Putin declares Syria gas attack a false flag; says more are coming

originally posted by: neo96

Because Trumphobes latch on to anything to confirm their bias.

Last week Russia was the evil empire, this week they are
the worlds savior from the evil U.S.

Crazy, this has nothing to do with Trump, aside from the
50+ cruise missiles....throw logic out the door.

How can anyone really buy into this?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Wait....Putin is a crusader for truth & justice now?

I thought he hacked the Presidential election!

So that's how we're spinning this huh? lol

Here, try this one...

CIA says Russia interfered with the election... Bullsh!t!!!!

CIA says Assad dropped chemical weapons... Git that evil baby killin sombich!!!!

a reply to: burntheships

How can anyone really buy into this?

Because the mob isn't known for it's intellect.

At it's basic level.

Russian politics versus American politics, and all political warfare is based on deception.

X= says Y is lying.

Y= says X is lying.

The first casualty is the truth.

After that people believe what they want to believe.

a reply to: neo96

Score another win for the Lamestream Media, flip the pancake
and look, Putin's angelic face smiles on the other side.

Insanity.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Idreamofme

The UN is the best we got....

The US as far as a I know hasn't called for any investigation on the chemical weapons. I wonder why?

Sorry, but the UN did call for an investigation, and they completed
it. Their verdict was Syria used chemical weapons on its own people.

Here is the UN report, and following the U.S Sanctions on Syria.
This just happened a few months ago, coincidentally right
before Trump took office, under the Obama Administration.

So, cant blame Trump!

LOOK at the date!!!

United States Treasury Sanctions Syrian Officials In Connection With OPCW-UN
(United Nations) Findings Of Regime’s Use Of Chemical Weapons On Civilians

1/12/2017 ​

www.treasury.gov...

A few points about this to consider:

-The U.N. has a proven history of bias towards the west. Remember this is the same organization that appointed Saudi Arabia a position on the board of human rights. And not even as an April fool's joke.

-Up to this day we hear nonsense about Sarin gas being used by the Syrian government, when both the 2013 and 2017 chemical attacks showed no evidence of Sarin related symptoms. This report states quite plainly that it was Chlorine gas.

-Consider that many folks in the Obama and Trump administration have wanted a regime change in Syria for years, it should come as no surprise that they may have very well used their influence on the U.N. to make such a report in order to cover their tracks in the future. This is a luxury that Putin, Assad, or Iran simply does not have.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: neo96

Score another win for the Lamestream Media, flip the pancake
and look, Putin's angelic face smiles on the other side.

Insanity.

I have to agree.

For months now that media was dismissing everything Putin had to say because they 'stole' our election.

Now when Putin speaks political hacks listen.

Oh please. Russia has launched a disinformation campaign in recent days since we bombed Syria, to diminish Putin's and Assad's role in it. Putin and Assad, innocent and good.

Remember the disinformation campaign launched against Hillary Clinton just a few months back? Like that.

Drink it up. It's not toxic at all.

Now that the Russians see how gullible Americans are to their disinformation campaigns, we can expect to see them revved up on a regular basis.

a reply to: neo96

Leftists:

"Putin Loves Trump;We Hate Putin!"

"Putin Hates Trump;We Love Putin!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I do not disagree with you, and think it is always
necessary to examine everything.

In this particular instance, we have the facts.

1. All of the prior attacks in Syria ( and there were many )
a list of which are here in the UN report www.un.org...
all happened under OBAMA.

2. Obama declared Syria used chemical weapons on its own people.

3. The United Nations faults SYRIA for using chemical weapons on its
own people, as evidenced by the report above.

4. The media did not disagree with OBAMA and The United Nations.

5. John Kerry did not disagree with Obama and The United Nations.

6: Susan Rice did not disagree with Obama and The United Nations.

7. Did anyone disagree with Obama and The United Nations?

8. Did Russia call the prior attacks false flags?

Obviously, you can see where I am going with this?

What makes this particular "chemical weapons" attack
different, what makes this one a false flag?

I am really honestly asking for a logical answer....

a reply to: Sillyolme

Of course we are...

After all he's agreeing with someones take on the issue. Next week he'll be the Devil Incarnate, again... No worries.

I wouldn't trust Vlad the (I wanna be) Great any further than I could throw him.

a reply to: milano


The mind set in Russia is that the West has been taken over by fascists, personally the way I have seen the society go down hill during the last decade or two, I tend to agree that something like this has been going on. I think its too late in the day, we cant clean out our governments. At this rate they the governments have unleashed something on themselves, that I thought they were never that stupid enough to do. Russia and North Korea have very deep fall out shelters. "So long and thanks for the fish"

Ex British Ambassador to Syria calls this whole event out. He makes some very good points and comparisons to the run up to the Iraq invasion.

But keep on keeping on, because in the end our voices and words change nothing.

a reply to: anonentity

Yep it all goes back to project paperclip and Dulles the guy who shut Mc Carthy down.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Possibly.

So, for the Times to compile a summary of alleged Assad atrocities, which included a separate section on “chemical attacks,” and to leave out the August 2013 case suggests that even The New York Times cannot sustain one of the most beloved myths of the Syrian war, that Assad was at fault for the sarin attack.

NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims

He might be on to something here, but even a Putin Troll like me would like to see some evidence. As of now Vlad just muddied the waters again and I don't like this "seize the moment" realpolitik crap.

a reply to: burntheships

In this particular instance, we have the facts.

Sorry burntheships, but are you seriously getting your "facts" from the UN? It was NATO Special Forces that trained al-Nusra how to "handle" chemical weapons in the first place. They stuck around after the first attack in order to oversee any future staged attacks.

