This evidence more than anything else proves why we should all fear Trump

By   /   July 2, 2017  /   17 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

…The US intelligence apparatus could not prove that the Syrians had committed a chemical attack, but that didn’t matter to Trump, he went ahead with a military strike regardless.

When Trump launched missiles at Syria because he saw dead babies from a supposed Syrian chemical attack, I commented at the time how dangerous a precedent Trump was setting by being so openly emotional in his reasoning.

All he was doing was letting those wanting to provoke Trump into rash military action know what they had to do, murder babies.

It turns out that the Syrian adventure was far more dangerous than providing America’s enemies with trigger examples, the entire chemical attack looks like it was a false flag event and Trump refused to accept that.

Seymour M. Hersh is one of the best investigative journalists on the planet. He broke the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, highlighted the lies behind the Iraq war and he uncovered the truth about Osama Bin Laden’s death.

His latest investigative expose is behind the false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria that was the catalyst for Trump launching 50 missiles.

It’s conclusions are terrifying...

President Donald Trump ignored important intelligence reports when he decided to attack Syria after he saw pictures of dying children. Seymour M. Hersh investigated the case of the alleged Sarin gas attack.
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack,  including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president’s determination to ignore the evidence. “None of this makes any sense,” one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. “We KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“

Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world’s media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.

The provenance of the photos was not clear and no international observers have yet inspected the site, but the immediate popular assumption worldwide was that this was a deliberate use of the nerve agent sarin, authorized by President Bashar Assad of Syria. Trump endorsed that assumption by issuing a statement within hours of the attack, describing Assad’s “heinous actions” as being a consequence of the Obama administration’s “weakness and irresolution” in addressing what he said was Syria’s past use of chemical weapons.

To the dismay of many senior members of his national security team, Trump could not be swayed over the next 48 hours of intense briefings and decision-making. In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria’s attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction’s success and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.

Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.

The Syrian target at Khan Sheikhoun, as shared with the Americans at Doha, was depicted as a two-story cinder-block building in the northern part of town. Russian intelligence, which is shared when necessary with Syria and the U.S. as part of their joint fight against jihadist groups, had established that a high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building, including representatives of Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-affiliated group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra. The two groups had recently joined forces, and controlled the town and surrounding area. Russian intelligence depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center that housed a grocery and other commercial premises on its ground floor with other essential shops nearby, including a fabric shop and an electronics store.

“The rebels control the population by controlling the distribution of goods that people need to live – food, water, cooking oil, propane gas, fertilizers for growing their crops, and insecticides to protect the crops,” a senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me. The basement was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as products that could be distributed for free to the community, among them medicines and chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor above. “It was an established meeting place,” the senior adviser said. “A long-time facility that would have had security, weapons, communications, files and a map center.” The Russians were intent on confirming their intelligence and deployed a drone for days above the site to monitor communications and develop what is known in the intelligence community as a POL – a pattern of life. The goal was to take note of those going in and out of the building, and to track weapons being moved back and forth, including rockets and ammunition.

One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA. “They were playing the game right,” the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate. In the last few days of March, Trump and two of his key national security aides – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley – had made statements acknowledging that, as the New York Times put it, the White House “has abandoned the goal” of pressuring Assad “to leave power, marking a sharp departure from the Middle East policy that guided the Obama administration for more than five years.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a press briefing on March 31 that “there is a political reality that we have to accept,” implying that Assad was there to stay.

Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. “It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked,” the senior adviser told me. “Every operations officer in the region” – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – “had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They’re skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman.” The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.

The Execute Order governing U.S. military operations in theater, which was issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  provide instructions that demarcate the relationship between the American and Russian forces operating in Syria. “It’s like an ops order – ‘Here’s what you are authorized to do,’” the adviser said. “We do not share operational control with the Russians. We don’t do combined operations with them, or activities directly in support of one of their operations.  But coordination is permitted. We keep each other apprised of what’s happening and within this package is the mutual exchange of intelligence.  If we get a hot tip that could help the Russians do their mission, that’s coordination; and the Russians do the same for us. When we get a hot tip about a command and control facility,” the adviser added, referring to the target in Khan Sheikhoun, “we do what we can to help them act on it.” “This was not a chemical weapons strike,” the adviser said. “That’s a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you’ve got to make it appear like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?”

