BUSTED! US, UK, back false-flag chemical attack in Syria

reply to post by Brucee


Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that with evidence such as the 'Source' link in the second post on this thread (and many other controversial, whistle blower and conspiracy evidence of many other things which effects our lives directly) it is becoming blatantly obvious that the US government (and most other governments) is almost sitting on their laurels and waiting to see how much the public will take.

I get the feeling that they want the public to rise up and rebel against these outrageous lies which they are spinning us and plaguing lives with. Or do they just want to see how much we will take?

So, how much more are we (as a planet) going to take???

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
reply to post by Brucee

 

Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that with evidence such as the 'Source' link in the second post on this thread (and many other controversial, whistle blower and conspiracy evidence of many other things which effects our lives directly) it is becoming blatantly obvious that the US government (and most other governments) is almost sitting on their laurels and waiting to see how much the public will take.

I get the feeling that they want the public to rise up and rebel against these outrageous lies which they are spinning us and plaguing lives with. Or do they just want to see how much we will take?

So, how much more are we (as a planet) going to take???

edit on 28-8-2013 by UnlimitedSky because: (no reason given)

Revolt and they kill us.

Just move.

It is like shopping; if a company does something you don't like, you don't go ape # on the company, you boycott them.

Mods why is this thread still not in HOAX?

It is based on an article that has been retracted and the writer has admitted that it is a fabrication.

Even if you don't believe this, the story itself is ridiculous and defies logic.

reply to post by teachtaire


Are you going to tell me how you know that these defense contractors had acces to CW's, like you said earlier?

Maybe it's just my education in statistics and logical analysis speaking, but I don't understand why so many people can be so completely committed to one idea without realizing that much of their reasoning is based on selective bias and exclusion of contrary information.

There are narratives. One narrative has it that Saddam's chemical weapon supply made its way into Syria before the invasion of Iraq. If this is true - and there is much evidence to suggest that it is - then that means that Syria possesses a chemical weapons supply of its own.

It's also well known that Syria is inherently despotic. A simple reason for that really. Syria is made up of 85% Sunni Muslims, and 15% Shia Muslims (Al Assad is an Alawi, whose religion wasn't regarded as legitimately Shia until the present Ayotollah made it official). Now, in the democratic west, this arrangement is inherently unjust. For one, Assad's government is continuous; and secondly, he represents the interests of a minority part of the population. 4.5 out of every 5 Syrians is Sunni. That means a Syrian president should be Sunni; which means a Syrian parliament should accurately represent this demographic majority. This is not the case. Sunni Syrians are an oppressed people.

Since this is the status quo in Syria, no one in their right mind could argue that this situation is ideal. We wouldn't tolerate it here, and Syrians shouldn't be asked to tolerate it in their country. So, Israel and America have been offering military support to the rebels not simply because it is in their interest to depose a dictator with special ties to Iran, but also, because it is the morally right thing to do.

This narrative makes more sense to me, inasmuch as it describes a world of real competing interests: intermural conflict between the two Islams; America and Israels desire to weaken Iran by weakening it's liasonesque pal Syria; Al Assads own need to preserve power, which means his feeling compelled to use chemical weapons to gain control over the situation in his country.

The other narrative being spun pretty much ignores all these internal conditions and lays the onus at America's door. Strangely, this position is shared by people on both sides of the political spectrum. The reason I am so iffy about this position is that it is blithe about the details. It doesn't seem to care that the middle east is a maelstrom of conflicting attitudes; old world conservatism and new world liberalism; old world socialism/communism and new world democracy. Syria is the bastard child of French colonialism; its demographic foundations were ineptly thought out. Today's problems are a hodgepodge of consequences that perhaps were inevitable. But in any case, a real youth element in Syria seems aligned with the one in Egypt, and just like the one in Egypt disposed of its fundamentalist elements, so too, it's hoped, will Syrias new government be made up of mostly pro-democratic elements who want to integrate their society into the modern world.

Cognitive psychologists like Daniel Kahneman have invented all sorts of interesting terms for the type of blindness to your own biases that hamper your judgements; availability heuristic: you limit your judgements to the information you currently possess; cognitive ease: basically, it's easier to accept conclusions that seem convincing than challenging them, and thus forcing your conscious mind to do some investigating. Were lazy, in short; anchored: your biased by previous information.

I'm not saying it's completely impossible that the US has for some reason decided to carry out a false flag attack in Syria; but it gets one to star wondering...why would they disturb their stock markets, disturb their economies? Why would Israel risk a conflict with Iran? What good would come of that for them?

If Syria has indeed crossed the line and used chemical weapons against the rebels (and those who support them), than this would serve as a reasonable basis for Americas desire to remove Abbas. Israel of course is facing the threat of an Iranian reprisal (which according to their conspiracy theorist world view, the Jews control it all; political science must be real interesting in that country) if America attacks Syria. Even though Iran may pose a future threat to Israel, there are many in Israel who would prefer the current program of pressure and diplomacy than war with Iran.

Otherwise, outside of this mainstream narrative, you have the opaque argument that the people who are behind all this are insanely irrational warmongers who care more about their personal bank accounts than continued progress in science and technology - which a larger population exponentially benefits.

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by teachtaire

 

Are you going to tell me how you know that these defense contractors had acces to CW's, like you said earlier?

1.) Why are you so hostile?

2.) WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO GET ME KILLED?

3.) You have a new account and a piss-poor record.

reply to post by teachtaire

1.) Why are you so hostile?

Because you are spouting random drivel, because you claim to know an answer but won't back it up, because you called me a shill because I confronted you with your own BS?

Take your pick.

3.) You have a new account and a piss-poor record.

Is this all you can muster?

All I have seen from you is drivel and ad hominum attacks.

That is a huge wall of text about something that isn't any of our business.

So you go ahead and qoute the whole thing? Now you are just trolling for sure.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
Maybe it's just my education in statistics and logical analysis speaking, but I don't understand why so many people can be so completely committed to one idea without realizing that much of their reasoning is based on selective bias and exclusion of contrary information.

There are narratives. One narrative has it that Saddam's chemical weapon supply made its way into Syria before the invasion of Iraq. If this is true - and there is much evidence to suggest that it is - then that means that Syria possesses a chemical weapons supply of its own.

It's also well known that Syria is inherently despotic. A simple reason for that really. Syria is made up of 85% Sunni Muslims, and 15% Shia Muslims (Al Assad is an Alawi, whose religion wasn't regarded as legitimately Shia until the present Ayotollah made it official). Now, in the democratic west, this arrangement is inherently unjust. For one, Assad's government is continuous; and secondly, he represents the interests of a minority part of the population. 4.5 out of every 5 Syrians is Sunni. That means a Syrian president should be Sunni; which means a Syrian parliament should accurately represent this demographic majority. This is not the case. Sunni Syrians are an oppressed people.

Since this is the status quo in Syria, no one in their right mind could argue that this situation is ideal. We wouldn't tolerate it here, and Syrians shouldn't be asked to tolerate it in their country. So, Israel and America have been offering military support to the rebels not simply because it is in their interest to depose a dictator with special ties to Iran, but also, because it is the morally right thing to do.

This narrative makes more sense to me, inasmuch as it describes a world of real competing interests: intermural conflict between the two Islams; America and Israels desire to weaken Iran by weakening it's liasonesque pal Syria; Al Assads own need to preserve power, which means his feeling compelled to use chemical weapons to gain control over the situation in his country.

The other narrative being spun pretty much ignores all these internal conditions and lays the onus at America's door. Strangely, this position is shared by people on both sides of the political spectrum. The reason I am so iffy about this position is that it is blithe about the details. It doesn't seem to care that the middle east is a maelstrom of conflicting attitudes; old world conservatism and new world liberalism; old world socialism/communism and new world democracy. Syria is the bastard child of French colonialism; its demographic foundations were ineptly thought out. Today's problems are a hodgepodge of consequences that perhaps were inevitable. But in any case, a real youth element in Syria seems aligned with the one in Egypt, and just like the one in Egypt disposed of its fundamentalist elements, so too, it's hoped, will Syrias new government be made up of mostly pro-democratic elements who want to integrate their society into the modern world.

Cognitive psychologists like Daniel Kahneman have invented all sorts of interesting terms for the type of blindness to your own biases that hamper your judgements; availability heuristic: you limit your judgements to the information you currently possess; cognitive ease: basically, it's easier to accept conclusions that seem convincing than challenging them, and thus forcing your conscious mind to do some investigating. Were lazy, in short; anchored: your biased by previous information.

I'm not saying it's completely impossible that the US has for some reason decided to carry out a false flag attack in Syria; but it gets one to star wondering...why would they disturb their stock markets, disturb their economies? Why would Israel risk a conflict with Iran? What good would come of that for them?

If Syria has indeed crossed the line and used chemical weapons against the rebels (and those who support them), than this would serve as a reasonable basis for Americas desire to remove Abbas. Israel of course is facing the threat of an Iranian reprisal (which according to their conspiracy theorist world view, the Jews control it all; political science must be real interesting in that country) if America attacks Syria. Even though Iran may pose a future threat to Israel, there are many in Israel who would prefer the current program of pressure and diplomacy than war with Iran.

