Syria Sarin Slaughter and waving the flag

---

Live, smiling children do not launch missiles. Pale, dead children do.

Acts of war do not safely rest on highly emotional images, but should only result from careful consideration of intelligence that can (as far as possible) be verified. This has not – as far as we can judge – happened with regard to Syria.

---

False Flag Attacks

A false flag attack is when an action is planned, initiated and accomplished by a covert group, and made to look like it has been carried out by someone entirely different. Such an act can be used as the justification to overthrow a regime or to introduce martial law or to go to war.

---

Terrorism is the best political weapon
For nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death

Quote attributed to Adolph Hitler

When an atrocity takes place, as appears to have happened in Syria just under a week ago, it is the responsibility of both the media and the government to ensure that there has not been a false flag event. If the media believe the government has not been looking too hard because the event plays into the political wishes of certain groups, it is doubly important that the media look at their sources with very great care, emphasise that allegations are not in themselves proof, and if a quick martial response is likely, look with extra vigilance at those offering both intelligence about the event and coming on air as 'talking heads'.

As consumers of media information, we should note especially when the media are quickly (within 24 hours) talking with one voice and no contrary positions are being presented. This is especially true if a military response is being called for, however 'proportionate'.

---

Once military action is under way, the initial cause is often quickly forgotten.

If in time that cause – weapons of mass destruction for example – proves erroneous, well, the war has been fought and the dead cannot return to complain. It behoves us, therefore, to look with care at what is occurring in Syria (and elsewhere in our troubling world).

wanderer above sea of fog Caspar David Friedrich

Finding truth in the fog

There are only two ways in which we can know - and expound on - the truth.

1. We have experienced something directly or can demonstrate a truth to our own satisfaction from first principles and the sound use of reason
   
2. We can draw in the understanding offered by an authority in a position to know and one that we can trust sufficiently.

In the case of the alleged Sarin attack in Syria, or the shenanigans attributed to Russia and the hacking of the American election, few of us have direct knowledge, and have to trust various sources of information. This results in the media (TV especially with its use of imagery) having a huge impact on what we take to be true.
The images of dead children taken in high quality digital images and video and swiftly disseminated around the world's media, have shaped the discourse regarding the Syrian event. A picture on its own is powerful but requires interpretation.

Consider the pictures below:

These are pretty convincing pictures of the Syrian White hats saving someone from a bombed out building. Would you know if they were genuine or not just from looking at them? If told by a trusted source - Fox News, CNN or the BBC - that they are genuine, would you have any doubt? Could you possibly tell if Fox News, CNN or the BBC had been themselves fooled?

---

Now look at this picture:

What do you actually know about the White Hats? They sound impressive, brave, selfless ... but who are they? Who funds them? Are they like the Red Cross? Are they like Médecins Sans Frontières?

Yet it is these people who have provided the key intelligence that it was Sarin that was used and that it was dropped from Syrian Jets. So who are they exactly?

This article is not an investigative piece about the White Hats as such, but if in the reports given by major news outlets, the credibility of these people as a source has not been assessed, then maybe they and we have been duped. How would we know?

Here is a recent link strongly suggestive that the White Hats in Syria are a foreign funded propaganda activity.

Is there an alternative view?

Consider the following

Sarin is a deadly nerve agent, effective at tiny amounts dispersed through the atmosphere. Those who have been exposed to heavy doses are themselves dangerous to anyone going to help them. If you study the pictures (which will not be further disseminated here) of the White Hats interacting with the corpses, they were not even wearing gloves, let alone breathing apparatus. Perhaps they knew they were safe? If so, how? Was it not Sarin? Were the children dead from other causes? In which case why were lies broadcast around the world?
Was it Sarin and the helpers are now dead themselves? If so, why do we not know that further damning evidence?
Even if it was Sarin, does the story that Assad launched the attack even make sense?

---

These questions cannot be answered here. In fact they cannot be answered until a thorough investigation has been carried out. That would take weeks if not months.
Yet, at the time of writing, the Trump regime has already launched an attack on an airbase. Assad is guilty, The Americans are once more Judge, Jury and Executioner. Those who understand both American and International Law say that the Trump administration has undoubtedly behaved illegally. But instead of being condemned, he is being lauded both at home and in foreign capitals.

All this should set alarm bells ringing

There are highly credible journalists questioning this story in part and as a whole. Their voices are not being heard on the flagship programmes in the UK and the USA (and possibly in Europe as a whole).

The 'damning evidence' against Assad is – of course – damaging to his sponsor, Russia (and the arch fiend, in some people's eyes' Vladimir Putin). But if that damning evidence is not evidence at all, and if (like the hacking conspiracy) it rests on dubious sources or unattributable sources, then the current relentless march towards war with Russia (openly being talked up at the moment) may be based on a misunderstanding at best, or propaganda lies at worse.

With nuclear war now being discussed freely (first time since the Berlin Wall came down) it is our duty to be as widely informed as we can as to the likely truth and then to act on that.

What follows are links to articles and podcasts that suggest the Sarin attack in Syria in April rests on flimsy evidence when it comes to:

a) what actually happened and

b) who instigated it

---

Click on the pictures below to access the media link.

The Intercept - Glen Greenwald

"That the Syrian government deliberately used chemical weapons to bomb civilians became absolute truth in U.S. discourse within less than 24 hours – even though Trudeau urged an investigation, even though it was denied in multiple capitals around the world, and even though Susan Rice just two months ago boasted to NPR: “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”

Greenwald raises ten points that are not being addressed in the American media. He points out that the media immediately become state supporters once there is an act of war by the US administration.

This is an excellent article and worth reading in full.

---

The Peter B Collins Show

This five days a week, half hour blog, is an audio review of the key news points of the day, from the experienced eye of Peter B Collins.
With regard to Syria he points out - daily - that as of yet, no actual evidence has been presented proving with any certitude at all, the complicity of Assad in this atrocity.

The link takes you to one episode, but he discusses this issue, currently, daily. Take your pick.

---

Global Research

This article reminds as that the gas attack in 2013, which everyone knew was carried out by Assad (and many still do think this) was in fact carried out by certain of the (so called) rebel forces.

This fact alone should make us all be very cautious about blaming Assad again. particularly when America has congratulated itself on removing all of Assad's chemical weapons already.

---

The Corbett Report

Corbett reviews the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Quote:
"Now Russia is announcing new measures to bolster Syria’s air defense system and expand its own military presence in the country.

However frayed US/Russian relations have become in this age of “Cold War 2.0,” they just got a hell of a lot worse.
In fact, it was only one week ago that everything seemed to be going in the exact opposite direction. John McCain was furious with Rex Tillerson for daring to suggest that the Syrian people should decide what happens with Assad. ISIS was on the run and the “rebels” (read: terrorist insurgency) seemed all but broken. Peace talks were about to put the final nail in the coffin of the six year-long quest to topple the Syrian government"

Corbett goes on to review two theories about what happened

By the way, did you know that Hillary Clinton had given the go ahead, on her watch, for rebel groups to have Sarin gas? Seymour Hersh, the highly respected journalist, says this is so.

Here is a 9 minute video update from Corbett

His notes can be found here.

---

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer. His testimony can be found here. He completely doubts the 'Assad did it' scenario.

Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time.

---

Ray McGovern, also a former CIA officer, tells RT that there has been an unseemly rush to judgement. He raises questions about how easy it may be to manipulate Trump.

No apologies are made for the number of links here.
War is being pursued by those who love these things (their children are seldom at risk).  If it rests on a false premise it is our duty to say so, loudly and effectively.

If you are so minded, please share this post widely (with a link back) or do your own.