False Flag: Trump Warns ‘Animal Assad’ Over Chemical Weapons Attack That Killed 70

Caving to neocon interests, US President Donald Trump has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have a “big price to pay” for allegedly launching a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians — and blamed Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin for backing “animal Assad”.

This follows Trump’s earlier decision to strike a Syrian airbase in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Recent tweets from Trump appear to advocate a direct overthrow of Assad.

In one of the tweets, Trump slammed Obama, who vowed in 2012 that such actions (a chemical weapons attack) would cross a “red line,” but later failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas.

Instead, Obama brokered a multi-nation deal in which Syrian President Bashar Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.


The continuation of war.

This latest, likely false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria follows the defeat of ISIS, and provides the much-needed justification for the Zionist-neocon lobby to keep the US forces in Syria indefinitely — and judging by the heated rhetoric, maybe even move to overthrow Assad.

Despite all this, at a rally in Cleveland last week, Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria will in fact stay in Syria.

But just as Trump again comes out urging for military withdrawal, a false flag crops up and the US is thrown back into contention. The strings are being pulled.

Trump buying into this latest publicity stunt is a worrying sign of escalation and further interventionism — it was only a matter of time before something came up and the banker’s war was given a new lease of life.

30443265_481782188890667_6331916112679982069_n


There’s no motive for Syria to use chemical weapons and draw more attention to itself.

There is no reason for Assad to attack his own people with chemical weapons, the motive is not there, he wants deescalation and for NATO to leave Syria, why would he create reasons for further occupation? — also, the means of carrying out the attack aren’t there if we take Assad’s word for the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons. If there are no means, there is no opportunity to carry out the attack to begin with.

Last year, a Syrian military statement published by state media on 4 April denied the use of “any chemical or toxic substance”, saying that the military “has never used them, anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future”.

President Bashar al-Assad subsequently said the 2017 chemical weapons incident was a “fabrication” used to justify a US cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase on 7 April.

Now, in 2018, history is repeating itself.

This shock-factor child poster image from the Zionist-owned Associated Press is up across all the mainstream media outlets.

US intelligence has links to training ‘moderate’ rebels in using chemical weapons.

Globalresearch reports:

CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.

Moscow has provided evidence that the U.S is training Al Qaeda affiliated “militants groups” in the use of chemical. A March 17, Russia’s Ministry of Defense  states the following:

“We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria.”

The CNN report by Barbara Starr below dated September 2013 ultimately confirms Russia’s allegations.

Moreover, in an earlier report dated December 9 2012, CNN confirms that:

“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)

The above report by CNN’s award winning journalist Elise Labott (relegated to the status a CNN blog), refutes CNN’s numerous accusations directed against Bashar Al Assad.

Who is doing the training of terrorists in the use of chemical weapons? From the horse’s mouth: CNN

And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counter-terrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:

“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible  for using the WMD against the Syrian people.

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.

This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.

The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.

The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)

Why Trump must sign the new Russia sanctions bill.

Why Trump must sign the new Russia sanctions bill.

Article from The Duran

The neo-con establishment has deprived the president of foreign policy authority, locking in sanctions by act of congress.

Despite the White House’s apparent opposition, the US congress has passed a new sanctions package against Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Donald Trump seems destined to sign the legislation – and in fact, he has little choice.

Congress passed the bill by a nearly unanimous, veto-proof vote of those present: 419-3 in the House and 98-2 in the Senate (Sens. Paul and Sanders dissenting).

The anti-Russia lobby has thereby signaled its determination to push full steam ahead with American Exceptionalist military and economic supremacy, even if such policy is ultimately futile and self-destructive and in fact, pushes Washington’s European vassals closer to Moscow.

The bill represents the victory of the ideologues over the realists – the smaller latter camp led only by Trump and a few of his close advisors such as Steve Bannon and former advisor Mike Flynn.

The legislation also signifies a remarkable and possibly even unique hamstringing of a president’s foreign policy authority by his own party in congress. Under the bill, Trump will be unable to lift any sanctions against Russia, Iran, or North Korea without approval from congress – a virtual certainty not to happen in the current or foreseeable political climate.

Trump could veto the bill, but it would be sacrificing political capital for zero gain, throwing away any trust he has with the republican party in congress, as both parties have pledged to override the president’s veto.

Fox Business reported Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) as saying a veto would be futile:

“I cannot imagine anybody is seriously thinking about vetoing this bill,” said Corker. “It’s not good for any president — and most governors don’t like to veto things that are going to be overridden. It shows a diminishment of their authority. I just don’t think that’s a good way to start off as president.”

Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) was equally emphatic to CNN:

“If he vetoes the bill, we will override his veto,” Cardin said.

Regardless of Donald Trump’s personal views toward the anti-Russian Sanctions (it is unlikely, given his public statements, that he opposes the new sanctions on Iran or North Korea), a veto would be a pointless gesture which would be interpreted as another a political defeat for a president who badly needs congress’ cooperation on his legislative agenda.

Even if Donald Trump supports improved relations with Russia – and I believe he has made it clear enough on multiple occasions that he genuinely does – it is extremely near-sighted to assume he would prioritize that policy change over his domestic program, including healthcare, tax cuts, infrastructure, and border security. That would be true even without the massive establishment backlash towards any hint of rapprochement with Moscow.

Except during wartime, US presidents are not elected on foreign policy. Donald Trump was elected president based primarily on two issues: jobs and immigration. Foreign policy issues play a very unimportant role in American elections – unless and until American troops start dying in large numbers.

Trump’s supporters in middle and working class America could not care less whether sanctions are tightened on Russia, and most are probably naturally inclined to think that they should be. After all, Russia has been portrayed by the media and politicians as a menacing country for decades – singlehandedly re-educating the public is beyond the capabilities of even the president.

Nevertheless, according to several reports, the White House had tried to reduce the scope of the sanctions and its restrictions on the president in talks with congress, but to no avail. Again from Fox Business:

Trump had privately expressed frustration over Congress’ ability to limit or override the power of the president on national security matters, according to Trump administration officials and advisers. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

ABC news noted that members of the Trump administration had voiced disapproval of an earlier, similar bill locking in sanctions:

The White House has expressed reservations about that aspect of the bill after the Senate first passed similar legislation last month, but without targeting North Korea. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Congress then that the White House wanted the “flexibility” to deal with Russia, and White House legislative director Marc Short expressed opposition to the “unusual precedent of delegating foreign policy to 535 members of Congress.”

Faced with united opposition by neo-con globalist bought and paid for legislators, signing the bill is a political force majeure for Trump. One assumes it will happen quietly this week and without any of the usual fanfare of Trump’s other public signings.

Trump has sought to repair fragmented relations with Russia, his efforts are being actively dashed by a neocon establishment that has subverted him.

No doubt the president will hope for increased cooperation from congress on his domestic agenda as compensation, as well as the dropping of “Russia collusion” charges against him and his closest advisors.

But it may be a forlorn hope. The first six months of Trump’s presidency have shown a mass media and political establishment united in implacable opposition to any of the Trump insurgency’s threatened changes to the status quo.