Vijay Prashad and Paul Jay ask if the US "mother of all bombs" dropped on Afghanistan and the missile attack on a Syrian airbase, are PR events to show Trump and the US military will "fight without restraint" and "take on Russia"

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.

AP reports that U.S. forces in Afghanistan on Thursday struck an Islamic State tunnel complex in eastern Afghanistan with what the American army apparently calls the "Mother of All Bombs," the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the U.S. military.

Pentagon officials have said the bomb, known officially as the GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast weapon, unleashes 11 tonnes of explosives. In its 2003 review of the legality of using the bomb, the Pentagon concluded that it could not be called an "indiscriminate killer" under the law of armed conflict. I guess that's back when they actually were concerned about such laws.

If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- this is no longer AP, I should say; this is now me -- if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II was to show the world the willingness of the new superpower to use the nuclear weapon, perhaps this is the use of the Mother of All Bombs... this use of the Mother of All Bombs is to show the U.S. will now fight without restraint. And in fact that's exactly what President Trump said when he spoke at his inauguration, and his visit to the CIA.

DONALD TRUMP: And unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth. We are protected, and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement, and most importantly... (applause), we will be protected by God. We've been fighting these wars for longer than any wars we've ever fought. We have not used the real abilities that we have. We've been restrained. We have to get rid of ISIS. I have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice.

PAUL JAY: Under the protection of God, America, we'll use the Mother of All Bombs and fight without restraint. That's the message Donald wanted to send, and perhaps that's the message this bomb was meant to deliver in Afghanistan.

Now joining us to discuss this is Vijay Prashad. Vijay is the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of International Studies at Trinity College. He's the author of many books, including The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution, and co-editor of Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations and the Arab World.

Thanks for joining us again, Vijay.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Pleasure. Thank you.

PAUL JAY: So what do you make of this massive bomb dropped on these ISIS tunnels, as we were told?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, let's just say first that there have been two book-ended attacks. One was at one end of Eurasia, when the United States fired 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base; and at the other end of the so-called territory of the War on Terror, there was this massive bomb blast in a district that borders Pakistan. So there have been these two very important demonstration effects by the United States in the very region where they've constructed the battlefield of the War on Terror, so I see these two events as quite fundamentally linked. I think what's important is that the government of Afghanistan has said that they had not had any knowledge of what has happened, firstly of the bomb blast itself, and then the outcome of the bomb blast.

In other words, it's going to take some time, Paul, before we know whether this blast was merely in a so-called combat area against what the Pentagon and the White House call the tunnel complex, or whether there were villages and towns nearby which suffered from this very large blast; one of the largest explosions that we've seen from aerial bombardment in human history.

PAUL JAY: Now, I'm not a military expert, but it seems to me both of these things, as you say, are linked, and both of these things are more propaganda events than they are military exercises.  You start with the Syrian... attack on the Syrian air base, 59 missiles fired, was it 36 got through? They're apparently using the base later the same night. They phoned the Russians ahead of time to say it was coming, which means Russian air defenses and radar were all ready for it.

I mean, that looked like an elaborate show to prove that Trump, and Tillerson, on his way to Moscow, were independent and could stand up to Moscow and weren't afraid of taking on Assad.

And then you have this enormous blast in Afghanistan, which, you know, Trump got such praise for being so forceful. People like Fareed Zakaria say, "Oh, on this day, Trump became President." So he can blow things up and kill some people; and we should say, we're not sure how many people died in that Syrian air base attack, but according to the Syrian government, not just the few that were on the base, but according to them there were people killed in villages around the base; and we have no news yet of how many civilians might have been killed in this blast.

But the fact that they have to say -- (blast in Afghanistan) -- but the fact they have to release to AP and make part of their messaging -- "they" being the Pentagon -- that they studied this and it doesn't violate international law for indiscriminate killing, suggests -- and, as you say, the fact the Afghan government doesn't want anything to do with it so far -- it suggests perhaps there might be a lot of indiscriminate killing going on here.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, as I said, we won't know that.

But one thing we do know, is that the ISIS sector in Afghanistan in the so-called Khorasan Province -- you know this group was set up in 2015; they selected this district, which borders Pakistan, as their base. They initially began with about 30 or 40 recruits. It's a very small group initially. They set up a radio station called the ?Voice of the Caliphate?, again, with very, very marginal impact inside Afghanistan.

