Syrian chemical attack sis not use Sarin gas

Is The Perception of a Syrian Chemical Attack A Lark?

Nearly everyone is jumping all over the place when it comes to President Trump attacking Syria with 59 Tomahawks as well as what actually happened in what appears to be a stage (false flag) chemical attack that is being played out as Assad attacking his own people.

It is at such times it is best to shut up, read, search, and collect the pieces of the puzzle — while remembering we are not going to have ALL the pieces of the puzzle either, meaning we are making an educated guess at best, while we also need to keep discernment and wisdom at the forefront in spite of the confusion.

The Chemical was NOT Sarin Gas

First, whatever was used in Syria on the Syrian people was not Sarin.

Sarin REQUIRES hazmat suits as our skin will soak it up like a dry sponge to water.

NONE of the rescuers were wearing hazmat suits, NONE of the rescuers died from exposure to whatever was used for the attack.

One only needs to search for images using the keywords “Japan Sarin attack” to see what the aftereffects of such an attack look like this attack happened.

The attack in Japan happened in 1995 and unless they have really, really, really made progress in making Sarin gas work only on specific human targets, it is just as potent and lethal today as it was then.

Where’s the White Helmet Brigade?

Next, those who seek their information outside of the MSM circles know that the White Helmet brigade is nothing but a 3-ring circus made to lead the vulnerable into thinking and looking elsewhere for perpetrators.

There are enough images and videos on the internet to provide evidence of this as the same faces, both adult and children, keep appearing all over the Syrian map, not just one location.

They are either good actors or the unluckiest migrants and gypsies to ever roam the earth.

Yet, this is the first atrocity that they have not made an appearance since their inception — probably due to the high level of exposure by independent reporters as well as interviews with the actors that participated in such patheticness?

Have they made an appearance at all during this fiasco?

The answer to that will come in time — I would not be surprised at all if we have seen the last of, or see very few more of, the White Helmets.

Proper Protocol for Chemical Weapon Disarmament

Next, how many U.S. military experts and officers would bomb a lethal chemical armament cache?

Do they not know it would only create more of a problem than it would wipe out?

Do they not exercise minimizing the risk and harm they are going to bring to those in the area?

Have we not dismantled such in the past, painstakingly so at that?

Lack of Trust in the 17 Intel Agencies

Next, given the continuing rift of the Intel agencies with President Trump, would anyone really trust what intel he received from them?

From best I can tell, President Trump relied upon the information his military leaders had and not any of the Intel Agencies.

There are other means to collect intel which most likely results in ‘dirty’ information (half-truths resulting from content and not contextual information).

The 17 Intelligence Agencies have rendered themselves useless in situations like this as a President can (and should) work on any untrusted source of information — the dirty information a President gets has always proved to be far more trustworthy than the intel an untrusted source provides.

Lack of Actions by Other Organizations, Sovereignties

Also, the U.N. was definitely NOT going to act nor was Russia (they have backed Assad every step of his reign).

As controversial as all this is, what would have been the price for NOT doing anything or waiting for the next attack?

Would a diplomatic ‘Let’s talk Assad‘ approach really work?

Serious questions.

The base hit by the 59 Tomahawks was not in very active status and most of the missiles hit vacant real estate.

The Tomahawk is said to be accurate enough to go through a window and out another without exploding inside the building – doesn’t sound like these were stray explosions, does it?

If anything, this sounds like a $90 million warning shot to Assad more than anything else – letting him know we WILL take action if he, or whoever staged the chemical attack, don’t knock it off, no matter what the cost.

My guess is Assad knows more of who did this than anyone else – he has said it was not him but he has also NOT said he does not know who has done this.

Have we not learned anything from Obama – it’s not what is being said but what is NOT being said we should be looking at?

Privileged Information

There is more than meets the eye and President Trump is not known for knee-jerking before he was President which means he hardly will be knee-jerking while President.If his actions contradict what he said before he was President, then there must be more information to which he is privy than what he had on hand earlier.

If his actions contradict what he said before he was President, then there must be more information to which he is privy than what he had on hand earlier.We elected him to lead, not to walk on water.

We elected him to lead, not to walk on water.

Should he have gone through Congress?

The Constitution says yes — if he was declaring war or attacking another country.

Anyone recall such protocols being taken with Vietnam?

When a teenager, I stood at the doors of a recruitment center and refused to enter as we had a Congress that was permitting a ‘military conflict’ become an actual war and would not support our troops very well — a Democrat-dominated Congress at the time as well.

Within 4 years, 8 of my friends who were either drafted or signed up would be buried — and we are only now, 40 plus years later, recognizing the sacrifice these men made.

Here’s a quote from the LawNewz website that I found fitting for what is happening in Syria…

 

For 70 years, Presidents have launched attacks on other nations without congressional approval.

 

Various legal justifications have been used to take action.

 

For example, President Obama waged attacks against ISIS without explicit congressional approval.

 

Instead, he used the 2001 congressional authorization passed under President George W. Bush that was specifically aimed at perpetrators of 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.

 

In addition, the Obama administration determined that it was constitutional for the U.S. to direct the use of military force without Congressional approval in Libya because it was in the vital “national interest” of the United States.

 

The War Powers Act of 1973 also allows the President to act if they notify/consult Congress within 48 hours of using armed forces, and forbids armed forces from remaining in a region for more than 60 days without congressional approval or declaration of war.

 

What is Trump’s legal justification for the attack?

 

We haven’t heard from his national security legal experts.

 

However, Trump has already indicated a justification that mirrors what Obama used during his administration.

 

“It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” he said late Thursday night while addressing Americans about the attacks.

 

The context of the situation is this…

No matter WHO staged or
performed the chemical attack,
they are going to continue
if no nation nor force stops them.

If this was staged, then the funding behind such would lead to the culprit — most likely (but not necessarily) that would be the Soros Foundation.

If this was real, I don’t believe there is a family in the Syrian area that would be against President Trump stepping in to put a stop to it all, especially since their own leader hasn’t put a stop to it in the past and probably won’t in the future.

Any such attacks in Russia, their ally, is met with brute and lethal force in the quickest form of action possible — Assad has let things like this slide.

Assad is not that powerless to prevent such things from happening in his own country — as this is the 2nd such attack on his people, he needs to kick it up a whole bunch or step down.

Failure to focus on this as well as focus on what President Trump has really accomplished will only provide a door for the same incident to happen again.

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Is The Perception of a Syrian Chemical Attack A Lark?

  1. Cher Berens is an independent reporter in the Middle East, currently in Cairo.

    Cheri maintains a blog with the latest information she can gather from the locals — she does NOT rely upon the media there as they are just as biased (or even more so) than the MSM in the U.S.

    She published 2 posts after I published mine and has shared what he knows…

    The 1st, ‘
    Did the White Helmets Create a False Flag Scenario to Create Intervention in Syria’?
    http://www.cheriberens.net/did-the-white-helmets-create-a-false-flag-scenario-to-create-intervention-in-syria.html

    The 2nd,
    ‘The Syrian Airstrike Targeted an al-Queda Weapons Warehouse Which Was Being Used as a Workshop for the Production of LandMines Stuffed with Poisonous Substances, It was Not An Airstrike on Civilians’
    http://www.cheriberens.net/the-syrian-airstrike-targeted-an-al-qaeda-weapons-warehouse-which-was-being-used-as-a-workshop-for-the-production-of-land-mines-stuffed-with-poisonous-substances-it-was-not-an-airstrike-on-civilians.html

    She provides notes and resources to both posts…

    Like

Please Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s