Via ZeroHedge:
Robert Fisk's bombshell first-hand account for the UK Independent runs contrary to nearly every claim circulating in major international press concerning what happened just over week ago on April 7th in an embattled suburb outside Damascus: not only has the veteran British journalist found no evidence of a mass chemical attack, but he's encountered multiple local eyewitnesses who experienced the chaos of that night, but who say the gas attack never happened.
According to Fisk and a doctor he interviewed in Douma, the video of people suffering from gas was in fact brought on by a dust storm and Syrian army shelling, then compounded by a false gas alarm, which caused people to douse themselves with water. You can read the whole thing here if you haven't already.
Then there's missiles, an awful lot of them, fired at just three targets. Joe Quin, writing at SOTT, offers a counter narrative, based on Russian radar reports and analysis of the target sites. He smells a rat:
But this then posed another problem. How to distribute the 100+ missiles among only 3 locations? Should they divide them equally, 33 (or so) at the HIAST buildings and 33 each at the two Homs locations? But would the visible damage tally with the reported number of missiles? The two locations outside Homs were problematic because they were in open farmland and the buildings were far too small to plausibly cover up the missing impact craters. There was only one thing for it: the HIAST target, with its 3 sizable towerblocks, would have to take the lion's share of the missing missiles. The outrageous number of 76, to be exact.
You can read the whole thing here.
Perhaps Fisk's a shill, Quin's a conspiracy theorist, Russian, Assadite dupe and we should take the Pentagon's report at face value. But if we do, let's not forget the old adage, War's a Racket.
Cheers,
LSP