Over the course of these two years since they've been in existence -- as I said, started in 2015 -- the Afghan government, with support from U.S. air power, has quite fundamentally degraded their capacity. There was a major offensive against this ISIS stronghold. It's not really an ISIS area; it's just a stronghold that they have. They were quite degraded in the January 2016 offensive led by the Afghan military.

And I should say that the studies have shown that over the last two years, ISIS in Afghanistan has killed 94 people, but 497 ISIS fighters have been killed. So, the ratio shows, as President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan had said last year, that Afghanistan will be the graveyard of ISIS.

Now, of course, he didn't mean it'll be the graveyard of ISIS -- the ISIS that's in Iraq or Syria -- but that in Afghanistan ISIS will not be able to sustain itself. And ISIS has attempted to sectarianize the fight inside Afghanistan by going after the Hazara Shia community, but even this has not succeeded because the Hazara Shia haven't reacted to this sectarianism.

In this sense, what I'm saying, Paul, is that ISIS in Afghanistan is a marginal force. The real force fighting the government is the Taliban.

So to have targeted the ISIS section in Afghanistan reveals this was more an exercise of Trump and the Trump White House saying, we're taking the fight to ISIS, taking it seriously, rather than an honest appraisal that the real threat to the Afghan government comes from the Taliban, and ISIS is really not a force of any threat.

PAUL JAY: Well, that also suggests the way Trump -- and one should also look at Bannon, the chief strategist in his ear, although Trump today wants to call himself his own chief strategist, but much of what he's been saying comes out of Steve Bannon's mouth -- is that this is the beginning of a dirty, bloody, terrible war against Islamic fascism.

There's no distinguishing in that between the Taliban and an ISIS. This is just this one dark force coming from the East to come ?get? the West. And you bomb the hell out of any of it, and it all looks as if you're fighting it.

VIJAY PRASHAD: I think this is quite correct. I think that there is idea that the war against Islam is the fundamental war.

I mean, this was revealed not only... not merely by Bannon, who has actually talked about this kind of civilizational conflict in, as you say, very dark terms.

This is not merely Donald Trump, who again is basically been ventriloquizing some of Bannon's worldview. But this was also out of the mouth of his ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who one had assumed was from the kind of mainstream right wing of the Republican Party, not the kind of Bannon wing.

Nikki Haley, when she mentioned the issue of fighting terrorists in Syria, in the same breath said of the terrorists, she included Iran. Now this is interesting. In what manner is Iran, inside Syria, part of the camp of terrorists? Well, only if you see all Muslim fighters as terrorists. What other explanation is there to see Iranian fighters inside Syria as in the camp of terrorists, particularly when they know very well that their fight in Mosul against the Islamic State would not be happening without Iranian fighters?

But there is this kind of confused miasma that they're operating with, in which basically something called Islam, is the generic threat to Western Christendom.

PAUL JAY: I think it's very important, because the truth of it is, it's actually not as generic as they suggest it sounds like; Islamic fascism, Islamic this, Islamic that. It's really Iran that they're talking about all the time, because when do they include Saudi Arabia in this Islamic fascism? Which in fact is a fascist state, if you want that Islamic fascist state.

I mean, the Saudis are that. Of course, they never get talked about in all of this; and there's no bigger ally of the Sunni extremist, terrorist, than the Saudis. We all know the funding.

The other piece of this is when you drop a bomb like that in Afghanistan the people are so fed up with war. You've had increasing support for the idea that even the Taliban are better than this war that never ends. And the idea that Afghans on the whole would have sympathy for the Taliban is really something.

I made a film there, and I was there in 2002, the spring of 2002; a film called Return to Kandahar. People despised the Taliban. They were so fed up with having lived under the Taliban, even in villages ? we were in Kandahar. The Americans have successfully turned that situation, of people despising the Taliban, to even willing to accept a certain amount of Taliban power just to get the damned war over and get the Americans out.

VIJAY PRASHAD: I think you're right. I mean, look, firstly the Taliban came to power between 1994 and 1996, largely based on the idea that the warlords and their murderous infighting from the late 1980s until 1996 showed that they were not capable of providing stability.

And then, yes, the Taliban came to power, and in the short period of five years people began to despise them. Despise the kind of harsh reality of their so-called stability. And now we're back to 1994-96 where, yes, a great number of people say, I would prefer the stability of the Taliban to this kind of murderous bloodletting.

