Expert shoots down false flag theories on chemical attack

Arutz Sheva ^ | 12/4/18 | Guy Cohen

[firebrand]

Taken by people who lived in the area on their cellphones.

[House Atreides]

They obviously didn’t have time to go out and get Hazmat suits. They used what was handy and risked their own lives.
*********************************************
Ahh... the magnificent and heroic Islamist “rebels” risking their own lives to save children. All deserving of Peace Medals, no doubt.

[firebrand]

They can love their children and still be on the totally wrong side of everything.

[null and void]

They can even love them to death...

[firebrand]

Even the New York Times is saying there seems to be no false flag. Aside from sticking the word “blame” in the headline a day or two ago to make it seem like there was a doubt. Today they have better info.

[null and void]

Well! It the New York Times says it's true, it simply must be true!

[firebrand]

Sorry you missed my point.

The Times looks for any and all reasons to ridicule our president. I’m glad that on something as serious as this they sent their people to check. It is kind of a wonder. If they say something that helps Trump rather than hurts him, you know they had no choice.

[null and void]

You miss my point. The New York Times is first and foremost an enemy of America.

If praising Stalin damages America, they write glowing reports about how wonderful communism is under Stalin is for the Ukranians, Hitler? Germany is thriving!, Cuba is a paradise, Venezuela, everyone loves Maduro and they have free healthcare!

If going to war with Russia is bad for America, the NYT will do anything, even set-up Trump, to get there. They hate him even more than they hate the peasants in fly-over country.

If they want a war, they tell their reporters in the field “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

Whatever it takes to destroy Trump, even if it destroys the world. They really would rather rule and report in a nuclear winter rubble pile Hell than serve in Heaven, where’s the bad news to report in Heaven???

[LucyT]

The following was received via eMail:

Assad isn't an angel, BUT HE DIDN'T DO IT!

An article about the last year's April 7, 2017 chemical attack in Syria. Assad didn't do that either.
We're being used to get rid of Assad who's standing in the way of Erdogan, the Caliph-in-waiting and his Moslem Brotherhood to start the Caliphate in Syria!

From the article:

"I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.

"And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward."

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-was-staged-1617267

Thanks, anonymous.

[firebrand]

But their report on this particular issue was good for Trump. You’re making part of my point but not the whole thing. Anyway, good night, I have a big day tomorrow.

[CrimsonTidegirl]

The New York Times?? LMAO.

The National Enquirer is a more reputable paper.

[firebrand]

And they don’t want a war. This is the Times. Pacifism Central. Unless it’s the Left’s war on America.

[firebrand]

Well, they are agreeing with the intelligence organizations of many countries.

It’s kind of late, and you guys are not making sense anymore. Let’s resume tomorrow.

[greeneyes]

Assad didn’t do the attacks all the way along:

Watch this summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuLs9VIf55U&list=PLcyQI2iyeHAvTwORmuZKEIhuPAr8vFca7&index=4
STINGERS AND SARIN GAS TESTED UK PORTON DOWN SAID NOT ASSAD-BELONGED TO Gaddafi smuggled by HRC to Libya Terrorists ISIS
December 19th, 2016 report.

[Eleutheria5]

You mean, this might destabilize Syria? It’s been stable ‘til now?

[Eurotwit]

Yes it is.

But, for quite opposite reasons than what you may think.

[Eleutheria5]

It is pontification and conjecture for reasons opposite what I think, or it’s noteworthy for reasons opposite what I think?

[grania]

re: Syria has been stable. The situation we're reading about now is in a suburb where the Syrian gov has finally removed the anti-gov forces. Where the gov has gotten rid of them, it's stable. There's a problem with Turkey trying to take over some border areas, the US sometimes supporting the bad guys, and last week Israel bombing Syria from Lebanon.

If fighting starts over Syria, the millions who've stayed will flood other areas. Those who want to return home won't be able to.

Are you really buying into the false narrative? The citizens in Syria, Libya, and Egypt didn't want regime change. Their nations were providing citizens much better lives than they have now.

[rodguy911]

Trump is all about winning.The problem is a win in the mid- east doesn’t last nearly as long as a win elsewhere.In the end most hate the jews and the shia usually hate the sunni. Little changes.

[Eleutheria5]

They’re in my neighborhood, just North and East of Mt. Hermon. I don’t know from narratives, including how content people supposedly were under Assad’s hegemony, Egypt under Mubarak, or Libya under Qadaffy Duck. But Syria’s been chronically unstable for years now. Reestablishing the Assad hegemony will not work either, because Russia is breathing down Assad’s neck and demanding that he serve the Bear’s purposes, which cannot be good. So is Iran. The Kurds are fighting for their own country, and America is only sometimes supportive. With any luck, Iran and Russia will have a falling out with each other (Mossad would do well to instigate it), leaving only one standing, and the populace will send Hizbollah packing, leaving Assad by his lonesome with the surviving imperialist presence. That is inherently unstable, and the consequences will be unfolding for decades to come.