Thread: Syria attack: US 'deliberately avoided bombing sarin stockpile at Assad airbase' duri

Published on
Friday, April 07, 2017
by Common Dreams

Observers Warn That Syria Attack is Trump's "Wag the Dog" Moment

Reports that Russia was warned about strike fuel accusations that military action was taken to distract from mounting domestic problems

by Lauren McCauley, staff writer

57 Comments


Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro appear in the 1997 film "Wag the Dog," about a political consultant and a Hollywood director who construct a fake war with Albania to distract the population from a sex scandal days ahead before a presidential election. (Screenshot via Phillip Caruso/www.phillipcaruso.com)


With tanking approval ratings, a failed attempt at producing healthcare legislation, and a swirling investigation into possible collusion with Russia, President Donald Trump's first hundred days were looking pretty bleak.

It was against this backdrop that the president late Thursday took unilateral and illegal military action against the Syrian government in alleged retaliation for Tuesday's chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians, though no proof was presented to confirm reports that President Bashar al-Assad had ordered the deadly strike.

Now, as many foreign governments, U.S. lawmakers, and the corporate media are lining up in support of the bombing campaign, observers say it appears like a 'Wag the Dog' moment for Trump, distracting the opposition while conveniently flipping the script about Russia.

In a column on Friday, The Nation's Greg Grandin pointed out that with the one assault, the president successfully splintered the Democratic resistance, won the praise of the media, and changed the story of his friendly relations with the Kremlin.

Similarly, New Republic columnist and Georgia Southern University assistant professor Jared Yates Sexton outlined in a lengthy Twitter thread how the strikes have effectively changed the "entire conversation and narrative," writing:

War changes entire conversation and narrative. Always has, always will. We've entered new territory and it's important to understand that. Already networks are talking about operations, the weapons. Instead of links of Russian suspicions, we have footage of missiles launching. Russia was warned, and might have been involved in the gassing, they had enough time to move troops. Yet, Trump "stood up" to Putin. If you think for a second this wasn't organized with Putin's blessing and cooperation...but yet it changes the conversation. Little in way of results, but yet missile launchings are on a constant loop now. Trump projects strength, decisiveness. War wipes the slate clean, changes all attention. You can be all things to all people with the aid of war, and we're seeing that now. Next couple of days we're going to see media go into War-Mode, which is just slobbering over our armed forces expertise.

There'll be no time to talk about Nunes, the Nuclear Option, Russian investigations. Now it's Trump—Commander-In-Chief.

In his column, Grandin also referenced the New York Times' reporting that "The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime."

"In other words," Grandin wrote, "the object of Trump's Tomahawks was not Syria's capacity to deploy gas, but domestic liberal opponents who base their resistance to Trump entirely on the premise that he is anti-American because he is too close to Putin, and that he is a traitor to a bipartisan policy of humanitarian military interventionism.

He bombs, drones, and kills, but he doesn't do it, like his predecessors, in the name of humanity. Until yesterday."

Many of Trump's conservative supporters have also come out against the military action for the very reason that it goes against the president's campaign rhetoric that he would avoid unnecessary wars. Indeed, many of Trump's former statements, and tweets, have come back to haunt him in recent days, particularly those criticizing former President Barack Obama for threatening to attack Syria in 2013.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...wag-dog-moment

Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About WMD Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Use Chemical Weapons


by George Washington

Apr 11, 2017 4:45 PM

Former U.N weapons inspector Scott Ritter warned before the start of the Iraq war that claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were false.

Sunday, Ritter wrote that current claims that the leader of Syria launched a chemical weapons attack was false:

Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible for the release of the chemicals that caused the deaths of so many civilians.

No one disputes the fact that a Syrian air force SU-22 fighter-bomber conducted a bombing mission against a target in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017. The anti-regime activists in Khan Sheikhoun, however, have painted a narrative that has the Syrian air force dropping chemical bombs on a sleeping civilian population.

A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population.

***

Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend.

***

Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a “Sarin nerve agent” attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.

***

There are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack.

***

The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)

***

The World Health Organization has indicated that the symptoms of the Khan Sheikhoun victims are consistent with both Sarin and Chlorine exposure. American media outlets have latched onto the Turkish and WHO statements as “proof” of Syrian government involvement; however, any exposure to the chlorine/white phosphorous blend associated with Al Nusra chemical weapons would produce similar symptoms.

Similarly, Hans Blix – the former head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission – warned before the Iraq war that the Bush administration was greatly exaggerating the threat from Iraq’s weapons.
Blix says of the chemical incident in Syria:

Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it.

Two dozen senior U.S. intelligence and military officers – who tried to warn George W. Bush before the Iraq war that those pushing war were lying – write:

Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi insists that the intelligence community and military personnel know that the intel shows that this was not an Assad attack. Specifically, Giraldi says his sources on the ground in Middle East – active duty U.S. military and intelligence stationed in the Middle East, intimately familiar with facts – say that the chemical weapons claim is a sham. Giraldi says that his sources are 100% certain the the Syrian air force hit a warehouse of rebels connected with Al Qaeda which were storing chemicals. He says that people in the American military and intelligence are “freaking out” about this, because Trump has completely misrepresented the facts regarding what happened.