And let me just remind people of one thing. I have said a second ago that the ISIS in Afghanistan, the so-called Khorasan Division, has located itself in the eastern section on the border with Pakistan. Many of the people in ISIS that are inside Afghanistan are Pakistanis who came from the Pakistan Taliban.

So there is going to be a great deal of anger in Waziristan and other places which are the borders of Pakistani Taliban, and we're going to see some of the spillover of this is going to be renewed attacks inside Pakistan. Because people... they will want to take revenge on somebody.

PAUL JAY: And then you go to American domestic politics. This fervor, this love of the bombing of Syria from leading Democrats, Republicans, neocons, supposed liberal media like The Rachel Maddow Show; now you're going to expect to have the same thing about this Mother of All Bombs.

There is a real bloodlust emerging at the level of the official political stratum. It's a reflection of them being out of ideas. They have no solutions for the problems facing people. The military-industrial complex is just thirsting for this kind of expansion. They're going to get $54 billion from this president; now he's starting to drop... I don't know what that bomb cost. I don't think we saw a number on it, but it must be millions and millions of dollars for the single bomb.

It's a very dangerous situation, and people should be careful about the terrible chauvinism being aroused the name of fighting a terrorist threat, that to some extent doesn't exist in terms of a threat to the United States, that's for sure.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, there was no threat to the United States from this group, not at this point, and I don't think even the General in the area, Nicholson, had at no point said that there is a threat from this group to the United States.

I mean, just to draw further into your statement about so-called rallying around the flag of the liberal media, there is a curious dynamic to this. When George W. Bush was the President, there was a great deal of disparagement of his agenda in the first few months of his presidency. When 9/11 hit, and he began his war against Afghanistan, at that point the liberal intelligentsia suddenly said he has become "presidential." That was the very word they used.

The "presidential-ness" only soured when reports came out about torture, black sites, et cetera. Once again we see this term ?presidential? come out. It's a stunning thing that the word "presidential" is now related to bombing, that if you bomb, you are presidential. If you don't bomb, you're not.

And the other thing that's interesting in this, is the kind of comparison with Obama. You see, in a way, people are saying, well, Obama's foreign policy was leading from behind. Of course, this is news to the victims of the drone strikes. But I think there is a difference between Obama's form of aerial bombardment and Trump's form of aerial bombardment.

There is a kind of? I would even go so far as to say, a racist assumption that the United States is the doctor, and it must provide doses of medication through bombing around the planet to maintain order. And whereas Obama was in a sense a homeopath who gave homeopathic doses of bombing, Trump is an allopath. He comes in with massive scale bombing which we've seen now with this Mother of All Bombs. The difference between Obama and Trump should not be measured in terms of one being slow to use American force and the other one being fast. But it's in the dosages that they have decided to write out in their prescriptions.

And I fear that this President is going to escalate this kind of bombing; he?s going to be a little more indiscriminate. And all this is going to do at the other end is create what the CIA called in its after-action document, after overthrowing the Iranian government; they coined the term "blowback".The blowback from this is going to be quite significant; and I don't think they're taking a long-term historical view on the outcomes of their bombings.

Just as Obama, with his homeopathic drone strikes, didn't take a long-term view of the value, the utility of so-called going after high value targets through drone strikes; neither the high value target were policy, nor this massive attack, is going to have the so-called desired effect, which is the defeat of what they call the terrorists.

PAUL JAY: And terrorists that their policy created in the first place. Thanks for joining us, Vijay.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Thanks a lot.

PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
As James Madison once said "war powers is the surest way to tyranny" and tyranny will prevail if people remain apathetic says Col. Larry Wilkerson

SHARMINI PERIES: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. As everyone knows by now, late Friday night the U.S. military, with the support of the British and the French military, launched a series of missile attacks against what they said were Syrian research, chemical storage, and military targets. The strikes were apparently in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus which is said to have killed 40 - 70 civilians. Over the weekend Trump gloated in these attacks.

DONALD TRUMP: By the way, John Bolton is here, and we just had a big, successful hit. John? Are you giving him all the credit? Or you know, that means the end of his job. Did our generals do a great job? Did our military do a great job? With way over 100 missiles shot in, they didn't shoot one down. The equipment didn't work too well, their equipment, and they didn't shoot one, you know, you heard, oh, they shot 40 down, then they shot 15 down. Then I call, I said, did they? No, sir, every single one hit its target.

