WHAT’S WHAT?
“The White House has issued a warning to Bashar Assad as it claimed “potential” evidence showed Syria was preparing for another chemical weapons attack,” so the thinking man asks, what evidence?
But ahem! “The White House offered no details on what prompted the warning and spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said she had no additional information,” according to the article. So yet again the Yanks are flinging around wild accusations on the premise that THEY have information. I don’t think so. The very last time they showed the world information on anything it was done publicly at the UN with poor Colin Powell presenting slides that demonstrated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The proof itself turned out to be a weapon of mass illusion and no destructive weapons were discovered after the unnecessary invasion.
So as the article puts is, “In an ominous statement, issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation, press secretary Sean Spicer said the US has identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by Bashar Assad’s government that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” The operative part of that paragraph is, ‘no supporting evidence or further explanation.’ So it seems the Americans believe they can make any accusation, and allegation they like against anyone they wish and threaten to take unilateral action if the event they prophesy, (manufacture), takes place.
This is the same technique they employed to suggest/accuse Russia interfered with the Presidential elections in the US and the same thing applies with the allegations of Trump and Russia being in cahoots. No hard evidence has been produced to convince a skeptical world. America no longer feels the need to back up these accusations with solid proof, saying instead that such evidence is an internal security matter. Even NATO has begun to use this technique but the UN doesn’t. For the world council to permit any kind of an attack by one country on another requires some water tight proof on the part of the accusing country and it must be presented in full to a UN session and be voted on.
As I wrote earlier, it made no sense at all for Assad to order the attack he has already been accused of because it had no military significance and it would surely turn his ally Russia against him, never mind infuriating the Americans. In that instance though he vehemently denied any involvement and even the Russians were in two minds. So the Russians demanded a full independent investigation but the Americans blocked it. If they were so positive the Syrians were actually behind the attack then surely they should have supported an investigation that would prove it beyond doubt? But no! So what have the Americans to hide in all of this?
There are many documents in the public domain now that point to the Americans being in tacit support of ISIS. The chemical weapons used in that last attack were American made and this is admitted. But they add that American companies have sold such chemicals to Assad in the past. However, what if they also supplied them to ISIS, via Saudi Arabia for example? If such a thing were possible then the statement made regarding another chemical attack could just mean that the Yanks know of a planned chemical attack by ISIS due shortly. That puts an entirely different complexion on it, doesn’t it?
The tacit support of ISIS by the US is explained as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The betting money is on the idea that the Yanks don’t care how it is done as long as Assad is overthrown and murdered and Syria slides into civil war. But the arrival of the Russians has turned the tide in Assad’s favour and if anything, the Syrians look like winning hands down. If they do the Americans will have to pull out, but of course they have no right to be there in the first place. But if a major chemical attack took place and the US networks were on hand to show us pictures soon of babies dying in agony from some horrible gas then who would oppose the Americans invading Syria?
It gets more murky as the days go by.
SEE ALSO: