Good grief! Did the US, France & UK destroy Syrian installations to punish a chemical attack that tr

[Zable]

Good grief! Did the US, France & UK destroy Syrian installations to punish a chemical attack that truly never happened?

On April 14th, the US, UK and France carried out missile strikes on three Syrian sites they said were "specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons programme".

This was punishment for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the April 7th chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma by forces loyal to him who were fighting rebel groups.

BBC had reported by then that:

• Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics had said that more than 40 people were killed on April 7th.

• And that France had said it had "proof" that "chemical weapons were used by President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

• But that the Syrian government had denied the allegation.
• Russia said the Douma chemical attack was staged by foreign agents. (April 13th)

The Guardian, during the time it was giving live updates of the airstrikes, reported an evidence sheet being released by the White House that made its case for "regime involvement in the Douma attack". It included "eyewitness sightings of helicopters dropping barrel bombs on Douma, and “reliable intelligence” that Syrian military officials coordinated the attack.

Some 6 days ago, Russia said it had "irrefutable evidence" that the incident was "staged" with the help of the UK.

And now we hear, OAN Reporter In Syria Finds No Evidence of Chemical Weapon Attack In Douma.

On April 18th, RealClear Politics's Tim Hains posted a news brief summarizing the accompanying OAN video:

One America News reporter Pearson Sharp visited the war-torn town of Douma outside the capital of Damascus, looking for evidence of a chemical attack. However, residents there deny the claims of an attack, and say it was staged to help the rebels escape.

"When I asked [the doctors at the hospital] what they thought the chemical attack was, they told me --all of them told me-- that it was staged by the rebels who are occupying the town at the time. They said it was a fabrication and a hoax an when I asked them why, they told me it was because the rebels were desperate, and they needed a ploy to get the Syrian army off their backs so they could escape," Sharp reported.​

If it's true that the chemical weapon attack on Douma that Syria was accused of truly never happened, and that the US might have fallen for faked evidence, then Nikki Haley might have been speaking more loaded words than we realized over the Russian sanctions announcement debacle: "With all due respect, I don't get confused."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084​

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dy-of-evidence-steered-trump-to-syria-strikes
Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/18/oan_reporter_in_syria_finds_no_evidence_of_chemical_weapon_attack_in_douma.html

 

[Frank Underwood]

Imagine that. Going to war with a country based on fake intelligence. And every time, the skeptics and people calling for an investigation are smeared in the media.

Hmm, sort of makes you think this is all by design. Nah, couldn't be!

 

[Zable]

That’s a hmm back from me. It did bother me that the airstrikes were carried out a day before the chemical weapons inspectors were to enter Douma to see and report if, in fact, there’d actually had been a chemical attack. …..Recall that on March 2nd, US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had said there had been recent reports “from the battlefield” by those who’d claimed that sarin gas was being used again in attacks on those opposed to Mr Assad. Mr Mattis had said then that “the US currently had no proof to back those claims”. So the so-called Douma chemical attack just a month later was the opportunity to get that proof from impeccable sources -- the chemical weapons inspectors. Why be in so much hurry to launch an airstrike when you know that it's going to anger the Syrians and make it harder for the inspectors to do their job?

Ok, possibly the allies wanted the element of surprise for their airstrikes – that might have been lost had they waited for an affirmative report from the inspectors. Waiting would have given the Syrians time to hide stuff at places at risk of an allied airstrike if an affirmative report was going to be coming from the inspectors.

But consider, could there have been another unknown clandestine allied mission that made an airstrike by the allies imperative; and so the attack on Douma was staged to provide justification?

Say there was. Were all the allies in the loop about it – or were one or two ‘hoodwinked’ into going along? That’s why I wrote that “the US might have fallen for faked evidence” – Mr Trump not being keen on military engagement in Syria was known. But others may have been wanting the US still much engaged.

It wasn’t making sense to me that President Assad would be attacking his own people at this time. Lordy, even Fox New’s Tucker Carlson of all people was questioning that, and that was days before the airstrikes.

Recently, Mr Carlson had Peter Ford on his show. According to Wiki, Mr Ford is a retired diplomat who was once Britain’s ambassador to Bahrain and, later, Syria. Last year, he became “a Director of the British Syrian Society, alongside President Assad’s father-in-law Dr Fawaz Akhras”.

Mr Ford’s perspective: “I suspect the President has not been given all the facts. That he’s being led into error by advisors who have been extremely gullible and haven’t carried out their intelligence work properly. This has all the hallmarks of an intelligence fiasco.”

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R2QhK0-Pe8

Who’s conning whom?