SHARMINI PERIES: Reaction from members of Congress was generally supportive of the strike, as were many human rights organizations and the mainstream media, although these strikes were unauthorized by Congress or the UN. Some senators, however, Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine, as well as Congressman Ro Khanna, they rejected these strikes, saying that Trump should have gotten congressional authorization first, as is required by the Constitution. On Friday night, Bernie Sanders wrote: It is Congress, not the president, which has the Constitutional responsibility for making war. The international community must uphold the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, but it is unclear how Trump's illegal and unauthorized strikes on Syria achieve that goal. And he added this on Meet the Press on Sunday.

BERNIE SANDERS: I disagree that the United States should have combat troops in that area. I feel very much that we will be in perpetual warfare in that region. I do not want to see that occur. But let me be very clear: I am very concerned about a lot of the war talk that I'm hearing from my Republican colleagues, who apparently have forgotten the cost of war and the errors made in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what I believe, Chuck, very much, is that the most powerful military on earth, the United States of America, that our government should do everything that we can to resolve international conflict in a way that does not require war.

SHARMINI PERIES: In the UK, the reaction from Jeremy Corbyn was much tougher against Theresa May's arbitrary decision to support the U.S, without consulting parliament.

JEREMY CORBYN: The Prime Minister is accountable to this Parliament, not to the whims of the U.S. president. Her predecessor came to this house to seek authority for military action in Libya and in Syria in 2015. The House had a vote over Iraq in 2003. There is no more serious issue than the life and death matters of military action. It is right that Parliament has the power to support or stop the government from taking planned military action. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the action was legally questionable.

SHARMINI PERIES: And in France, John Luc Melenchon of the hard left in France condemned the strikes, as did the center-right leader Laurent Wauquiez. Even the leader of the far-right Front, Marine Le Pen, said Macron had not published any evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Meanwhile, chemical weapons inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons arrived in Syria on Saturday. However, they have not been able to enter the affected areas because of the pending missile strikes. On the weekend and today we have the U.S. alleging that Russians may have tampered with the evidence in the meantime.

Joining me now to discuss the attacks on Syria is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Larry is former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now a distinguished professor at the College of William and Mary. Thanks for joining us, Larry.

LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, at a time when more people in Washington, and in Congress in particular, and the U.S. media should be challenging the official narrative, they're actually endorsing it. And this is a war , or these strikes took place without congressional approval, without a U.N. resolution, and before the inspectors could even get on the ground to see what really happened. And UK joined them without parliamentary approval. France did as well without taking it to parliament. Now, without the obvious reasons, which is perhaps to distract the media and all of our eyeballs from what's really going on in Washington, these strikes took place. So give us the real reasons and the motivations behind these missile attacks on Syria.

LARRY WILKERSON: The foremost reason for this strike, and I suspect the only reason Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis would give a positive recommendation regarding it, was to reassert U.S. power in the region after the very impolitic remarks by President Trump that we were withdrawing. In other words, we needed to convince the Russians, and the Iranians, but principally the Russians, that we were still in the game. And that when we come to the political settlement, which is the only way we're going to stop this brutal war, we still have some high ground. And that was the sole reason for the strike that made any strategic sense. Everything else is nonsense.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, off the top, in the intro, I indicated that only a few people in power actually objected to these attacks. Why is this happening?

LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely no objection, except to the few people, Mike Lee, perhaps, and Bernie Sanders, maybe Tim Kaine from Virginia, who would object because they know what it means. It means that we are so eroding the Constitutional war power, the people's representatives war power, the Constitutional Title 50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 Section 15, 41-48 legal rationale, legal restriction and constraint on the war power. We're violating it every week, every month, every day that goes by. And the more we do that we're eroding the power of the Congress to act as a check on the president with regard to that power.

This is tyranny. James Madison said the surest way to carry is through the war power, and he was right. He was fundamentally right. This is the way kings gained almost universal power, through the divine right and through the war power. This is the way presidents gain, prime ministers gain ultimate power, through the war power. We keep surrendering this power to the executive branch and we will regret it dearly in the future if, indeed, we aren't already regretting it. Look at what we're doing around the world right now without any check, any balance. The American people don't even know what we're doing.

Niger recently was just an example of that. What are we doing in the Niger? Said the American people. Why are these people dying in Niger? Well, they really knew the truth about all the places we do have people, and all the places we are performing lethal actions and killing other people, I hope they'd be disgusted. But you know, Sharmini, increasingly I'm not thinking they would be. I'm thinking they'd probably be elated, or they'd be just as apathetic as they are at this present moment. They have surrendered the power to make war to the president of the United States with no check, no balance on that power.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, tell us about the relationship between U.S., UK, and France in this collaboration in attacking Syria. Apparently Macron was on record this weekend saying that he urged President Trump to remain in Syria, and he slightly withdrew that comment late night on Sunday. But nevertheless, what is the interest of U.S., UK, and France, and then of course remaining in Syria, what does that really mean?

LARRY WILKERSON: This is laughable and lamentable at the same time. The old colonial powers. France vis a vis Lebanon and Syria, Britain Iraq and Iran, and really vis a vis Iraq, and the United States. Here we are, the old colonial powers, the people that screwed the region up in the first place are now trying to, you know, essentially for commercial and other interests, oil and gas read loud, are trying to get it back in order again. It's almost laughable if it weren't so lamentable.

At the bottom of all of this, I think, is oil and gas, and what it means in terms of commercial interests with regard to those commodities in the region, whether it's the Eastern Med, where Lebanon and Israel are now arguing over Section 9, or Turkey and Cyprus and Greece are arguing over fields, or whether it's the pipelines that are going to be built or under construction already, like the one just approved for Afghanistan. This is why we're in the region. And to present all these other reason, other reasons, as rationales for being there are just lying to the American people.

But we've done that forever. We lied to the American people in Vietnam, we lied to them during the Iraq wars. We lied to them about Afghanistan. We just don't have the courage or the fortitude, or in some cases the wisdom, to tell the American people why we're doing things. And here we come back to what you asked before, the reason the executive can do anything he pleases with regard to the armed forces in the United States, any time he pleases, is because the American people are apathetic. Their representatives in the Congress are utterly pusillanimous. They're cowards. They will not do anything, with few exceptions, like Mike Lee, Bernie Sanders, and some of the others.

So we're in a position right now where the president of the United States can take the armed forces, all-volunteer armed forces, mercenary armed forces for all practical purposes, coming from the poorest regions of America, they can take them and go out there to kill people, and do it in the name of the United States of America, and put a mythical proportions to it, like this is for freedom. This is for democracy. This is to stop the use of chemical weapons. And all that's nonsense. It's all for what Smedley Butler said years ago it was for: commercial purposes, filthy lucre, name it what you will. That's what we're doing it for.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, speaking of commercial interests, Raytheon, who makes these missiles that were used in these strikes against Syria, nearly added $5 billion to their stock value. Tell us about the money interests here, and who's really benefiting from these attacks as far as profit is concerned.

LARRY WILKERSON: You get companies like Raytheon and others to make these missiles, the more sophisticated, the more expensive. I understand some of them were Standoff cruise missiles, they're very expensive. It gets them more and more money, and it also, most people don't realize this, it also cuts production costs and the volume costs for those missiles for the Department of Defense. So the more of these missiles you shoot, and I suspect Raytheon's and others' lines are hotly humming right now, the more of them you shoot, we're shooting them in Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen also, you may recall, the cost, ultimately, per unit for the United States. And since the Pentagon really is in a fiscal situation unparalleled, about to go bankrupt itself if it doesn't do something about its gross spending habits, can't even audit itself, then every unit that's cost comes down is a benefit to the Pentagon. So you could say were killing people in the world for Raytheon and the DoD.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. As always there's so much more to discuss with you, Larry. But our time's up. So I'll talk to you next week. Thanks for joining us today.

LARRY WILKERSON: Take care. Good to be with you.

IP Address: Logged
Yesterday, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 11:48 AM by globalvision2000administrator.)


The Syrian Civil Defense, more commonly known as the White Helmets, has emerged as one of the most effective propaganda tools for Islamist militants in Syria, with the group staging numerous provocations to draw in foreign military intervention to aid the militants in their quest to establish Shariah law in the Arab state.

English singer Roger Waters, who was a member of the Pink Floyd rock band, slammed the White Helmets as “a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadists and terrorists,” during a concert in Barcelona on April 13. His comments were met with cheers from the crowd. He said the White Helmets encourages governments in the West to attack Syria and he called on people living in Europe and North America to urge their governments not to do so.

“If we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would be encouraged to encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings,” Mr. Waters insisted.