Captain Doug Rokke – former Director of the U.S. Army’s Depleted Uranium Project and an expert on chemical weapons – wrote to Washington’s Blog and others:

This was not a sarin attack at all. Looks like either anhydrous ammonia or chlorine from infrastructure destruction.
***
Sarin does not work as shown on tv video photos reports. I think … someone blew up anhydrous ammonia plant or supply or chlorine supply.
***
Just nonsense if anyone knows how sarin works.”

Robert Parry, the investigative reporter who many of the Iran-Contra stories for Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, notes:

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.
***
Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night’s missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – chief of staff to Colin Powell – says:

Most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the U.S. intelligence community, that what most likely happened … that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit. And had told both sides, Russia and the United states, that they were going to hit. This is the Syrian air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supplies in it, and, indeed, it probably did, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals. Or, possibly an alternative, they were phosphates for the cotton growing, fertilizing the cotton-growing region that’s adjacent to this area. And the bombs hit, conventional bombs, hit the warehouse, and because of a very strong wind, and because of the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people.

Colonel W. Patrick Lang alleges:

Here is what happened:

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

And the former UK Ambassador to Syria told the BBC there was “no proof” of a chemical weapons attack, and that it would make no sense for Assad to have done so.

Postscript: The guy who supplied “evidence” on the supposed gas attack is a “committed jihadist” according to the MI6.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ow-say-assad-d

My personal opinion is Assad did not use chemical weapons in an attack last week or in any prior event. I believe those were staged events by his opposition. He may have stores of Sarin, I don't know, but he didn't drop them from an airplane last week. It's my opinion the "INTEL" is wrong. It's not the first time the "INTEL" has been wrong and until we fix our "INTEL", it won't be the last.

Originally Posted by Judy

My personal opinion is Assad did not use chemical weapons in an attack last week or in any prior event. I believe those were staged events by his opposition. He may have stores of Sarin, I don't know, but he didn't drop them from an airplane last week. It's my opinion the "INTEL" is wrong. It's the the first time the "INTEL" has been wrong and until we fix our "INTEL", it won't be the last.

I'd say the evidence that he did use chemical weapons last week and in the past is pretty overwhelming.

There's been no evidence presented to support that opinion, but you're free to hold it regardless.

Originally Posted by Judy

There's been no evidence presented to support that opinion, but you're free to hold it regardless.

Hmm, guess you live in a different reality than I do because I'd say there has been plenty of evidence.

I live in common sense reality. You live in government-created reality.

Originally Posted by Judy

I live in common sense reality. You live in government-created reality.

Really it is a media-created reality. The government has little to do with it. This is a media driven event. Notice all the favorable coverage Trump is getting all of a sudden.

MW, it's all about the dead babies isn't it? Pictures of dead babies? You're good at that. No matter if they are fake or purloined from something else. Don't think too much about it, just react.

Trump said it again in the press conference with Stoltenberg:

We are grateful for the support of NATO members and partners in their condemnation of Assad's murderous attack using the most horrible weapons. The vicious slaughter of innocent civilians with chemical weapons including the barbaric killing of small and helpless children and babies must be forcefully rejected by any nation that values human life.

Really, how could it be "vicious", "murderous", "slaughter" or "barbaric" without dead "small and helpless children" (Are there any other kind of children? I guess there weren't any big and powerful babies and children at the site. They confirmed this.).

Oh, and somebody explain again how getting rid of Assad and bombing his Syrian forces confronts Radical Islamic Terrorism, please?

pkskyali wrote (excerpt):

MW, it's all about the dead babies isn't it? Pictures of dead babies? You're good at that. No matter if they are fake or purloined from something else. Don't think too much about it, just react.

What am I good at? You must be confusing me with someone else because not once have I mentioned anything about "Pictures of dead babies". I'll tell you like I once told Judy, it's hard to believe you have better intelligence than Trump and the other NATO member governments have.

Are you suggesting Trump's an idiot that would act in a half-cocked manner without substantial evidence or that he is just a liar? It's got to be one or the other.

Listening for black helicopters before I go to bed each night or creating conspiracy theories is not something I'm good at.

If I can jump in here.

You know, it seems like a nobrainer to say, of course we don't have better intel - BUT

If the intel given the President is untrue and skewed to get what the intelligence community and the powers that be want - we may not have better - but we may have 'as good'.

Truly, none of us know the truth - we'll never know the truth. We just have to form our beliefs based on common sense, and past history.

It was very disappointing to hear the kind of statement concerning the babies. That is the tear jerking, dance on their graves, kind of rhetoric that we heard in the past to get us into all manner of strife and to get laws passed that is not in our best interest.

I would have a preferred he made a clear speech telling what happened and be done with it. Using dead babies is just bad form - really it is.

Now if you want to talk black helicopters ----