French intelligence service piles on with more anti-Assad nonsense--here's why it is BS

According to the LA Times and echoed by many other outlets, 

"France’s foreign ministry says deadly sarin gas used in a chemical attack in Syria this month that killed 87 people “bears the signature” of President Bashar Assad’s government.

A six-page report by French intelligence services claims the nerve agent came from hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons that Damascus was supposed to have destroyed under an U.S.- and Russian-brokered deal in 2013."

Here is what you should be aware of as you sift this latest news:

1.  Assad gave up 1300 tons (2,600,000 pounds) of his chemical weapons in 2013-14.  They were moved out of Syria, loaded on ships, and destroyed by portable shipboard factories far offshore.  This complicated, non-transparent process, which was completed far from prying eyes in the middle of the ocean, lent itself to transferring stocks of Assad's sarin and mustard gas to unknown third parties.

Damascus was not given the option of destroying its own weapons, nor was it even considered safe to do so in a war zone.  The chemical weapons had to be handed over to the West.

Who might now have some of the [allegedly destroyed] sarin and mustard gas that Assad offered up for destruction?

2.  Since chemical and biological weapons may leave a chemical or genetic signature, and since a major advantage of such weapons is the difficulty of identifying a perpetrator, the smart players do their best to create chem/bio weapons that leave the signature of someone else. 

3.  If you know the chemical signature of a chemical or biological weapon, even if you cannot obtain someone else's material, you may be able to reverse engineer a specific signature and impute an attack to your enemy.

4.  Seymour Hersh and others have noted that weapons from Gaddafi's stockpile were sent from Libya through Turkey to Syria to be given to anti-Assad rebel forces, in a complicated maneuver engineered by the CIA.  Sarin was alleged to have been found by police, who arrested al-Nusra rebels in Turkey with 2 kg. of sarin.  Using Gaddifi's arms gave the CIA plausible deniability of involvement.

Anyone giving sarin to Syrian 'rebels' would expect its use to be attributed to Assad.

It should not be lost on the reader that, according to Hersh, the US has established a track record of transferring someone else's sarin to Syrian rebels, so its use would be imputed to Assad.  In other words, there has already been CIA connivance in a complex operation to create false flag chemical attacks in Syria, in 2013.

5.  The UN report on chemical weapons attacks in Syria in 2013 did not blame Assad for them, and a commissioner of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, Carla del Ponte, described evidence favoring the rebels as the perpetrators.

6.  Since no Syrian sarin attacks have ever been demonstrated conclusively to be due to Assad or to anyone else (rumors and claims abound, but definite proof has been elusive), France's claim that the recent sarin is from Assad because it matched sarin from an earlier attack is utter nonsense, since we don't know the source of the earlier sarin signature.

7.  The French intelligence service authored this report.  And the US intelligence services authored the 2003 report of Iraq's WMD, and claimed the 2013 sarin attacks were due to Assad (without proof, read the report here).  US and UK intelligence services had something to do with the Trump "golden showers" dossier of trash.

These intelligence services were all carrying out their missions, which sadly have become propaganda, not intelligence. 

8.  There was no motive for Assad to use chemical weapons in 2013, and no motive today.  Each time sarin was allegedly used, was after his army had made recent impressive gains. Instead, strategically, Assad had much to lose from employing sarin.  

Read what a former State Department insider had to say about the unlikelihood Assad used chemical weapons in 2013, in an article in the Atlantic.

9.   When you consider the background to the claims about Syria's chemical weapons, the series of stories blaming Assad for attacking his people with sarin this month make less and less sense.  

10.  Instead, it seems we are reliving Judith Miller's series of false NY Times stories that provided the drumbeat to war in Iraq, in 2002-3. We should not be fooled again. 

Why Aren't the Mass Media Asking Where Assad got Sarin, What Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi, and Why al-Nusra was caught with Chemical Weapons in Turkey?

1.  The 2013 sarin attacks in Syria, despite efforts to pin it on Assad, were never proven to come from the Syrian government. On the contrary, the chemical weapons were probably supplied to al-Nusra Front 'rebels' by agents of Turkey.  In 2014 Seymour Hersh wrote:

British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff...

Last May [2013], more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin...

A series of chemical weapon attacks in March and April 2013 was investigated over the next few months by a special UN mission to Syria. A person with close knowledge of the UN’s activity in Syria told me that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack.

2.  Did you ever wonder why Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was even in Benghazi, at a 'consulate,' when his embassy was in Tripoli?  He was checking on an arms ratline set up by the CIA/ General Petraeus to funnel weapons from (slain) Gaddafi's arsenal to Syrian rebels, to be used against Assad.  From Seymour Hersh:

A highly classified annex to the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report [on the death of Ambassador Stevens], not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria...

 ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

... The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.

3.  Only Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey -- and the 'rebel' troops they have supported-- had a motive to use gas.  The obvious motive was to create a false flag attack that would draw the west (the US, UK and France) into active war against Syria, after Obama laid down a red line in 2012. Both in 2013, and 2017 (here and here), it appeared the Syrian government was coming close to beating the opposition.  And then there was sarin.