Last night, the UN commission looking into allegations of war crimes in Syria tried to row back on the comments by its human rights investigator, pointing out that conclusive evidence had not been discovered.

A senior United Nations official has claimed that Syrian rebels may have used chemical weapons against government forces.

Carla Del Ponte said evidence from casualties and medical staff indicated that rebel forces in the civil war had used the deadly nerve agent sarin.

Link

And of course, this Link from my previous post. The leaked e-mail has since been scrubbed, but I have it.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

There is also this report, from a few days ago.

United Nations report from Investigation of Security Council:

Several speakers said that the Syrian Government bore primary responsibility for the attack, with France’s representative saying there was significant evidence that the event had not resulted from an air strike....

The United Kingdom’s representative said the Assad regime continued to humiliate the Russian Federation by demonstrating just how empty Syria’s promises to remove its chemical weapons had been. If Moscow hoped to regain its credibility, it must join the Council in helping efforts to ensure accountability, rather than hindering them.


Others took a more cautious view, with Bolivia’s representative warning against using the Council as a “pawn on the chessboard of warlords”, and cautioning against anticipating the investigation’s outcome until it was concluded.


Egypt’s representative, meanwhile, emphasized the need to bring the 4 April perpetrators to justice. “We cannot understand how such crimes can go unnoticed without accountability,” he said, pledging that his country would support any Council action to hold those responsible to account and urging a focus on the production, possession and use of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors.

Also speaking today were representatives of China, Japan, Italy, Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Sweden, Ethiopia, Ukraine and Senegal.

www.un.org...


Notice these things:

1. Russia refuses to join the Security Council.

2. Russia, rather than present any facts, only tries
to muddy the waters with this statement by
the Russian Federation’s representative.

He said that his delegation objected to the draft’s reliance on falsified reports and to the hasty preparation of the text. The draft should condemn the use of chemical weapons by any party, and urge the fact-finding mission to write up thorough reports, he said, stressing that its current efforts could not be called impartial.

3. None of the other nations blame The United States, or the Rebels.

4. None of the other nations call into question the evidence submitted so far.

So again, I am asking how Russia is credible?

Without any evidence whatsoever, how can Russia be "the good guy"?

Now, I am not saying I believe everything that comes from The U.N.
In fact, I am on record calling into question some of what they do,
and much of what they stand for.

And, for the Record I have never been Pro Russia either.

It sure appears to me looking at the facts that it is the media
Alt Left media who is promoting the "Russia is Great"
"U.S. is evil" propaganda that just flipped from one side to the other.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: burntheships

In this particular instance, we have the facts.

Sorry burntheships, but are you seriously getting your "facts" from the UN? It was NATO Special Forces that trained al-Nusra how to "handle" chemical weapons in the first place. They stuck around after the first attack in order to oversee any future staged attacks.

I am quoting the UN report, not necessarily stating I agree with it.

I also quoted all of the other nations in The Security Council that
agree with the findings. Not nessecarily saying I agree with them.

The question I am asking is this:

Why is Russia to be believed over all of the other nations?

Where is Russia providing any evidence to support their claim?

Why did Russia not call all of the other attacks from previous years a "false flag"?

It was NATO Special Forces that trained al-Nusra how to "handle" chemical weapons in the first place.

Yes, I am aware of this, also aware CIA is ops, also The Pentagon.

Again, still asking the question, where is Russia's evidence this
was attack was a false flag?

Where is the evidence this attack was perpetrated by NATO forces
or the Rebel alliance?

Is it wrong to ask for evidence? I sure hope not, because Russia
has zero credibility right now, to take them at face value
is beyond absurd. They have everything to gain in this situation,
and nothing to lose. Not to mention consider the source?

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I do not disagree with you, and think it is always
necessary to examine everything.

In this particular instance, we have the facts.

1. All of the prior attacks in Syria ( and there were many )
a list of which are here in the UN report www.un.org...
all happened under OBAMA.

2. Obama declared Syria used chemical weapons on its own people.

3. The United Nations faults SYRIA for using chemical weapons on its
own people, as evidenced by the report above.

4. The media did not disagree with OBAMA and The United Nations.

5. John Kerry did not disagree with Obama and The United Nations.

6: Susan Rice did not disagree with Obama and The United Nations.

7. Did anyone disagree with Obama and The United Nations?

8. Did Russia call the prior attacks false flags?

Obviously, you can see where I am going with this?

What makes this particular "chemical weapons" attack
different, what makes this one a false flag?

I am really honestly asking for a logical answer....

I'm honestly using my best discernment to figure out the truth as well. We're in this together. I'd never claim to know all the facts, but I will claim that I look at these matters with far less subjective bias than most Americans.

Take into account the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. He feels strongly that the 2013 Damascus attack was a false flag and provides decent evidence for this claim.

Here : themillenniumreport.com...

This event was on the world stage and would've served it's false flag purpose by broadcasting to the world that Assad is a villain, regardless of whether or not Obama took action afterward. It still served it's purpose.

The events from last week seem like a reinvention of the same formula. They also share two important thing in common : they helped American interests and only vague details were given to the public.

But as basic as it sounds, the one significant question remains: "Why would Assad do this? Especially at this time?"

The ignorant answer that "he's a madman" doesn't cut it for me.

a reply to: burntheships


That's the official newspeak. You call this pile of crap actual evidence?

The 2013 sarin attack wasn't Assad either, Red Lines crossed by the deep state? Quite possibly. It's the same old play and I'm tired of this warmonger crap. GTF out of Syria and something to cure your military-industrial complexes with, medical hemp maybe? Geez...

And, for the Record I have never been Pro Russia either.

Could this be about peace as well? Nah, must be Russian Trolls...

a reply to: khnum


So the first world war caused the second, and the second caused the third. Logical.