Guest Post by Scott Adams
According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Syrian citizens were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon, in April of 2017 in the Khan Shaykhun area of Syria. The OPCW didn’t visit the site of the attack, but they did interview people and examine materials that came from the area.
The OPCW did not say who was responsible for the Sarin exposure. That wasn’t their job.
Ambassador Nikki Haley put out a press release saying the OPCW report is “… concluding that the chemical weapon sarin or a sarin-like substance was used in the attack.”
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Notice Haley’s replacement of “sarin” from the OPCW report with “sarin or a sarin-like substance” for her press release. That’s a tell. It means Haley has some reason to be skeptical that sarin was involved. If the OPCW is willing to call it sarin, why hedge?
The OPCW does not offer an opinion on who was responsible for the exposure, or even that it came from an “attack.” Yet somehow Nikki Haley knows the chemicals came from a “chemical weapons attack.” Russia claims an airstrike on a nearby storage facility accidentally released deadly gas. But Russia is less credible than CNN, so that doesn’t mean anything.
Perhaps the United States has reliable evidence connecting the gas on the ground to an actual attack, but we citizens haven’t seen it. We did learn that a Syrian jet bombed the area at the time of the chemical exposure. But I don’t believe anyone found bomb fragments with sarin, or anything that conclusive. If so, we haven’t seen that evidence.
We are also asked to believe that Syria is planning “another” attack from the same place as the last one, while we watch every step of the way, using drones and whatnot. Does that sound like something a dictator does when he is on the brink of winning and – this is the best part – the only way he can lose from this strong position is by senselessly using chemical weapons?
Well, maybe. But Syria’s Assad and his Russian mentors don’t seem crazy to me. Brutal, sure. Liars, sure. But crazy? I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
Apparently Assad has used chemical weapons in the past. If the event that leads to his demise is a manufactured story about his continued use of chemical weapons, I won’t feel any moral outrage. He has it coming. And I assume there is some military/strategic/negotiating advantage for the United States that comes from labelling Assad a repeat user of chemical weapons. So I still have confidence in the United States military leadership.
But I automatically doubt any claim that comes from a war zone. This one is less credible than most.
I don’t know how anyone could get this news of “another” gas attack and not be chilled to the bone. If the reports I heard are true then this portent of things to come came not from the military as one might reasonably expect but from the white house. That points to a political gambit, not a military one, which reeks of another false flag about to begin. While Adams seeks out the subliminal, microscopic morsel only he can detect he never gets to the obvious core of the issue: It’s all calculated to getting us pushed into a war with Russia and so why? Cui bono? Who benefits? Certainly not Americans, nor Russians, nor Syrians.
RE: Chemical Weapons
Just a reminder that WE firebombed Dresden and other German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Just a reminder that WE are the only nation to deploy atomic weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Just a reminder that WE carpet bombed Viet Nam with HE and Napalm killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Just a reminder that WE live in a glass house.
Load of bullshit!
Haley is a sick whore for Israel and should move there.
“Well, maybe. But Syria’s Assad and his Russian mentors don’t seem crazy to me. Brutal, sure. Liars, sure.”
Scott must have taken a big hit off the crackpipe when he wrote this. He is pushing the fake news, deep state narrative. Shame on him.
I thought he was referring to the U.S. as Brutal and Liars.
There is not one shred of evidence that the Assad regime had any connection to the CW attack on Khan Shaykhun.
Also, in 2013 when Obama blamed Assad for a CW attack on Ghouta, it was later found not attributable to the Assad regime, by two independent sources.
This is just part of the set up for the next staged CW event, with the intent of attempting to blame it on Syria again (I think this will be the fifth try, I think, with the first four being exposed for what they were).
If we want the CW attacks in Syria to stop, we would probably need to bomb a different country entirely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTrRmFQkDZ8
Sounds like Trump might have some ideas about which one.
AC…that link was eye opening
in the comments section on youtube it said he was quoting a muslim leader–
Hopefully this the last comment on a Scott Adams post on TBP. He’s not worth a read. Just a shill for the government trying to pretend he’s not.