The ruling elite think you’re stupid. As a matter of fact, they’re counting on it.
When they wanted to invade Iraq, the excuse was weapons of mass destruction. Turns out, those weapons didn’t exist. Oops. When they wanted to topple Libya, they told you Gaddafi was murdering civilians. Turns out these “civilians” were CIA backed jihadists. Minor detail. They’ve wanted regime change in Syria for years. So they armed, trained and funded an insurgency. Most of the weapons ended up in the hands of extremists, who used them in rather unpleasant ways. This made for bad P.R.
Then the west claimed Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. They said they had proof, before there was even time for an investigation. That proof, unfortunately, was classified, so we can’t see it. How convenient.
They’ve tried the poison gas angle several times now. Each new episode sloppier than the last. In 2013 when sarin gas was used on civilians, the West instantly declared Assad guilty. Air strikes were on the table, and talk of regime change was in the air. The push to war fell apart when the official U.N. investigation into the matter found that the U.S. backed rebels were the ones responsible, not Assad.
Five years later, as the last rebel strong hold fell, and final victory was at hand, the west would have you believe that Assad lost his marbles. In spite of the fact that Syrian forces were easily wiping up the last militants using conventional weaponry, and Russia still had their back, Assad apparently got an uncontrollable urge to use poison gas on civilians, a move guaranteed to trigger a military response. Why would Assad do something so stupid? Because he’s a vicious animal that enjoys murdering his own people. Right.
President Assad is in the process of winning this civil war, and he was about to take over and occupy Douma (all that area) . He had a long hard slog slowly capturing that whole area of the city, and there just before he goes in and takes it all over apparently he decides to have a chemical attack. It just doesn’t ring true. It seems extraordinary, because clearly he would know that there’s like to be a response from the allies. What benefit is there for his military? Most of the rebel fighters, this disparate group of Islamists had withdrawn. There were a few women and children left around. What benefit was there militarily in doing what he did? I find that extraordinary. Whereas we know that in the past some of the Islamic groups have used chemicals, and of course there would be huge benefits in them labeling an attack as coming from Assad, because they would guess quite rightly that there would be a response from the U.S. (as there was last time) and possibly from the U.K. and France. - Lord Alan West - Admiral British Royal Navy
I find it very unbelievable that at this point, where Bashar Assad has WON in Syria, that he would jeopardize that victory by using chemical weapons and thus drawing the United States into the fray. - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson - Former chief of staff to Colin Powell
Quite apart from all that, the debate that seems to be missing from this is… What possible motive could have triggered Syria to launch this chemical attack at this time in this place? The Syrians are winning, don’t take my word for it, take the American military’s word for it. - Former commander British forces in Iraq Jonathan Shaw
There’s another problem with this story. The Syrian government destroyed the last of its chemical weapons stockpile in 2014, and they had absolutely nothing to gain by producing new weapons. The simple fact is, Syria didn’t need these munitions to win the war. They had full support of the Russian military.
The rebels on the other hand, did have chemical weapons, and had every incentive to use them. The U.S. Department of State admitted that Al-Nusra (renamed as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) had these weapons in a travel advisory released in October of 2017. This advisory has since been deleted, but an archived version is still online.
Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [formerly Al-Nusra], and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons
The Russian Foreign Ministry warned in February of 2018 that they had intelligence indicating that Al-Nusra was in the process planning another chemical provocation. This warning, was of course ignored.
Then there’s also the fact that numerous reporters who visited the scene of the supposed attack and interviewed those who were present at the time found no evidence that any chemical attack actually took place.
And here’s the punchline: one of the supposed victims from the film the west was using as its “evidence”, is in perfect health, and is directly contradicting the official story.
The west lied about Iraq. They lied about Libya. They are lying about Syria, and this is just the beginning. They’ll keep using the same formula as long as you keep falling for it.
When the powers-that-be want to start a war, they never declare their real motives or intentions. Doing so would undermine domestic support, weaken moral within the military, and invite an international backlash. Instead they follow a tested and proven template, designed to hijack human instinct.
First, the public must be conditioned to view the target as a threat. This is accomplished by coordinating narratives via media, and political puppets. The enemy is framed as an arch-villain. Their crimes built up, exaggerated and woven with total fiction. Repetition is used to etch that image into the mind of the masses.
If a proper enemy does not exist, one can be created. Today’s freedom fighters often serve as tomorrow’s boogie man. The U.S. backing and subsequent destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq are prime examples.
To get their war, those in power need an excuse to attack. Military aggression must be promoted as an act of self defense, retaliation or humanitarian intervention. This can be accomplished by fabricating an attack and blaming it on the enemy, intentionally provoking the enemy into a response, or by justifying preemptive strikes as the only way to prevent an atrocity.
Finally, public support is consolidated with a crusade mythology: a narrative that presents the aggressors as fighting for a higher ideal, or a greater good, with war defined as the means to that end.
A war of aggression becomes “Spreading Democracy”, “Fighting Terrorism”, or “Bringing Civilization to Savages”. These euphemisms define “us vs. them” in exaggerated terms to dehumanize the target, sanitize the implied bloodshed, and activate the pack instinct (in the form of patriotism).
This formula hijacks the most primal and dangerous aspects of human nature. Out-group becomes a mortal enemy, a problem that must be dealt with imminently. Reaction is shaped by defining the boundaries of debate. “Should the president order a limited strike, or a full invasion? Was 100 bombs enough, or did this show a lack of resolve?” One way or another, the solution is always war.
The ruling elite think you’re too stupid to put two and two together. They think you’re too cowardly and apathetic to call them out. It’s up to you to prove them wrong.
If you want more people to hear this message, take a moment to share it with someone you know. This content is Creative Commons. You have permission download this video, copy and distribute it by any and all means. If you would like to support our work visit our donate page at StormCloudsGathering.com