Did Trump Respond to a “Fake” Chemical Attack with a “Fake” Missile Strike?

by James Buchanan

There’s growing evidence that an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian military was a staged or misrepresented event being used by the usual neocon warmongers. There’s also evidence that Trump’s response was more showmanship than a serious military strike, designed to get the mainstream media off his back and to get us out of the Syrian quagmire.

A few weeks ago, the mainstream media, which is widely referred to as fake news, claimed that children and babies were killed by poison gas in an ISIS-controlled area of Syria. This incident seemed strikingly similar to the mainstream media reporting about Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators during the invasion of Kuwait, which later turned out to be a complete fabrication.

A ZeroHedge article reported “According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack…”

“‘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…'”

“The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.”

Another article reports “A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.”

“Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House’s finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.”

“He concluded that the US government’s report does not provide any ‘concrete’ evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.”

The U.S. military claimed that they tracked a Syrian air force plane from its base to the scene of the chemical attack. There are however several possibilities for what exactly happened. The Syrian plane may have bombed an ISIS munitions stockpile that contained chemical weapons. The chemical weapons might have been smuggled in from outside Syria or they might have been stolen years ago by a rogue officer, sympathetic to radical Islam, before Syria gave up its chemical weapons in 2013.

There’s also a possibility that Israel might have planted chemical weapons in that city and waited for the Syrian military to bomb it before setting them off.

Apparently, there are significant differences in the spread of the deadly chemicals between an air attack and a ground explosion. An air attack should spread the chemicals over a large area with a considerable percentage of the chemicals landing on rooftops, and the death toll would likely be in the thousands. The death toll for the Syrian chemical attack was only 86.

Trump has gotten harsh criticism from his base for the retaliatory missile strike since most Trump supporters don’t want America to get bogged down in another Middle East war, that’s none of our business.

But was the missile strike a real strike against Assad or more of a fireworks show? A CNBC article reports “A U.S. official said the Russians had been warned before the U.S. launched at least 59 tomahawk missiles aimed at Syria.”

“Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in an official statement: ‘Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.'”

“The strikes, which hit an airfield near Homs, struck aircraft and infrastructure including the runway, NBC reported. There is no word on casualties yet, but no people were targeted, the official told NBC.”

Trump of course is not a crazy lunatic who would risk provoking war with Russia like Obama or Hillary, who wanted a “no fly zone” over Syria. This is why Trump warned the Russians beforehand. The Russians would likely have warned their Syrian allies, and it’s highly unlikely anything was left on that airfield by the time the Tomahawk missiles arrived.

Why would Trump order a military strike that wasn’t really a serious military strike? Perhaps, he was trying to get the mainstream media off his back, who would no doubt have wailed endlessly about “the children” as they did with the “Iraqi babies thrown from their incubators” story. Trump may also have been looking for an exit strategy from Syria, which this missile strike guarantees.

So you could say Trump responded to a “fake” chemical weapons attack with a “fake” military strike. While many people are still confused or angry about all this; this may have been the perfect solution for a problem that was greatly misrepresented by the same media and neocons, who dragged us into the Iraq War.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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