Syria

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

No Gas Says Fisk And Where Are The Missiles?

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

The Idiocy Of Assad

So let's get this straight. Syria's Bashar al-Assad is winning a war against Saudi Arabian, Qatari and US proxy terrorists, such as our frenemies, Al Qaeda. 

Then all of a sudden, as he's on the very cusp of victory, stupid Assad decides to throw it all away by dropping chlorine filled barrel bombs on Douma. We know this because the saintly White Helmets told us he did it and because, obviously, he's an evil idiot.

There you have it. Assad, the stupid, evil, idiot, Gas Killer Animal exposed by the heroic White Helmets, and soon to be struck down by hubris in the form of  a hail of US, UK, French and Saudi munitions. But there's a problem with this picture.

Assad, whatever else he might be, isn't stupid and he isn't an idiot, he's a geeky opthamologist. An opthamologist that dared to cross the House of Saud and its billions by refusing to let them drive a pipeline through his country.

Then there's the Islamist White Helmets, who operate exclusively alongside Al Qaeda and associated Jihad head-chopper savages as a kind of medical propaganda support group, funded by countries such as the US, UK, Belgium, Qatar and, go figure, George Soros. 

You can read about these altruists here, here, here and here. Regardless, we fund them so they must be telling the truth, right?

As you reflect on that axiom, the Russians have gained access to Douma, which has been liberated from the Western/Saudi funded Jihad, and they haven't found any evidence whatsoever that a chemical attack took place.

So who's lying. The Al Qaeda support group we've come to Netflix love as the White Helmets, or the idiot who isn't an idiot, Bashar Assad?

You, the reader, be the judge.

Kizmet,

LSP