President Donald Trump has vowed to unleash the full force of the U.S. military against Syria after President Bashar al-Assad launched an attack using a toxic chemical believed to be sarin gas in Khan Sheikhoun, killing at least 86 people — including 30 children — and seriously injuring hundreds more.

Image result for Ron Paul

Horrific images of the dead flooded social media and were put on display by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley for a meeting of the Security Council — all prompting Trump to declare the attack an “affront to humanity,” adding,

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies … that crosses … many lines.”

Of course killing children and other innocents with chemicals crosses lines — and anyone not repulsed and outraged would do the world a favor to examine their conscience.

But did it actually happen?

Did Assad, whose forces, with the assistance of Russia, have successfully pushed back against terrorist fighters — including groups like al-Qaeda affiliates, trained and armed by the U.S. and its allies — really feel attacking his own people out of the blue would be a prudent move at this late hour in the conflict?

Would the Syrian leader virtually guarantee his own defeat — if not death — by gassing noncombatant civilians, days after the United States loosened its stance on his continued efforts to wrest the war-ravaged nation from the clutches of extremist groups?

Further, would Assad seriously relegate long-sought peace negotiations to the dustbin of diplomacy, literally the day before talks were to take place?

Not likely.

In fact, the heinous act would be antithetical to any agenda Assad could possibly conjure — but the slaughter of 86 innocents would, however, serve the interests of other parties.

Cui bono? Who benefits? Who, exactly, stands to gain from such a gruesome act?

Beyond the immediate rush to finger Assad responsible, several luminaries already came forward to call the West’s bluff.

Dr. Ron Paul spoke with Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity executive director Daniel McAdams for the Liberty Report on precisely why the theory Assad would abruptly kill scores of innocent Syrians is strikingly less than legitimate — and why we need to be paying attention to the exponentially more likely culprit.

As the much-beloved former presidential candidate explained, the odious propaganda smearing Assad as a monster for using chemical weapons is strongly indicative of a manufactured opportunity — a false flag.

“Before this episode of possible gas exposure and who did what, things were going along reasonably well for the conditions,” Paul noted. “Trump said let the Syrians decide who should run their country, and peace talks were making out, and Al Qaeda and ISIS were on the run.

“It looks like, maybe, somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode, and the blame now is we can’t let that happen because it looks like it might benefit Assad.”


Post a Comment