Otherwise, outside of this mainstream narrative, you have the opaque argument that the people who are behind all this are insanely irrational warmongers who care more about their personal bank accounts than continued progress in science and technology - which a larger population exponentially benefits.

That is a huge wall of text about something that isn't any of our business.

Hi ATS,

Don't worry people. They can't attack Syria because if they attack Syria, Tel Aviv will be razed to ground and they already knew it. It's called "The Sword Of Damocles" strategy. I think They're just buying some times for their fellow-terrorists. it's like when a volleyball coach call for Time Out to buy time for his own team and make the opponent's players mentally weak. For 30 years they threatened us (Iran), but here we are ! They can't attack us or whomever is on our side ... not anymore ! Syria is not Saddam Hussain's Iraq or Afghanistan ! Iran is directly involved in this war and surprisingly is Russia. Assad's Syria is

So there's no need to worry !

come on, mods. Threads like this make ATS look bad. It is a hoax.

And why is infowars not treated the same as other fake news sites?

Originally posted by Matey222
Hi ATS,

Don't worry people. They can't attack Syria because if they attack Syria, Tel Aviv will be razed to ground and they already knew it. It's called "The Sword Of Damocles" strategy. I think They're just buying some times for their fellow-terrorists. it's like when a volleyball coach call for Time Out to buy time for his own team and make the opponent's players mentally weak. For 30 years they threatened us (Iran), but here we are ! They can't attack us or whomever is on our side ... not anymore ! Syria is not Saddam Hussain's Iraq or Afghanistan ! Iran is directly involved in this war and surprisingly is Russia. Assad's Syria is

So there's no need to worry !

I was under the impression that the main fear was pre-planted suitcase nukes at key locations? Is that what you are referring to?

Originally posted by teachtaire

That is a huge wall of text about something that isn't any of our business.

Spot on!

Example: just because I don't like the way you conduct yourself in your own home, it's none of my business to force you to change or threaten to burn your house down. It's your kids and wife's job to set you straight.

It is ludicrous how insistent the US, UK and France are in meddling in other countries' internal affairs. Maybe everything is just too perfect at home and there's nothing else better to do? It is this aggressive stance that heightens people's suspicion that there is some truth to the email hacking...at least the possibility of this false flag attack should not be so quickly discounted.


EDIT: Just stumbled on an answer:

Why Syria?

reply to post by aoxomoxoa


How do you know it is a hoax and not a psyop?
It's obvious that the Britam emails were faked but if you think outside the box and join the dots with other things
such as "co incidences" it paints a very different picture.
You hoax something discredit it then go ahead and do it.
Limbo

reply to post by teachtaire


That's an interesting perspective. I guess it's the libertarians creed, right?

There are absolutely no circumstances under which we should or could interfere with another countries actions against it's own people. Would this apply in your own community, by any chance? If you knew Billy Joe Blow was being beaten by his dad, would you interfere? Or would that be interfer'n in sumwun's business?

Or perhaps, would your interference be justified purely because the twos of you live under the same laws?

I am very uneasy about this position. I do not think it is morally justified to "stay out of someone elses business" simply because they live in another country. When Ron Paul was asked: if you were president during world war II, would you have interfered to help Germany's Jewish population, and he replied "no", he lost respect in my eyes. There's a coldness and ruthlessness about that view that I simply cannot countenance. I don't know if someone who holds such a view hasn't suffered very much in their lives? Or haven't witnessed much suffering? And are thus able to hold more callous views about such matters.

Humanity is one big family. Sub-families are the nations were individually apart of; communities we identify with; and then our own genetic families. But at the macro-level, there is a meaningful spiritual connection between all people, regardless of the tongue they speak, the religion they follow, or the ethics they've come to follow.

The golden rule should be considered in international relations - up to a certain point. When the playing field is "even" in a civil war, we tend to stay out. But when one side uses illegal weapons such as chemical weapons, which leave people seriously and badly injured, neurologically, their lungs, skin, etc, we have a moral obligation to intervene and prevent this situation from worsening.

reply to post by Kurius

it's your kids and wife's job to set you straight.

Must be convenient to just say that. Oh, you're being beaten and are experiencing the emotional trauma of that abuse; you're afraid to even look a certain way at your husband, let alone voice a complaint; your poor nervous system is shot and you have begun to accept the abuse as a natural survival strategy? But DONT WORRY! Intellectuals like Kurius here believes you should "grow some balls" and tell your tormentor (husband) to shape up.

I take it you have never read a book on psychology in your entire life. Not a single psychologist would take such a position seriously; a therapist who has spent years working with victims of PTSD would probably feel tempted to smack you across the face for such woeful ignorance about the human condition.

