Syrian chemical attacks were carried out by Rebels not Assad.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad inspects a guard of honor at the Presidential Palace in New Delhi, India, Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Al-Assad arrived Tuesday on his first visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan)

    The Syrian crisis is going to pick up very shortly. Evidence is beginning to pile on that the chemical attacks in Syria were not actually carried out by Assad’s regime but rather the Rebels in the region.

    Former congressmen Ron Paul had this to say on the strikes:

    “It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

    “It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases, I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” 

    “It’s the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it’s derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria,” 

    Paul raises a ton of good points. The one I want to focus in on is who benefits from these Chemical attacks.

    If I am Assad I am feeling pretty good about my chances right now. Five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,”

    With the clear support of Iran, Russia and America defeated ISIS and Rebel forces throughout Syria will be easily taken care off.

    A chemical attack on a Rebel controlled city makes no sense for Assad’s regime. Sure, it would destroy everything in its path but it also would destroy U.S-Syrian relations. Assad would realize that a chemical strike on his own people would give substance to those who want to see his regime be overthrown.

    Now, from the Rebels side it is clear how this would help them. These Rebels realize they are losing the fight for Syria. As Assad and his allies gain ground the Rebels lose ground at a high rate. The only chance for them to regain their lost position is if Assad’s regime was significantly weakened.

    The overthrowing of his regime would do just that.

    It has been in the news that Hilary and Obama both were behind the arming of anti-Assad Syrian and Libyan rebels. It is also known that these Rebel groups have chemical weapons.

    Here is a part of an article from the Chicago Tribune:

    Syria and its close ally Russia say that Islamic State and al-Qaida-linked militants in Syria have acquired chemical weapons. Russia’s Defense Ministry said this week’s attack in the northern town of Khan Sheikhoun, which killed 87 people, was caused by Syrian airstrikes hitting a weapons warehouse where al-Qaida-linked fighters were storing chemical agents.

    Insurgents may have acquired chemical weapons by seizing government military bases or by trucking them across the border from Iraq. The U.N. says the Islamic State group has used crude chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq.

    So, the rebels hold the motive and the weaponry they only lack one thing, ability.

    The only confirmed information we know is that the Syrian government did drop bombs. The thing that isn’t confirmed is what types of bombs they are.

    Here is a high-ranking source with intel on what really happened:

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
    3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
    4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
    5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

    This evidence lines up with reality. It applies the three characteristics that you look for in a crime like this. Motive, weaponry, and ability. The Rebels have all three. Assad doesn’t.

    This smells an awful lot like the Iraq War. War mongering corrupt conservatives pairing with our intelligence agencies to start another war in the Middle East. There goal. Topple Assad and get access to the vast oil fields that run throughout Syria.

    This evidence looks really bad for Trump. His quick-strike method will come back to haunt him if this evidence ever reaches the mainstream news. His attack was a nice display of American power but it was also a display of making a rash decision without investigating the matter further.

    Share Your Thoughts

    We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here