Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/7/2017 12:28:01 AM
REPORT: NEW CHEMICAL ATTACK IN SYRIA LEAVES NUMEROUS CASUALTIES
BYJPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS
APRIL 6, 2017 13:10
Footage capturing the attack showed yellow smoke rising above the city.


A picture taken on March 22, 2017 in the Syrian town of Tayyibat al-Imam in the countryside of the central province of Aleppo, shows fighters running amdist destruction down a street past a rising plume of smoke from a burning tire meant to disrupt warplanes. (photo credit:OMAR HAJ KADOUR / AFP)


Allegations of a second chemical attack launched by Syrian Army forces surfaced on Thursday after various sources on the ground reported the incident, according to Arab media.

Helicopters belonging to President Bashar Assad's forces were seen dropping barrel bombs allegedly containing chlorine gas in the village of Al-Lataminah, located in northern part of the country near Hama.

Israeli officials claim Assad ordered attack, warn of Syria's chemical weapons plants

Footage capturing the alleged attack showed yellow smoke rising above the city. Local media claimed that the assault left numerous civilian casualties and dozens wounded.
First video of Assad's new chemical weapons attack in Lataminah. Several civilians were killed and dozens wounded.
pic.twitter.com/T4AckmIDPk
— Mustapha Itani (@_mustaphaitani) April 6, 2017

Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it was too early to accuse the Syrian government of being responsible for a deadly poison gas attackjust days before in Idlib Province and said a proper investigation was needed, the RIA news agency reported.

The ministry also rejected US assertions that the attack, which killed at least 70 people, meant a deal to rid the country of its chemical weapons stockpile had failed, saying that the process had in fact been "quite successful," RIA reported.

US President Donald Trump accused Assad's government of going "beyond a red line" with the attack on civilians and said his attitude toward Syria and Assad had changed, but gave no indication of how he would respond.

Aftermath of suspected chemical gas attack in Idlib , Syria on April 4, 2017 (REUTERS)

Russia has suggested it will publicly stand by Assad however and says the chemical incident was likely caused by a leak from a depot controlled by Syrian rebels.


(jpost.com)



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/7/2017 9:54:50 AM

Donald Trump Has Just Committed The United States To A Disastrous War In Syria


Rumors of war are percolating in Washington D.C., and if the Trump administration is not extremely careful it may find itself fighting several disastrous wars simultaneously. Just one day after threatening North Korea with war, Donald Trump has committed to taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Trump is blaming the chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province on Tuesday on the Syrian government, and he is pledging that the United States will not just sit by and do nothing in response. Unfortunately for all of us, military contingents from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are mixed in among the Syrian forces, and so any strike on the Syrian military could potentially spark World War 3.

In this article, I am going to share with you several quotes from President Trump and members of his team over the past couple of days, and if you read them carefully you will see that Trump has clearly painted himself into a corner.

This first quote comes from CNN, and it is a portion of Trump’s response when he was asked about the chemical attack in Syria by a reporter…

It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies … with a chemical gas that is so lethal that people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines — beyond a red line.

Trump has very harshly criticized Barack Obama in the past for doing nothing in Syria once Obama’s “red line” was crossed, and so for Trump to use the exact same phrase is very meaningful. And in his remarks about this new chemical attack, Trump once again pointed the finger at Obama for making “a blank threat”

“I think the Obama administration had a great opportunity to solve this crisis a long time ago when he said the red line in the sand,” Trump said. “And when he didn’t cross that line after making the threat, I think that set us back a long ways not only in Syria, but in many other parts of the world, because it was a blank threat.”

But now that Trump has also accused Syria of crossing “a red line”, the only way that Trump can avoid the same kind of criticism that he was casting at Obama is to take military action.

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer underlined this point when he read a prepared statement to reporters during “an off-camera White House briefing”

Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.

And UN Ambassador Nikki Haley made it crystal clear that the Trump administration was quite prepared to “take our own action” if the UN Security Council failed to address the chemical attack in Syria…

“When the UN consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” she said.

Of course the UN Security Council is not going to condemn Syria, because Russia would veto any such resolution.

So the Trump administration is going to be faced with a choice.

Either they will back up their words and take military action in Syria (which would be totally disastrous), or they will be accused of making threats that turned out to be completely empty just like Obama did.

A much wiser approach would have been for the Trump administration to say that they were going to study this attack to determine who was behind it before pledging to take any action. Because the truth is that previous “chemical attacks” that were blamed on the Assad regime have turned out to be false flags that were designed to draw the western powers into the war…

The U.N. thoroughly investigated the first 2013 attack. The U.N Commission of Inquiry’s Carla Del Ponte ultimately said the evidence indicated the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels — not the Syrian government. Despite this, support for the Syrian rebels from the U.S. and its allies only increased, raising serious questions about Obama’s sincerity when condemning chemical attacks.

