Mainstream news sources are telling us that Bashar al-Assad recently decided to kill children with sarin gas. I can’t imagine anyone stupid enough to think that Assad or one of his generals said, “Now that we’re winning the war, let’s gas some children,” and so they did.
What isn’t being reported is any information that would put anything about this situation in context. Syria is still engaged in a civil war. The area where people died from exposure to chemical weapons is enemy territory.
In a worst-case scenario, gas was used to attack the al-Nusra forces in Khan Shaykhun, and the children were collateral damage. But even that doesn’t make sense. After taking control of Aleppo, what reason would Assad have to use gas against the rebels in Khan Shaykhun?
The only thing that does make sense is exactly what Russia and Syria are saying. Yes, they bombed their enemies in that area, but they hit a chemical weapons stockpile they didn’t know was there, and that shouldn’t have been there. The collateral damage from the attack on an enemy stronghold was far worse than they had reason to expect. But no matter what happened, they certainly did not set out to simply “attack children” as the U.S. news media would apparently have you believe.
After the gas attack in Ghouta in 2013, which the Syrian government also said they didn’t do, and would never do, they agreed to turn over all chemical weapons in their possession. But what about those not in their possession because they were in enemy-controlled areas?
In 2013, Russia said the Ghouta (and other) gas attacks were a false flag operation by anti-Assad forces designed to get outside countries involved in the conflict. But no one could prove that Assad was behind the attacks then, and Obama took no action.
Look what’s happening now. We have “evidence” that planes took off from the Shayrat Airbase and dropped bombs on Khan Shaykhun. That’s it. And that doesn’t prove that those planes dropped gas, while it does fit the claim of Syria that they unknowingly bombed a chemical stockpile. So far, we can only speculate and guess at what actually happened. When speculating, we should strive for a theory that actually makes sense.
There’s a ridiculous propaganda line being repeated endlessly: “Assad attacked and killed his own people.” Out of any context whatsoever, this says absolutely nothing sensible. The exact same thing could be said of Abraham Lincoln. It makes as much as sense as saying that Trump is Hitler. It’s an outrageous claim, with zero evidence, designed to evoke a visceral emotional reaction. And it’s working. Incidentally, the same people who hate Trump and give voice to the Hitlerian accusations are leading the cheer that Assad gassed children.
Now that Trump attacked the Shayrat Airbase, pissing off the Russians, how does that fit with the narrative that Russia installed Trump has president and everything he does is for the benefit of the Russians? Will the most extreme anti-Trump crowd now claim that Putin, Assad, and Trump planned this entire scenario to just to prove he’s not really Putin’s puppet? The Trump-Russia narrative doesn’t work anymore without a theory like this. And if someone does propose this theory, that would mean that Trump was equally guilty of gassing the children. And if Trump is Hitler™ he’d have no problem with that. Right?
Will the craziest of the anti-Trumpers go that far to keep the narrative alive and working? Would Trump and Putin go so far as to have a naval stand-off, which appears to be happening now as Russia sends a warship to confront our ships that were used to attack Shayrat Airbase?
Consider this: Hillary was in favor of military action in Syria. She and others wanted to go against Russia, creating a no-fly zone that would involve shooting down Russian fighter jets that crossed into Syrian airspace. Now that Trump has taken military action in Syria, many of Trumps former critics are praising him.
(Conspiracy theorists should take note that this gas attack has wiped Susan Rice and her guilt/lies about Trump surveillance from the news. Remember Monica Lewinsky and Clinton bombing Iraq when evidence came out that he was lying? Makes a person wonder.)
We can theorize anything, but what we need are facts. Images of children foaming at the mouth and dying are powerful and evocative, but we need to know not just that they died, but how, and by whose hand. Unfortunately, everyone is talking, but no one is looking for facts or anything that makes sense. CNN tells us that witnesses saw “chemical bombs dropped from the air.” Could the average Syrian citizen actually identify the exact type of bomb that is falling from a plane? Could you?
Trump’s supporters are upset with his actions, and his critics are pleased. That alone gives me reason to question what we’re being told. We have no interests in Syria, and no reason to go to war with Russia or anyone else over Syria. I liked Trump’s position that we should work with Russia to eradicate ISIS in the area, and provide safe havens for refugees. And that’s it. Trump’s opposition wanted us to be more militarily involved in Syria, and militarily at odds with Russia. That’s what is happening now.
If you’ve noticed a lot of fake news, outright lies, and propaganda from the mainstream news outlets, you shouldn’t suddenly assume that everything those same discredited sources are telling you now. The same pundits who normally shriek, “Where’s the evidence?” for anything Trump claims, from the size of inauguration crowds to being illegally wiretapped, are now quite content to praise actions that could lead to us being at war with Russia, without any evidence.