The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered  a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides. There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that “eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds.” MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there “smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine.” In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

The internet swung into action within hours, and gruesome photographs of the victims flooded television networks and YouTube. U.S. intelligence was tasked with establishing what had happened. Among the pieces of information received was an intercept of Syrian communications collected before the attack by an allied nation. The intercept, which had a particularly strong effect on some of Trump’s aides, did not mention nerve gas or sarin, but it did quote a Syrian general discussing a “special” weapon and the need for a highly skilled pilot to man the attack plane. The reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. “If you’ve already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb,” the adviser said. “Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

At the UN the next day, Ambassador Haley created a media sensation when she displayed photographs of the dead and accused Russia of being complicit. “How many more children have to die before Russia cares?” she asked. NBC News, in a typical report that day, quoted American officials as confirming that nerve gas had been used and Haley tied the attack directly to Syrian President Assad. “We know that yesterday’s attack was a new low even for the barbaric Assad regime,” she said. There was irony in America’s rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria’s denial of any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. “What doesn’t occur to most Americans” the adviser said, “is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia’s strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he’s on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?”

Trump, a constant watcher of television news, said, while King Abdullah of Jordan was sitting next to him in the Oval Office, that what had happened was “horrible, horrible” and a “terrible affront to humanity.” Asked if his administration would change its policy toward the Assad government, he said: “You will see.” He gave a hint of the response to come at the subsequent news conference with King Abdullah: “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a chemical gas that is so lethal  … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line . … That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact … It’s very, very possible … that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. “He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it.” “The answer was, ‘We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,’” the adviser said. “The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide.” Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.

At this point, the adviser said, the president’s national security planners were more than a little rattled: “No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn’t know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun.” The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. “The president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity,” the senior adviser said. “It’s typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts do not argue with a president. They’re not going to tell the president, ‘if you interpret the data this way, I quit.’”

The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security decisions were severe. “Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts,” the adviser said. “He doesn’t read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: ‘Do it.”’

On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted, how to do the least and keep Trump happy. “The boss knew before the meeting that they didn’t have the intelligence, but that was not the issue,” the adviser said. “The meeting was about, ‘Here’s what I’m going to do,’ and then he gets the options.”

…The US intelligence apparatus could not prove that the Syrians had committed a chemical attack, but that didn’t matter to Trump, he went ahead with a military strike regardless.

There is so much to question here, firstly the fact that many were deceived into believing a chemical attack by the Syrians had taken place, secondly that Trump went ahead with violent action despite having no evidence and thirdly what does the total dysfunction that Hersh outlines here say about the checks and balances around a President as unhinged as Trump is say about our future?

Trump had no evidence to launch missiles, and the total denial he shows his own intelligence officials suggests he’d have little problem doing it again.

Trump is potentially more dangerous to the rest of the planet than any other President in American History.

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

17 Comments

  1. David Stone says:

    This is Trump cooperating with those who call the shots. Don’t for a minute imagine that US aggression would have been any less with Hillary as president, quite the reverse.
    D J S

    • Interesting how some folk try to mitigate Trump’s aggression by deflecting to another person (in this case Clinton). So, as another poster pointed out, Trump might start a World war, but Clinton would’ve been worse by starting two world wars?

      Trump’s atom bomb will destroy a city. Clinton’s two atom bombs will destroy a city and the second one will scatter the radioactive dust from the first one. I fail to see the logic.

      • David Stone says:

        Just referring her own rhetoric Frank . acknowledged is that Trump has failed to do any better in spite of his claimed intentions during the election. Whether this is because he never intended any different once in (power)? or whether he doesn’t really have control now seams moot.
        D J S

  2. Winifred Kiddle says:

    Ah light slowly coming on. You should read about Obama and Clinton’s foul ups.

    • Hullo? Winifred?

      *tap, tap*

      It’s 2017. Trump is President.

      Obama was last year.

      Clinton was 1990s.

      Time to move on, mate.

      • David Stone says:

        If we are ever to understand US behaviour in the world we have to try to be objective in trying to analyse the ultimate source of decision making there . Part of that must be in noticing what changes come with changing “leaders” and what doesn’t change.
        D J S

      • Winifred Kiddle says:

        Dear Frank,

        Yes it is 2017. And yes Trump is president. However, all I was suggesting was as the light is slowly coming on re the disgusting things the US has done, then perhaps you folks should read about the dastardly deeds of Obama and the Clintons (as in Hilary and her hubby). Investigative journalists including Robert Parry and John Pilger, also Dr Paul Craig Roberts, Prof Stephen Cohen and Ron Paul amongst others have written extensively about their disgusting actions but the mainstream news media gave Obama and Clinton a free pass. Whatever these lovelies have done, has been ignored or even laughed at eg Obama re his drone programme; ” I’m good at killing folks’.or Clinton talking about Gaddafi “We came, we saw he died”
        Yes I think Trump is an idiot but Obama and Hilary Clinton have waged war in several countries and we thought everything was just fine…. until Trump came along. Hilary’s policies would have led to direct confrontation with Russia but yeah nah, that’s ok, it’s our Hilary. Bradbury’s comment “Trump is potentially more dangerous to the rest of the planet than any other President in American History” is more emotive than factual. Other presidents have been instrumental in the destruction of countries and the genocide of the populations. None more so than Obama and the Clintons. But hey, because these 2 have been the darlings of the MSM they have lived a charmed life, no matter what their dastardly deeds. And Frank just because you are ignorant of these past deeds, does not mean that the impact of such deeds eg the situation in the Middle East, is not being felt. And still, when Trump did bomb Syria, didn’t CNN et al cheer and say that was the first presidential thing he had done. Trump actually began his presidency with the stated aim of improving relations with Russia but the Democratic party’s hysteria over the totally false Russia-gate has prevented that coming to pass. Indeed Trump’s response to this airstrike may well have been an attempt to prove he wasn’t Russia’s bitch. Frank your response is silly and totally misses the point I was trying to make. But yeah, at least I’m allowed to comment on here now.

