Here we go again.
False flag chemical weapons in Syria.?
1. Stephan Lendman wrote:
False flags are an American tradition. They're an Israeli tradition. They're used strategically. They reflect Big Lies.
Merriam-Webster calls them "deliberate gross distortion(s) of the truth used especially as a propaganda tactic."
Official stories are false. They're contrary to reality. They turn truth on its head. They point fingers the wrong way.
They're pretexts for militarism, wars, mass killing and destruction, occupations, domestic repression, and other extremist national security state measures.
Wednesday's Ghouta incident raises disturbing questions. It was a clear anti-Syrian provocation. No evidence suggests Assad's involvement. Clear analysis shows he'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Syrian insurgents used chemical weapons numerous times before. Clear evidence proves it. America has ordered it. Media scoundrels suppressed it. They substituted lies for truth. They do it every time. It's standard practice.
2. In another article, a statement read:
The CEO of Britam Defense addressed in an internal email showing his company was offered `enormous sums` of money by the U.S. to deliver a Chemical Weapon to the opposition terrorist groups in Syria, that would be of identical stock held by the Assad regime, in order to blame a `false flag` chemical attack on his government. That attack has now happened on innocent children, with British-U.S. fingerprints
3. While in GLOBALRESEARCH, an independent online journal, it was written:
In Syria, things were getting desperate for Washington. It needed a major made-for-TV, cross-the-red-line incident involving chemical weapons. Unsurprisingly, by hook or by crook – probably crook (1) – it got it. The BBC, British Foreign Secretary William Hague and a multitude of other media outlets and politicians now clamour, or at least strongly imply the need, for direct military action to bolster the illegal ‘indirect’ military intervention from the West and its allies that has already been taking place for a long time.
The story being peddled goes that the (axis of) evil Syrian regime has used a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ to help win a war it was already winning, thereby incurring the wrath of the US. Strange logic indeed.
It’s a case of déjà vu. British MP George Galloway in front of a US senate hearing back in 2005 exposed the ‘pack of lies’ that the US-led invasion of Iraq was built on. Similar forms of deceit have been the foundations for shaping public opinion regarding attacking Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and numerous other countries. The presence of WMDs was used to justify attacking Iraq, while ‘humanitarianism’ or ‘fighting terror’ was the excuse used elsewhere.
But what is it about the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that provokes a knee jerk reaction from media people and politicians who foam with rage and let seep from their mouths high minded platitudes about morality?
“Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we personally dislike.” Oscar Wilde in ‘An Ideal Husband’.
If in the above quote from Wilde, we replace ‘people’ with ‘regimes’, we may appreciate the nature of the West playing fast and lose with its notions of morality. Supply arms, including chemical weapons, to dictatorial regimes throughout West Asia with atrocious human rights records because, notwithstanding the fact it is great business, they are ‘good friends of ours’ (to coin a highly apt mafia term). Yes, all friends and good ones at that, as long as they remain loyal to the ‘Project for the New American Century’ (2).
Read more here:
