The real deal in Syria

If one has been watching news coverage of the Syrian crisis intermittently they would most likely come to the conclusion that Bashar al-Assad is an evil dictatorship who needs to be neutralized by the heroes of the west, the United States. But on close examination with some time vested it becomes apparent that it is not all that it seems. This is a hub addressing who most likely was responsible for the chemical attacks.

THE REBELS

Who exactly are these “free-loving rebels” who want to overthrow the Syrian government? They don’t appear to even bE Syrians. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the so-called free fighters of Libya, have armed and funded the “Free Syrian Army”. The LFIG are an Al Qaeda affiliated group that has been listed as a foreign terrorist according to the United Nations. The rebels are also sponsored by the United States, the UK and Saudi Arabia and Qatar as well. They have recruited Muslim Extremists, in the form of the Mujahideen, before in Afghanistan back in the 80s to combat the Russians. The Taliban subsequently was formed from the Mujahideen in 1994.

Whenever one needs to know who is responsible for something then the question needs to be asked, “Who benefits?”

President Assad is winning the war against the rebels. Why would he order the use of chemical weapons when the United Nations had just arrived in the country and use it on children who could hardly be classified as protestors or anti-government? It doesn’t make sense either that the Syrian army would use sarin gas, the identified chemical weapon used, without wearing masks themselves. According to a German report in “Bild am Sonntag”, Assad refused to approve the use of chemicals requested by his field commander according to German intelligence.

Since Assad does not want his country bombed and to be overthrown it does not seem fitting that he’d deliberately cross that “red line”. So who benefits? The very opponents of Assad, the rebels and the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain to name some. A chemical attack is the perfect opportunity for the United States to invade Syria and it has nothing to do with humanitarian issues. If the US thinks chemical weapons are dastardly then they wouldn’t possess any themselves and use them like the white phosphorous used in April 2004 in Fallujah, Iraq in conjunction with high explosives that maimed many Iraqi civilians. Nor would they have provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to gas the Kurds in 1988. Britain, too, has accused Assad of being responsible for the 21^st August chemical attack but a new revelation has put Britain in a very embarrassing position. British MPs asked the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, why officials granted a British company export licenses to provide two chemicals capable of making sarin.

What should also be more embarrassing is the picture that has gone viral of John Kerry and Assad enjoying an intimate dinner at the Narenj Restaurant of Old Damascus in 2009 before Kerry became Secretary of State. Accompanying Kerry and Assad were their respective wives. Kerry at the time was leading a delegation to discuss peace in Syria. Weekly Standard reported that Kerry was praised Assad as a “very generous” man.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”

A February edition of Vogue that has now been scrubbed from the Internet sings the Assads praises labeling Asma Al Assad, Bashar Assad’s wife, as being a “Rose in the Desert” and elaborates how admirable Syria is. Excerpt from article:

“It's a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings…”

Furthermore, a plot of the United States to overthrow Syria was formulated a long time ago. In 2001 shortly after 9-11, according to US Army General Wesley Clark, there were plans to overthrow 7 nations. He named them at the Commonwealth Club of California in October 2007 as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Iran is actually the prize. It is not Syria that the West and its allies want. It’s Iran they have contention with. Attention has now shifted back to Iran with Obama threatening to strike Syria over its nuclear weapons programs. There have been no diplomatic efforts when it comes to Iran even though the new President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, seems to be more malleable than his predecessor Mahood Ahmedinejad. Obama does not want Iran to see diplomatic efforts regarding Syria as a sign that Iran would receive the same treatment. I think Israel would prefer the new Iranian president to be more provocative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns the United Nations and the White House to not be fooled by the tad more subservient attitude of Iran’s new leadership in the form of the Israeli dubbed “smiley campaign”. He vociferously believes that it is ploy to divert attention away from the creation of an all- too- elusive nuclear bomb by Iran. It has never been proven that Iran is developing any sort of nuclear weapons despite countless inspectors coming to Iran. It maintains the right to possess a nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

It doesn’t matter if Iran complies with every demand no matter how unreasonable, it will still be attacked militarily. In fact, according to Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report Iran isn’t even a threat at all to the United States and Israel. It is a report that explains how these two nations will dupe the world into accepting an unnecessary war. It acknowledges that any military strike against Iran would be met with resistance around the world and it is for that reason that Israel and the United States provoke Iran in such a way that Iran would retaliate. It is also acknowledged the difficulty of pulling these off without the world noticing this. Therefore it would be wise to strike only if Iran was given a great offer and they spurned it. The world will see it as a regime hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and giving the world the impression that there is nothing else to do but strike. I think this approach is now being used in Syria. Thoughts of military strikes against Syria are extremely unpopular. The “diplomatic” route is then left to take. The US is just waiting for Al Assad to be uncooperative. I think this is clear why President Netanyahu is horrified at the thought of Iran being cooperative and non-defiant.