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh found the second major attack was committed in a similar manner. Hersh found that the U.S. quite deliberately attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering al-Nusra, a terror group with access to nerve agents that should have been a prime suspect.

And I have a feeling that this new attack is another false flag, because it wouldn’t make any sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons at this point. Thanks to the assistance of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the Assad regime is winning the civil war, and the only thing that could possibly turn the tide now would be military intervention by the United States.

So if Assad did actually use chemical weapons against a bunch of defenseless citizens on Tuesday, it would have been the stupidest strategic move that he possibly could have made.

In any controversy such as this, you always want to ask one key question: Who benefits?

Of course the answer to that question in this case is exceedingly clear. The radical Islamic rebels that are being backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey will greatly benefit if they are able to draw the western powers into the war on their side.

But what would the U.S. have to gain by getting involved in such a war?

ISIS is almost totally defeated in Syria thanks to Russia, and most of the country has already been reduced to rubble at this point. But if we did get involved a lot of Americans could end up dead, and as I will discuss in Part II of this series, there is a very real possibility that we could end up in a military conflict with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Back in 2013, a much wiser Donald Trump tweeted the following

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

I could not have summed it up better myself.

Hopefully Donald Trump will take his own advice and will keep us out of a war that would be absolutely disastrous for our nation.


(The Economic Collapse)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/7/2017 10:16:11 AM
Alarm Clock

St. Petersburg Metro Bombing, Syria Chemical Attack - Trump Folds to the 'Deep State'?

It's been an interesting few days in the world of geopolitically-relevant terror attacks and 'Trump vs. the Deep State' (both of which are far from mutually exclusive).

First we had the St. Petersburg attack where some young guy from Kyrgyzstan with no history of violence decided to detonate an IED on a train, killing himself and 14 innocent civilians. Russian police apparently found the DNA of Akbarzhon Jalilov, who had lived in Russia for a number of years, in the metro carriage where the explosion happened, and on a second unexploded device at another metro station. Of course, this doesn't mean that Jalilov acted alone or was the 'mastermind' of the atrocity. As I have hypothesized on several occasions, anyone naive or manipulatable enough to carry a backpack, given to them by someone else, to a specific location, can become an instant unwitting 'suicide bomber'.

So who might have been Jalilov's accomplices? According to the Western media, somewhere near the top of the list is Putin himself. The BBC had no problem in theorizing that the bombing was "some kind of attempt to distract attention from calls for a corruption investigation and calls for President Putin himself to step down..."

Oh really? Do go on, BBC correspondent. What exactly do you mean by the bombing being an "attempt to distract"? Are you reallysuggesting that a state (in this case, Russia) would go so far as to carry out a bombing that kills its own civilians and then frame a 'Muslim terrorist' for it in the interest of redirecting public attention towards some specific narrative? If so, that sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory, and a dangerous one too. Much more talk like that and we might have to revisit the narrative around the 9/11 attacks, or the London or Madrid bombings!

New York Post columnist John Podhoretz echoed that sentiment by noting that it was "interesting that the bomb blasts in Petersburg come so hard upon the demonstrations."

Meanwhile Sky News Diplomatic Editor Dominic Waghorn was more circumspect but still felt sure that the attacks would be used by the Russian government to crack down on 'anti-corruption' protests "given what we know about how the Russian authorities operate."

One day after the St. Petersburg attack, a 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria's northwestern Idlib province killed at least 70 people, including 10 children. The speed with which the US, British and French governments blamed the attack on forces loyal to Assad andcalled an emergency UN Security Council meeting to condemn Damascus and, by association, Russia and Iran, and threaten unilateral military action against Syria would make anyone think they were just waiting for such an attack to happen, or even had prior knowledge. After all, in case anyone has forgotten, 'chemical weapon' attacks are the preferred casus belli of the US and its allies. First there was Saddam Hussein in 1990, and again in 2003 (both of which turned out to be false accusations). Then there was Syria in 2013 (also proven to be a false accusation) when a NATO bombardment of the country was narrowly averted by skillful Russian diplomacy.
The Assad government has dismissed the accusations and blamed the West's best friends in Syria, aka the 'rebels' or 'nut-job jihadi mercenaries' (depending on how much of a realist you are). This appears to be a reasonable stance to take, given that (as noted) the last time the USA accused the Syrian government of attacking its own people with chemical weapons it was soon proven that the West's jihadi friends were in fact responsible. On both the August 2013 attack in Ghouta and the Idlib attack this week, logic suggests that the Assad government would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from targeting Syrian civilians in such a flagrantly barbaric way. The 2013 attack occurred on the very same day that UN weapons inspectors arrived in the country to check Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. If Assad wanted to be labeled a brutal dictator and gift NATO the justification to blow his country (and likely himself) to pieces, this would have been the best time and way to achieve it.

The same logic applies even more so to yesterday's attack. Assad is currently in the strongest position he has been during the 6 year-long Western attack on his rule and population. Why gift Western warmongers the justification to 'legitimately' bomb his country while achieving no military objective?

