Top 10 Reasons Why Official Narrative On Syria Gas Attack Is Wrong

The official narrative that Assad gassed his personal folks in Syria was swallowed entire by the mainstream media which then pressured it down the throats of the American public.

The information story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway earlier than the sarin gasoline assault might be investigated by unbiased observers.

But was it proper, or did a faux information story unfold by mainstream media result in navy motion?

Jon Rappoport offers the highest ten causes for doubting the official narrative, and as an alternative calling it a handy pretext for toppling one other Mid-East regime:

ONE: Photos present rescue employees treating/decontaminating folks injured or killed within the gasoline assault. The employees aren’t sporting gloves or protecting gear. Only the clueless or loopy would expose themselves to sarin residue, which may be deadly.

TWO: MIT professor Thomas Postol advised RT, “I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the [US intelligence] document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun…Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” How would a canister purportedly dropped from an Assad-ordered aircraft incur “crushing from above?”

THREE: Why would President Assad, supported by Russia, scoring victory after victory in opposition to ISIS, transferring nearer to peace negotiations, instantly threat all his good points by dropping sarin gasoline on his personal folks?

FOUR: In an interview with Scott Horton, ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi states that his intelligence and navy sources point out Assad didn’t assault his personal folks with poison gasoline.

FIVE: Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern states that his navy sources report an Assad air strike did hit a chemical plant, and the fallout killed folks, however the assault was not deliberate for that function. There was no information the chemical substances have been deadly.

SIX: At consortiumnews.com, journalist Robert Parry writes, “There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where are CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?”

“Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier — and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.”

“After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a ‘high degree of confidence’ that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.”

“While Tillerson’s comment meshed with Official Washington’s hastily formed groupthink of Assad’s guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources.”

“Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that ‘high degree of confidence’ assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack.”

SEVEN: As quickly because the Assad gasoline assault was reported, the stage was set for a US missile strike. No complete investigation of the purported gasoline assault was undertaken.

EIGHT: There are, in fact, precedents for US wars primarily based on false proof—the lacking WMDs in Iraq, the claims of infants being pushed out of incubators in Kuwait, to call simply two.

NINE: Who advantages from the sarin gasoline story? Assad? Or US neocons; the US military-industrial complicated; Pentagon generals who need an enormous improve of their navy price range; Trump and his group, who’re instantly praised within the press, after a yr of being pilloried at each flip; and ISIS?

TEN: For those that doubt that ISIS has ever used poison gasoline, see the NY Times (11/21/2016). While claiming that Assad has deployed chemical assaults, the article additionally states that ISIS has deployed chemical weapons 52 instances since 2014.

I’m not claiming these ten causes undoubtedly and completely rule out the potential for an Assad-ordered chemical assault. But they do add as much as a much more plausible conclusion than the shortly assembled “Assad-did-it” story.

These ten causes starkly level to the dearth of a rational and full investigation of the “gas attack.”

And this lack throws a monkey wrench into Trump’s declare that he was ordering the missile strike primarily based on “a excessive diploma of confidence.”