On May 25, 2012, a massacre took place in Houla, Syria. 108 people were murdered. They were executed inside their homes with guns, mortars and anti-tank missiles. Among the dead were 49 children and babies. The terrorists tallied between 600 to 800 and came from the neighbouring areas of Rastan, al Sa’an, for example. The blame was put on Assad but what transpired is that it occurred in rebel-held territory where there was no law enforcement. Bank ki Moon, head of the United Nations, observed the former. Similarly, the Ghouta chemical attack on the 21 August 2013, Ghouta being a suburb in Damascus, was also rebel controlled. It has been reported that Ghouta was struck by rockets containing the chemical sarin. A video of rebels handling rockets has been circulating the Internet but has yet to be fully substantiated. The circumstantial evidence suggests that the rebels had the means to carry out this chemical attack. In the case of the latter, it would seem logical that the chemical weapons were supplied by NATO allies, Washington and Arab League partners.

The most nefarious and contentious part is if a chemical attack was staged. The International Support Team for Mussalah (ISTEAMS) in Syria has been working under the auspices of the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights. It is also working with the United Nations Human Rights Commission to which ISTEAMS submitted their findings. They claim that some families contacted them and said they recognized their own children in the images and videos broadcast around the world and that their children were actually kidnapped two weeks prior to the chemical attack in Lataki, 200 kms away from Ghouta. These were the children of pro-Assad villagers. Most of their families were killed.

These are children that were kidnapped two weeks previous, in the beginning of August, in the Latakia region, 200 km away from the Ghouta. To see if this could even be possibly true one needs to learn what sarin gas is and what the effects on the body are. It is a nerve agent and is colourless and odourless. I can be lethal even in small quantities. The victim can die after one minute after direct ingestion due to lung muscle paralysis and thus suffocates. Survivors may suffer permanent neurological damage. Sarin can even penetrate the skin which makes it dangerous for anyone to be around them. Even clothing can retain Sarin for thirty minutes and can contaminate others. I have browsed the Internet for images of victims of the Ghouta attack and the evidence suggests sarin wasn’t even used. It is even possible that no gas was used at all.

I think the video image showed the most on television is off a boy crying being led away. In others, people were lying down shaking a little. There were even pictures of many dead children. In all of these pictures, there is no physical evidence that supports a chemical attack. The relevant symptoms of Sarin gas is a runny nose, watery eyes, rapid breathing and drooling. I did not see anyone gasping for breath or anyone drooling for that matter. I saw images of adults lying on the ground calmly with no physical symptoms. There should be some vomit also. The children looked as if they were sleeping peacefully. In order for those children to be the victim of the so-called chemical attack in Ghoutta, they would have to have been filmed within three hours of the attack before rigor mortis sets in. When rigor mortis subsides decomposition ought to be evidence considering the hot weather in Syria. Even if I saw the pictures of drooling which is acknowledged to exist it still would not be the result of sarin gas as it is yellow and thus the victim’s drool would be yellow also. There is a theory that those children were murdered by a substance injected intravenously which I can subscribe to.

Shockingly enough according to UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, there was no evidence of sarin in the air of the areas tested. There are only reports that they were in the bodies of victims. This implies that the chemicals if used were not breathed in.

So what now? The situation in Syria is in a stalemate. The United States and its allies failed in convincing the world Assad was responsible for the chemical attacks. For the moment things may remain the way they are. But how are wars usually started? It starts with a false flag operation as the Brookings Institution lies out. It’s an operation designed to deceive in such a way that they appear to be carried out by different entities, groups of nations other than those who committed the actually committed them. Ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern believes the United States will be responsible for a false flag attack to pin the blame on Iran or Syria perhaps by attacking a US destroyer, for example.

As time is going by it appears less likely that the United States can carry out a military intervention. The public is wiser. It is no longer 2003 where the social media was not established to expose lies before war is started. People blindly believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was no Twitter then. Twitter is a Frankenstein the Global Elite has created and backfired. In my opinion, only a catastrophe can incapacitate the public to such a degree they will obey their government implicitly and without resistance.