So, I hope you get that that is not a feasible option for a mother or child who is being abused by the alpha male of the house. They are terrified, weakened - emotionally and psychologically - by the abuse. As such, it is spectacularly immoral to put the onus of responsibility on them, and not on the community, who is in a much more favorable position to help them.

Originally posted by khimbar
It's taken down because it was faked.

They had to take it down.

www.theguardian.com...

Martin Wood, for Associated Newspapers, said in a statement before the judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies: "My lady, on behalf of the defendant, I confirm that the defendant offers its sincere apologies to the claimants for the damage and distress caused by the publication of these false allegations, which had appeared on US websites.

"The defendant acknowledges that the emails in question were completely fabricated and that there is no question of any of the claimants being involved – or even considering becoming involved – in the heinous actions to which the article referred. The defendant is pleased to set the record straight."

Oh i don't doubt they HAD to take it down.

They definitely had to take it down, but not because they 'lied', but because they were right.

£110 grand for something as libelous as this? Not in a million years. Even if they 10 times that figure, it still wouldn't be the right amount for a genuine libel as huge as this would be, if it were actually so.

A fake email? Implicating a defence corporation, in a plot to murder men, women and children using Chemical weapons in a false flag op to get at Syria?! £110,000?

Nope..the bastards are in damage control mode, the editor or owners of the DM have their heads on the block, probably literally...and naturally they capitulated and took the easy option...of 'the emails are fake...end of story'.

I expect the 'security services' made it VERY clear to them there was NO choice, end the story means end of story.

Except that it isn't...Sarin used a short while ago by terrorists bused in by Qatar, amateur and heath robinson but effective gas used again last week - again looking very much like it was the same bunch having another go, evidence found implicating nobody else except the filth we've been arming, equipping and paying recently and the very same filth our poor soldiers have been fighting for over a decade already.(and the same who proved handy in helping to remove most of our freedoms, and usher in myriad so-called terrorism laws.

Oh imo, the emails are / were genuine, and i believe so to is the threat(s) that was issued to enable this story to 'go away'. The UK Government gags and directs the press anyway and anytime it wants to, usually with something called a 'D Notice' (read as; bury the story or else) but a D notice could not be used in this case, as it would essentially be an admission...the next best thing?

Claim it's all made up, none of it was true...a small (very small for the severity) slap on the wrist to make it look good, and everyone is happy...except for the hundreds of thousands of people that WILL die, and the further damage to world security if these lying scum get the war they've been planning for years.

Heads up
1:- stock markets
2:- France

reply to post by Astrocyte


SOOOO we are allowed to attack countries because they use chemical weapons?

We are allowed to fund AL QAEDA fighters for several years send them into a country with weapons we supplied and when said country destabilizes, offer "military support"?

Under your logic we can bomb a country if they dont kill by the "approved method", and said country is killing the terrorists that we have been arming for years. Makes alot of sense. We should just go around the world dropping love and democracy bombs everywhere, we can save everyone!

reply to post by MysterX

They definitely had to take it down, but not because they 'lied', but because they were right. £110 grand for something as libelous as this? Not in a million years. Even if they 10 times that figure, it still wouldn't be the right amount for a genuine libel as huge as this would be, if it were actually so.

And is this based on anything else but your imagination?

Oh imo, the emails are / were genuine, and i believe so to is the threat(s) that was issued to enable this story to 'go away'. The UK Government gags and directs the press anyway and anytime it wants to, usually with something called a 'D Notice' (read as; bury the story or else) but a D notice could not be used in this case, as it would essentially be an admission...the next best thing?

Judging by the email the UK gov wasn't even involved. Seems these two defense contactor officials were making the deal. They aren't government officials so how can you blame UK gov?

Again, why is noone talking about the Qataris that were behind this apparently?

It is a load of bull. UK renounced chemical weapons in1956 for god sakes. Defense contractors don't have them laying around, and if they had and were selling them to Qatari nationals and it got out, they would be in jail right now.

Why is ATS perpetuating this BS?

The story has been retracted and the writer said it was a fabrication.

So the only reason this thread is not HOAXED is because mods think this is not true? Is this notion based on anything or are we just being persistent with our ignorance? Is it because SO posted in it apparently buying the story?

I could see it remajn if the thread was about the question of wether the mails were fake or not, but the thread completely ignores the whole situation as if the retraction never happened.

HOAX!

At least edit the OP to add the information of the fake emails.

reply to post by Brucee


Just...wow!It was on msm?! Those links are down!! But that doens't surprise me at all anymore and those governments dirty games are becoming crystal clear for everyone to see.