiles on time, last year.

 

No mention of the fact that the U.S. reneged on the deal and have said that they can't do it for several more years because they financially can't afford it ( Putin made the comment that their military budget is one tenth of the U.S., yet they still managed to do it).

 

So Malcolm, do you honestly think us pleb voters are absolute fools. Why not show some integrity for a change and put pressure on the owners of the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world to destroy their stockpiles? The short answert is that you don't have the cojones to stand up to your masters.

 

Malcolm, you were the one that said there's no place for chemical weapons in the world (the world includes the U.S. last time I checked an atlas), so put your money where your mouth is. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I agree whole heartedly will you Willedoo

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Phil Perry]

It seems to me that the idea of left and right has become outdated as both of these sides have fractured into subgroups. During most of my life right meant pro-intervention in other countries free trade anti protectionism less social welfare and less universal health care. The left was going to war, pro protectionism pro low-cost education and healthcare and for a social welfare safety net (OK these are generalizations but reasonably accurate.)

I left the military just as gulf war one was starting up (under conservative George Bush Snr.) My military colleagues regarded anyone who opposed the war (me) as a bleeding heart liberal peacenik.

 

It has always been the left that has opposed war, certainly in my lifetime. From my earliest memories of the Vietnam war, I can only remember lefties wanting the troops brought home or opposing our involvement i.e. Gulf war 1 gulf war 2 Afghanistan etc.

 

It is not so easy now to use the terms left and right in politics. Amongst our conservative (Liberal party) we have wets and dries, social progressives and social conservatives and many more. On one hand, the orange buffoon is hard right but then seems to favour protectionism and tariffs rather than free trade.

In the UK, the only time I ever heard the term 'Wets' used, was in reference to ( always Conservatives - Never Labour ) MPs, who refused to go along willingly with foreign military interdiction, and also were vehemently opposed to further integration into the then EEA by refusing to vote for the signing of the Maastrict Treaty. . ( Something Major would not allow a public plebiscite upon. . .Knowing full well Exactly where it was leading. . . but, in effect, being 'Economical with the Truth' to Parliament and insisting it was just about 'Trade'). The 'Right Honourable' John Major. . . ( PM until 1997 ) openly called them 'Barstards' 'Lefties' in the UK nowadays are associated with Open borders, More Islamic immigration, Full socialism and 'Social Justice' and a money tree to pay for it all. Renationalise all industries without compensation, Railways, the lot.. . ie Marxism. No good arguing with them with examples of failed marxist places in the past, Venezuela is lauded as a paradise, yet they have very little food, are eating wildlife and have run out of bogroll. ..

 

At that time, I do not recall anyone being called Left nor Right. I am told that, ( since I was working and resident in Australia through those years, and only got most of my Brit news from cuttings sent by my Mother ) that the term was a Media construct, forged into general public use by one or two leading newspapers of the era, The Times and the Guardian come to mind,. . sounds right as the Times, was a stalwart of establishment thinking, and the Guardian was the Government's paper of choice, and all Govt. / Civil Service posts were advertised therein.

 

Another term which has been over-used and it's generally accepted meaning twisted, is 'Progressive' This has been altered to ( Apparently ) mean the exact opposite . . .covering terms like Homophobia, Islamophobia, and 'Hate Crime'. Metcop ( London metropolitan police 'Service' ( the term 'FORCE' has been dropped ) now have two hundred officers assigned to monitor social media platforms for 'Hate Crimes' Sorry, I seem to be digressing here.

 

All our newspapers and TV /Radio stations were clamouring for a military attack on Syria last week. It got to fever pitch. Mrs May remembered ( evidently ) what happened to David Cameron when he tried to do this a few years ago following prompting by the U.S after another disputed 'Chemical Attack' and Parliament voted a definite NO by a huge majority on both sides of the House. So she just followed the U.S. and France anyhow, and did not ask Parliament for permission. ( ! )

 

Many of us 'Barstards' were shouting Noooo !. .. there's no evidence yet, wait for the OPCW report. But they went ahead anyway. I am pleased that our four RAF Tornado crews did not get shot down whilst firing their eight missiles from outside Syrian airspace, but I'd rather they were not involved at all .. I also hope that no innocents on the ground got killed or injured during this exercise.

 

I will now post an article from a Journalist that I never liked much, as he was a Marxist and used to edit a Communist newspaper ( check him out on Wiki whatsit ) Brendan O'Neill. I don't think much of Marxism / Communism, as it never seems to work,. and loads of people die. . .BUT, I read lots of things and I thought that this article contained some sense. Mr. O'Neill is now the editor of an organ called 'Spiked' I've heard of the term 'Virtue Signalling'. . . but Virtue Bombing ? ? ?

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-wests-virtue-bombing-of-syria-is-a-disastrous-mistake/21303#.WtQ7n9Pwa8U …

 

After you've read ( or Binned ) that,. . .here is a Facebook video which was posted on the Guido Fawkes blogsite <order-order.com> it was allegedly filmed around a week prior to that 'Chemical Attack' incident. It shows Bashar Al Assad going walkabout, with no security detail evident, in a shopping mall.

 

Happy Clappy ?. ..was it Pure Theatre ?. . . I have to wonder if that many people, including children could be coerced into pretending to be so happy . . .? what do YOU think. . I don't know the bloke who posted this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=605779686434220

 

Just received from Robert Fisk, from the INDEPENDENT ( UK Journalist in the Middle East for 40 years on the ground in Douma, Syria. . .( short sound clip ) youtu.be/JNcqBileaHU

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Was looking for more info On Robert Fisk, to check his pedigree. . .and found this reference by Author Craig Murray.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk

 

***** EDITED TO ADD *****

 

Robert Fisk's full report from Douma in the INDEPENDENT Online.

 

https://www.independent.co....

 

 

[octave]

Was looking for more info On Robert Fisk, to check his pedigree. . .and found this reference by Author Craig Murray.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk

Will have a look, tonight. Today is one of the few days in the week when octave has to pull his weight workwise!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Fair Play young man !. . .wish I had something financially enriching to do tomorrow. . . ( sobs ) But I know what you mean of course,. .. 'He who pays the Piper. . . ' etc. . .

 

 

[willedoo]

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

 

I am Ashamed to be a BRIT