4.  While Obama was initially prepared to wage a hot war in 2013, once he learned the charges against Assad for the chemical weapons attacks did not stand up, and that our allies knew this, he backed off.  He left it to Congress to decide on war, and the impetus for an attack quickly died.  When David Cameron called for a Parliamentary vote to attack Syria, he lost.  Seymour Hersh claims that at a 2013 face-to-face meeting,  

Erdoğan said [to Obama], ‘But your red line has been crossed!’ and, the expert told me, ‘Donilon said Erdoğan “f***ing waved his finger at the president inside the White House”.’ Obama then pointed at Fidan and said: ‘We know what you’re doing [supplying sarin] with the radicals in Syria.’

5.  To prevent the US waging war on Syria, all Syria's chemical weapons (1300 tons) were offered up by Assad, and destroyed, in 2014.  At least, this is what was claimed by Secretary of State Kerry, and by National Security Advisor Rice. 

But the Wall Street Journal and the Times of Israel said no, despite destroying the bulk of his weapons, Assad held some back.  From the Israeli Times:

Assad “hid caches of even deadlier nerve agents” than the ones he gave up.
“A new intelligence assessment says Mr. Assad may be poised to use his secret chemical reserves to defend regime strongholds. Another danger is that he could lose control of the chemicals, or give them to Hezbollah.

6.  It is infuriating that the US media and armed forces can attack Assad over "more" sarin gas attacks -- when he was never proven to be responsible for any previous attacks.

Had governments and media told the truth about what they knew back in 2013, we would be less likely to be suckered into a war now on the basis of false allegations. We the People could weigh the evidence for ourselves.  Instead, we get rehashed baloney from the mass media.

 The fake media's sins of omission (avoiding giving us the facts) are equally as serious as its sins of commission (its lies and slanted stories).  We need new, honest, Peoples' Media.  Thank God for the internet.

7.  UPDATE:  See Michel Chossudovsky's piece from today with references to the UN and the Daily Mail (2013) stating that US and allies were involved in chemical weapons training of Syrian rebels.

8.  UPDATE:  And if you really want to weep about US foreign policy, read this piece I posted in March, 2016 from the LA Times titled "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA."

Syria's 2013 gas attacks were all false flags. Why would Assad in 2017, nearly winning his war, use gas and incite a US response?

I wrote about Syria's earlier gas attacks, in 2013.  There was never any evidence linking Syrian government troops or the Assad government to the attacks then.  No proof in the document given to the UN.  And the US report making the case to Congress admittedly was full of unsubstantiated claims and guesswork.  After initially pushing for action, France did a U-turn when the lack of evidence became obvious.  UK Prime Minister David Cameron was halted by a vote in Parliament from going to war over the gas attacks. From the Aug 29, 2013 Guardian:

David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

Even 'fake news' CNN pointed out the inconsistencies, back then.  I and others noted that (just like today) Assad had no motive for such an attack, which could only hurt him.  See 2013 coverage by the AP and the Atlantic.

Putin then brokered a deal in which Assad agreed to give up all his chemical weapons (the same ones the US and Russia still have).  Portable factories that destroy chemical weapons were brought in, and all chemical weapons were turned over and destroyed.

Secretary of State Kerry confirmed the complete removal of chemical weapons from Syria on NBC's "Meet the Press" on July 20, 2014.   He said, 

Russia has been constructive in helping to remove 100% of the declared chemical weapons from Syria. In fact, that was an agreement we made months ago. And it never faltered, even during these moments of conflict.

Fast forward 3 years, and we are again alleging that Assad used his (destroyed in 2014) chemical weapons on his own people.  Oops, no.  That was yesterday.

Alleging Assad's use of chemical weapons is over; the claims have morphed into pounding Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles and plenty more.

The Deep State apparatchiks (Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, etc.) are celebrating. But the Congressmembers also want a piece of this war action.  For example:

“This week’s unspeakable chemical weapons attack is only the latest in a long series of horrors perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad on innocent men, women and children,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement issued on the attacks in Syria. “Tonight’s strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the the regime’s use of chemical weapons. If the President intends to escalate the U.S. military’s involvement in Syria, he must to come to Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force which is tailored to meet the threat and prevent another open-ended war in the Middle East.”

Arrangements that helped avoid clashes between US and Russian planes/missiles/troops have now been shredded. This is not good.

Gold, the dollar, and oil prices are up.  Tillerson should be pleased.

Meanwhile, Trump's base believes it has been double-crossed. Candidate Trump promised less war.  Pundit Trump criticized Obama for even considering war in Syria, back in 2013.

Whether Trump continues to obey the will of the shadow government/deep state remains to be seen.  But today he has lost his supporters, those in the 99% who know the cost of war falls on their shoulders... while some of those in the 1% reap the spoils.

Pesonal Relationships between Media and Obama Administration