“What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people. And certainly not until we have done all the research that is necessary so that we would have a clear idea of what is really going on. Because we live in the world where propaganda seems to be more important than the reality of what is really going on.”

The White Helmets have been suspected of having ties to the al-Qaeda* franchise, with members of the organization reportedly assisting affiliates of the terrorist group in executions and other human rights violations.  Many took to social media to praise Mr. Waters for lifting the White Helmet’s façade and exposing the group. Spanish crowd erupts in cheers as @rogerwaters calls the White Helmets a “fake organization” fronting for jihadist insurgents and denounces the Western bombing of Syria. Bricks in the wall of imperial deceptions are crumbling.

Mr. Waters is one of many who have been very vocal in their opposition to the strikes against Syria by the US, France and the UK, which were supposedly carried out in retaliation to an alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma earlier this month.

READ MORE: New US Strikes in Syria Will Provoke a Tougher Response — Moscow
‘Cat-and-Mouse’: Russian Stealth Hunters Reportedly Chased UK Sub Ahead of Syria Strikes

This particular military intervention – which involved the firing of over 100 missiles at targets in Syria – has proven especially controversial, mainly because the tripartite aggression was launched prior to an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW.) UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to take part in the attack without holding a debate in parliament and seeking its approval – a convention established after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq – is another reason why her government has been heavily criticized for its role in the strikes.

The Syrian government has strongly denied any involvement in the alleged chemical attack on Douma, and insists that it has destroyed its arsenal of chemical weapons and has never used such agents throughout the ongoing conflict.
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, banned in Russia.

WATCH Douma Doctor Blow Lid Off White Helmets’ ‘Chemical Attack’ Claims
Syrian Army Discovers White Helmets’ Filming Site in Eastern Ghouta Does Presence of White Helmets Indicate False Flag Chemical Attacks in Syria? White Helmets ‘Treat’ Alleged Chemical Attack Victims Without Protective GearAuthor Says White Helmets, Avaaz Sing From Same Song Sheet, Reveals OrchestratorEXCLUSIVE: The Violent Reality of ‘Western Propaganda Construct’ White HelmetsFake News Alert: Media Stirred Over White Helmets’ ‘New’ Horror Movie


On Friday night ET, in the early hours of the morning in Damascus, the US, UK and France launched airstrikes allegedly (yet to be verified) against three military targets, according to Trump’s TV address.
The attacks were intended to “punish Bashar Al Assad”  for an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma. “Assad is killing his own people” with chemical weapons. The strikes were scheduled to coincide with the arrival of the OPCW investigation team, which was scheduled to start its investigation into the alleged CW attack on April 14th. Will that investigation be allowed to proceed? According to Tony Cartalucci, there is Zero Evidence: 

To date, all supposed evidence comes from Western-funded militants and their auxiliaries including the US-European government-funded front, the so-called “Syria Civil Defense,” better known at the “White Helmets.” Unverified photographs and video of apparent victims have been the sole sources cited by the US. It was a political lie from the start and then it became a media lie, which was used as an instrument of war propaganda. The war criminals in high office blame the victimsTrump accuses Assad: Persistent violations of international law”, by whom? What is the legality of Trump’s punitive bombing campaign?
Britain and France joined the United States in the strikes in a coordinated operation that was intended to show Western resolve in the face of what the leaders of the three nations called persistent violations of international law. Mr. Trump characterized it as the beginning of a sustained effort to force Mr. Assad to stop using banned weapons, but only ordered a limited one-night operation that hit three targets.

“These are not the actions of a man,” Mr. Trump said of last weekend’s attack in a televised address from the White House Diplomatic Room. “They are crimes of a monster instead.” (Guardian, May 13, 2018) It is worth noting that there were divisions within Trump’s war cabinet. According to an earlier statement, Defense Secretary Mattis was hesitant regarding the conduct of the air strikes. Earlier on Friday, President Trump had intimated that “a final decision on possible military strikes against Syria … could happen “very soon or not so soon at all” following warnings by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that “such an attack carried the risk of spinning out of control, suggesting caution ahead of a decision on how to respond to a [chemical weapons] attack against civilians last weekend [in Douma].”

Killing the Truth
Hours before the decision to strike Syria, there were hesitations. Acknowledged by the war cabinet, there was no firm evidence that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack. The OPCW team arrived on the 13th to undertake this investigation. It was slated to start its work on the 14th. The air strikes have been instrumental in totally disrupting the conduct of the OPCW investigation.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)