Skip to comments.Whose sarin? (Obama exposed for Syria false-flag)
Posted on 12/18/2013 9:23:22 AM PST by Abiotic
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the countrys civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded without assessing responsibility had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order a planning document that precedes a ground invasion citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assads government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a red line: Assads government gassed to death over a thousand people, he said. We know the Assad regime was responsible
And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. Obama was going to war to back up a public threat....
(Excerpt) Read more at lrb.co.uk ...
Putin was right....again.
Why can’t Assad bring it to the world court? It’s a fantasy to have them try Obama as a war criminal.
zer0 rides with a one-eyed demon, one of the four horsemen, with the devil (valerie jarrett) close behind.
And remember, mccain and linda were in on it, too. And if they try to say they were only going on what obama was telling them, they should also say they’ll never trust him again.
The only thing that exceeds Omombo’s mendacity is his ineptitude.
lol. That about sums it up.
When Seymour Hersh has abandoned you....
This is a Threat Matrix list documenting threats within and without. Anyone wanting on or off please advise.
So you’re saying that assassinating the enemies of the state in another country is OK? I’ve heard some pitiful apologetics for tyranny before, but you deserve some kind of prize.
Litvenenko worked for a billionaire expat russian criminal in Britain. Educate yourself.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
In other words, it was a lie - designed to take us to war.
So, when do we crank up the impeachment apparatus?
On the second Tuesday of next week.
If Litvinenko broke the law, then he should have been indicted and deported, not assassinated. You’re advocating the killing of people extra-judicially, outside the rule of law. That’s really no different than what Stalin, Pol Pot or the Ku Klux Klan did. Truly ugly sentiments, and not something I’d expect to see on Free Republic.
You don’t get it. litvenenko killed himself. No one ‘assassinated him.
There is evidence that he was assassinated. Please educate yourself. But I don’t think you’ll learn anything by watching Russia Today.
“So, when do we crank up the impeachment apparatus?”
Is this a joke thread? obama should have been impeached before he ever took office. His outward and blatant criminality was right out there for the whole world to see and they overlooked it because...being half black overode being all criminal.
No, there is not.
Now you’re insulting the Four Horsemen: At best those two clowns, the Kenyan and Jarret, are riding in a one-wheeled wagon behind, trying to not get his by flying horse biscuits. Maybe one of the graphics guys can embellish on that vision.?
This is why Saudi is going nuclear. Their mercs (the US military) did not take on Syria.
So is the US a tyranny? We send drones to kill enemies of the state in neutral countries.
Maybe we can impeach his white half ... :^)
That’s entirely different. We send drones to kill people who are waging war against us. We don’t send drones over London to kill people accused of crimes.
It’s like Shakespeare’s pound of flesh. How you gonna collect?
Point taken. May the kenyan zer0 and valerie jarrett sink their mouths into all the flying horse biscuits. Point taken. You 1, Me no score.
Are we at war with Yemen?
What evidence? Are you a juror or a judge or at least a detective in this case?
Litvinenko was either bad and insignificant man. An idea of his assassination by Russian government is about as real as any other conspiracy theory.
Hazmat smuggling gone wrong or a suicide are much more plausible versions.
How’s the weather in St. Petersburg today cunning fish?
We are not at at war with Yemen. We are at war with al Qaeda. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed.
I’ve no idea. Check at Weather.com
Yet sent drones into Yemen. To kill our enemies.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed.
So every now and then a terrorist gets a Hellfire missile shot up his pootie-toot. I don’t have a problem with that.
Then why are you upset that Russia did the same thing, with less risk of collateral damage?
Because Alexander Litvinenko was not a terrorist. At most, he was a common criminal, but perhaps not even that. What every he did, he did not deserve to be assassinated.
Both acts were assassinations. Litvinenko was more than a common criminal. Less (maybe) than the guy in Yemen, but he was tied to a group that was funding Russia's terrorists in Chechnya.
If Litvinenko committed crimes, then Russia should have asked Britain to extradite him so it could put him on trial. Russia did have options other than assassination. That is not possible with terrorists who are hiding out in the mountains in Yemen. You are using the time-tested leftist technique of declaring moral equivalence to excuse the Putin regime’s actions.
We could have asked Yemen to turn over the targets, but political they would have not been able to. So we blew up his house.
Russia did ask for him, Britain said no. Again, Litvinenko was connected to terrorists. So they killed him.
The big difference is we asked Yemen before we blew up the house.
IMO, both are hard to justify.