        • “None more so than Obama and the Clintons.”

          Nonsense.

          You forget that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq occurred under Bush, setting the scene for massive de-stabilisation of the Middle East. Obama inherited that mess from Bush, so your reference to Clinton and Obama, whilst conveniently omitting Bush, is disingenuous.

          Trump is also so pro-Israel that he might as well take out Israeli citizenship. At least Obama’s ‘parting shot’ at the Israeli regime was UN Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning illegal Zionist expansion into Palestinian territory.

          Take a moment to refresh your knowledge of recent history, Winifred.

        • Your slavish devotion to Trump is noted Winifred/Ian.

          It is apparent that Trump cannot stand on his own record without his supporters deflecting to his predecessors.

          National does the same thing. When something goes wrong, Nat supporters point the finger at Labour (or beneficiaries, Maori, or the GFC).

          Feel free to pursue name-calling, Winifred/Ian. It changes nothing.

  3. Red Buzzard says:

    yeah yeah…Trump did an airport because of the “babies” …but is he doing it again? ( is he learning?…is the gas story losing its gas?)

    ‘Mattis rejects mission creep in Syria as new chemical weapons threat alleged’

    https://www.stripes.com/news/mattis-rejects-mission-creep-in-syria-as-new-chemical-weapons-threat-alleged-1.475510#.WViF4BWGOpr

    ‘To avoid endless war in Syria, US deconflicts with Russia – Pentagon’

    https://www.rt.com/usa/394350-mattis-decofliction-line-russia/
    CrossTalk on Syria: Rushing to war?

    ‘CrossTalk on Syria: Rushing to war?’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/393695-syria-iran-islamic-state/

    “With Islamic State seen to be on the defensive in Syria, many of the parties in the proxy war are eying the next stage of this conflict. As a result, Russia and the US are at odds. Is Washington’s strategic interest in Syria really Iran?

    CrossTalking with Alexander Mercouris, Richard Murphy, and Christopher Davidson.”

    ‘Bullhorns say it straight’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/394062-war-syria-qatar-crisis/

    “On this edition of the program, we again focus on real news. This time: is the war in Syria escalating? If so, who is driving this? The latest in the Qatar-Saudi Arabia saga. And, as so many viewers have enjoyed, an extended version of the program.

    CrossTalking with Dmitry Babich, Alex Christoforou, and Mark Sleboda.”

    ( and of course Hillary would have done it worse .She wanted to bomb all of Assads airports…She called on Trump to do the bombing…Trump just took out one airport

    ‘Hillary Clinton called for Donald Trump to ‘take out’ Assad airfields hours before air strikes – ‘Prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them’ ‘

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-syria-air-strikes-chemcial-attack-airbase-cruise-missiles-tomohawks-a7671861.html

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html )

    • ‘Hillary Clinton called for Donald Trump to ‘take out’ Assad airfields hours before air strikes – ‘Prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them’ ‘

      Which he duly did after the alleged use of of sarin gas at Khan Shaykhun, and Trump launched 59 cruise missiles against Shayrat airbase.

      Without any evidence that Assad had been responsible. Not a shred.

      I have zero sympathy for dictators like Assad. Like others, I want him gone. But not because of an act that might have been caused by others, as I reported on 15 April;

      In a June 2013 story, the BBC reported on who was supplying the myriad ‘players’ in the Syrian conflict. One of the arms traffickers in the region was Saudi Arabia;

      In late 2012, Riyadh is said to have financed the purchase of “thousands of rifles and hundreds of machine guns”, rocket and grenade launchers and ammunition for the FSA from a Croatian-controlled stockpile of Yugoslav weapons.

      These were reportedly flown – including by Royal Saudi Air Force C-130 transporters – to Jordan and Turkey and smuggled into Syria.

      Note the link: Croatian-controlled stockpile

      Follow the link and it leads to a February 2013 story in the New York Times, which stated;

      Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons from Croatia and quietly funneled them to anti-government fighters in Syria in a drive to break the bloody stalemate that has allowed President Bashar al-Assad to cling to power, according to American and Western officials familiar with the purchases.

