It's weird, but every time Western backed proxy Jihad militias in Syria are on the verge of losing yet another battle, the Syrian government launches a chemical attack against their civilians, prompting the West to attack Assad forces.
We're gearing up for this deadly spectacle again as the Russian and Iranian backed Syrian army launches a full scale assault on Al-Quaeda affiliates in Idlib province. Well ahead of the offensive on one of the last remaining terrorist strongholds, Russia warned of a false flag chemical attack.
Western response has been predictable, threatening Assad with swift and vigorous action if chemical weapons are used. Fair enough, but who stands to benefit if they are?
A Syrian government on the edge of victory, which has everything to lose by drawing down potentially catastrophic fire on its own position, or the Islamist terrorists who have everything to gain from massive intervention on the part of the US and allies.
Put simply, Assad stands to lose everything if he uses chemical weapons, the reverse applies to the Islamist terrorists.
So if and when heart wrenching reports of men, women and children being killed by poison gas in Idlib, along with stirring humanitarian videos of the Mother Theresa inspired White Helmets providing humanitarian aid start to surface, who's the culprit?
Assad or some other thing?
By the way, Youtube's not only banned Alex Jones but the Syrian government too. Surely a coincidence.
And since we're visiting, some 300,000 people have died in Syria since the Saudi/Qatari/US backed LNG war against Assad started.
Imagine, just for a moment, that we were Syria and had lost so many people. Then add Iraq's 500,000 dead and ask yourself how you'd feel about our foreign policy if you were on the receiving end
Out demons out,
LSP