Trump in Deep Doo Doo with the Deep State

By all appearances, Donald Trump has been battling the 'deep state' in the USA since well before his inauguration. Nothing points more clearly to 'deep state interests' than when you see the Western press fall all over itself to force-feed Western populations obviously fake Western 'intelligence dossiers'. We've had to endure months of nonsensical claims that 'Russia hacked the US elections for Trump' and that Trump 'has ties to Russia'. It's so transparent what these people are attempting to do that it's amazing they haven't been laughed off the planet by now. Then again, believing your own BS when your big fat paycheck depends on it makes your own BS particularly palatable, regardless of whether or not anyone believes you.

For a while Trump seemed to be holding out against this onslaught, but recently the 'deep state' representatives increased the heat, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. openly anticipating a "constitutional crisis" involving the "looming" impeachment of Trump. Comparing the situation with Trump to Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 under threat of impeachment, Blumenthal said on Monday:
"The possibility of a Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president of the United States is far from idle speculation. It has happened before in United States vs. Nixon."
Last week both the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the US would no longer focus on attempting to remove Assad:
"Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told a small group of reporters, according to Reuters.
"I think the... longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," Tillerson told a joint news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevut Cavusoglu, according to France 24.
Even The Donald has stated that the chemical weapon attack had changed his opinion on Syria and Assad, calling it (in classic US 'humanitarian intervention' style) an "affront to humanity..."
"My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much ... You're now talking about a whole different level. I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me - big impact. When you kill innocent children ... that crosses many, many lines." - The Donald
This week, on the same day as Blumenthal's 'impeachment' comment, St. Petersburg was bombed and the Western press blamed Putin. The next day the Syria chemical weapon attack occurred. The following day the Trump administration (Nikki Haley representing) went full-warmonger on Syria and Russia at the UN and Trump did a 180 on Syria. Today Steve Bannon was booted from the National Security Council.

And you thought there was no 'deep state' in the USA.


(sott.net)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/7/2017 10:55:48 AM

Chemical Weapons 2017: What Just Happened In Syria?

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/7/2017 11:12:17 AM



Breaking: Trump Administration Now Discussing Regime Change in Syria

April 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Written by Anti-Media News Desk


[Update 3:11 PM EDT: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is calling for President Assad‘s ouster.]

(ANTIWAR) President Trump’s campaign stance, moving away from the US trying to impose regime change on Syria, appears to have been totally abandoned at this point, with reports that he hasinformed some members of Congress that he is considering a military attack on Syria.

Trump is said to be discussing the different options on such an attack with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and that he is likely to rely on Mattis’ judgement on the matter. Officials say the Pentagon has had such plans ready to go for quite some time.

The shift in Trump Administration policy is publicly being justified by a bombing attack in northwest Syria Tuesday, allegedly a chemical weapons attack. President Trump insists Syria has “crossed many lines,” and is insisting that his position on Syria has changed, adding that “I now have responsibility when it comes to Syria.”

US, British, and French diplomats are once again pushing for UN action against Syria now, though a Russian veto at the Security Council is assured, with Russian officials saying the resolution is based on “fake information.” US officials are already looking beyond the UN and threatening unilateral action.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley insisted the UN has “consistently” failed to act against Syria, and warned that states would as a result be compelled to act unilaterally without UN authorization. Haley added that Syria’s “illegitimate government” was committing “untold atrocities.”

All of this sounds remarkably familiar to the statements by US officials when the Obama Administration was planning to attack Syria, and while it’s not clear President Trump is willing to risk war with Russia by launching such an operation, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s warning that Russia needs to reconsider its continued support for Syria, suggesting that at the very least the administration is fine with continuing to raise tensions with Russia over the matter.

The gas attack incident, however, still has a lot of questions, with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons still just starting to probe the incident, and is well short of assigning responsibility. US officials, along with British and French officials, immediately had a complete narrative fitting with their interest in moving against Syria, and are refusing to consider any possibility that runs counter to that, including Russia’s suggestion that a conventional air strike had caused a leak in a rebel chemical cache.

The Pentagon claimed they’d detected the bombs on radar and confirmed they were from a Syrian warplane. Of course, because chemical and conventional bombs don’t show up differently on a radar, this still does not discredit Russia’s version of events.

The shift in US policy, however, really began before the alleged gas attack even took place, as in the days ahead of it, officials were again demanding Assad’s ouster, and rebel officials were reporting that the previously halted CIA arms shipments had been resumed recently. This is just serving as a justification for being more public with it, and hyping a war of regime change.

Obviously, all of the same problems with the US moving against Syria militarily, which Trump pointed out in presidential debates, are still problems, and that may ultimately deter an American attack. Either way, the Trump Administration is looking to rebrand their official stance as a hostile one, and one which is likely to please other NATO members, who see it as a chance to forestall any normalization of US-Russia ties.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / AntiWar.com / Report a typo






"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1