      The weapons began reaching rebels in December via shipments shuttled through Jordan, officials said, and have been a factor in the rebels’ small tactical gains this winter against the army and militias loyal to Mr. Assad.

      So, what sort of weapons was Croatia selling on the open market? Interrogate Google with the parameters ‘Yugoslavia Croatia chemical weapons’. It offers this April 1999 story in the UK Guardian;

      After months of prevarication, Nato launches a ground war against Slobodan Milosevic’s forces in Kosovo. But no sooner do British and US troops begin to move in and threaten Serb army units than Milosevic unleashes his secret weapons – sarin nerve gas and BZ, a psychochemical incapacitant.

      […]

      According to former Yugoslav chemical weapons officers, Milosevic’s arsenal is far larger than previously thought. Besides sarin and BZ, it includes the blister agent sulphur mustard and the choking agent phosgene. And it is thanks to scientists in Britain and the US that he could use them on Nato troops.

      […]

      In total, the Serb army may have as many as 5,800 122mm sarin-filled shells and 1,000 mustard gas shells, say these sources. In addition, Serbia is also known to have been developing a multiple rocket delivery system for sarin and a bomb capable of delivering 20 litres of the nerve gas to the battlefield.

      […]

      Even the Pentagon, which is sceptical about Croatian estimates of the numbers of chemical shells and rockets in the Serb arsenal, accepts that Milosevic inherited from the JNA a programme capable of producing a deadly 3,000 rockets filled with sarin and 100 shells filled with mustard gas.

      […]

      Although the Pentagon says it has no evidence that Serbia has continued to manufacture and test chemical weapons since the break-up of the Yugoslavia federation, officials told the New York Times they were ‘concerned’ about the stockpiles.

      The Pentagon would be right to be “‘concerned’ about the stockpiles“. Where would they end up?

      There is no proof that amongst the weapons purchased from Croatia there was included chemical weapons such as sarin gas. But the facts are clear;

      Former-Yugoslavia developed massive quantities of poison gas weapons, including sarin gas
      After the break-up of Yugoslavia, Croatia sold plane-loads of weapons to Saudi Arabia
      Saudi Arabia supports rebel forces in Syria
      Sarin gas was used in the gas attack on Khan Shaykhun

      It is all circumstantial, of course. But it seems plausible that Saudi Arabian military/intelligence agents could have transported sarin gas shells/rockets to Idlib Governorate where, under close supervision, they were launched against a defenceless city.

      The plan was simple; to provoke a politically unsophisticated, naive, and impressionable Donald Trump into military retaliation by blaming the attack on the Syrian regime.

      […]

      Of course, Trump gave his explanation for changing his mind;

      “ Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

      Trump added;

      “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies… that crosses… many lines.”

      ref & links: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/trumpwatch-one-minute-closer-to-midnight-on-the-doomsday-clock/

      • Ian Kiddle says:

        Who cares what you want Frank. Your ignorance about Assad shines clearly. Do some work Frank and stop relying on MSM or Soros funded NGOs as your main source of ‘news.’ The Syrian people want him there. He would have been gone long ago if he had no support.

        Western views based on Western news. Try reading alternative media. Oh that’s right you are alternative media. Or supposed to be.

        Winifred Kiddle

        [Ian, watch your ad hominems please. You are close to being banned. – Scarletmod]

        • Ian, it’s fairly obvious you did not read my post above. Very obvious.

          It’s not what “I want”, it’s what the people of Syria are having to endure. According to Amnesty International;

          Saydnaya Prison is where the Syrian state quietly slaughters its own people.

          Every week, often twice per week, between 20 and 50 people are taken from their cells to be hanged, in the middle of the night. As many as 13,000 people have been killed in Saydnaya since 2011, in utmost secrecy. Many other people at Saydnaya have been killed after being repeatedly tortured and systematically deprived of food, water, medicine and medical care. The bodies of those who are killed at Saydnaya are taken away by the truckload and buried in mass graves. It is inconceivable that these large-scale and systematic practices have not been authorized at the highest levels of the Syrian government.

          ref: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/08/syria-torture-prisons/

          So unless you consider Amnesty International “MSM or Soros funded NGOs”, you might want to reconsider your support for a blood-stained despot.

          As for my information-sources, as I keep reminding people, I use a variety of sources.

          Now, re-read my post above as to who the actual culprit *may* have been in the Sarin Gas attack.

  4. CLEANGREEN says:

    We should leave the Arabs alone to sort their shit out their way chaps.

    we have so much shit at home to deal with and the war in the gulf will go non with or without us all.

    That’s the way it is in the gulf and we should pack up and leave.