Activist Post
March 30, 2013
Only days after the chemical weapons attack inside Syria, the Israeli, US, and
NATO governments are doing everything in their power to not only push the idea
that the “red line” of the Obama administration has been crossed, but also to
maintain the fragile public relations narrative that the attack was launched by
the Assad government. Fortunately for everyone involved - except for, perhaps,
the death
squads wreaking havoc on Syrian soil - such a dual approach is proving very
difficult.This is because the chemical attack was not the work of the Assad regime but of the death squads who have been killing and maiming innocent people for close to two years. Although the Western and Israeli imperialists are clearly always poised to take advantage of a false flag attack such as the use of a chemical weapon by the inappropriately named “rebels” to immediately be blamed on Assad, the openness with which the death squads have advertised their possession of and intent to use such weapons has proved to be a major hurdle in the attempt to create a successful campaign of public outcry against the Assad government. In short, the false narrative of Assad’s use of chemical weapons “against his own people” is so easily dispelled that the public relations push seems to have stalled, even if only for a brief time.
Since the ridiculous “red line” talk has been repeated in government halls and press conferences since late 2012 by both President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as French President Francois Hollande, the idea that the Syrian government would be the party to actually use chemical weapons was patently absurd from the beginning.
As far back as June 2012, the pieces were
clearly seen being moved into place in order to create the environment and
subsequent chain of events for a successful false flag attack used to justify an
invasion of or, at the very least, some limited military action against Syria.
However, the more hidden aspects being used to create infrastructure for such an
event could be seen going back even further.
For instance, in November, 2011, it was reported in The Telegraph that the “transitional” government of terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, and NATO puppets in Libya were offering to send money, personnel (aka terrorists and mercenaries), and weapons to the death squads operating in Syria. It was largely understood, at least after the initial announcement of the weapons deal, that the weapons in question included chemical weapons.
For instance, in November, 2011, it was reported in The Telegraph that the “transitional” government of terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, and NATO puppets in Libya were offering to send money, personnel (aka terrorists and mercenaries), and weapons to the death squads operating in Syria. It was largely understood, at least after the initial announcement of the weapons deal, that the weapons in question included chemical weapons.
