Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Yes, I initially thought our liberals were misinformed doves, but now I see that they are fairly well informed hawks, who just try to hide the fact that they are hawks, and that is their primary agenda.

---

I asked Jack this same question and he replied with a lie (of course). How 'bout you?

Who are the liberals who are now hawks on this board?
The Truth about Russian Trolls: http://bit.ly/2nwoDoz

---

Quote:

---

A core dynamic at play here pertains to Russia, which was warned of U.S. plans to attack Al-Shayrat but whose entire presence in Syria is predicated on propping up Assad and covering for his criminal actions. In the immediate aftermath of the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, a humiliated Russia was forced to concoct an illogical story, every facet of which was either swiftly disproved or dismissed as laughable by experts and journalists on the ground. With U.S. intelligence now investigating whether Russia had been involved in the use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun, Russia’s emphatic rhetoric and talk of threats is almost certainly cover for its lack of options and the fact that it finds itself having to blindly protect a global pariah.

...

Foreign intervention for rapid regime change promises only further chaos, but determined U.S. leadership backed up by the credible and now proven threat of force presents the best opportunity in years to strong-arm actors on the ground into a phase of meaningful de-escalation, out of which eventually, a durable negotiation process may result. This is something Obama never understood: His efforts to broker peace failed because he refused even to consider threatening war. Every feeble threat given from an Obama podium effectively amounted to a further emboldening of the Assad regime’s sense of immunity and its free hand to murder its people en masse.

...

if anything is now clear, it is that the U.S. has more freedom of action in Syria than the Obama administration was ever willing to admit. Opponents of limited U.S. intervention who have long and confidently pronounced the inevitability of conflict with Russia are now faced with the reality that Moscow failed to lift a finger when American missiles careered toward Assad regime targets. For now, that discovery was made through a tactical reaction to a brazen war crime, but a holistic strategy must now be developed that treats all threats emanating from Syria as individual components of a single problem: the Assad regime.

...

But ISIS is the bastard child of Assad’s misrule: Syria will never be stable while he remains in power and the longer he sticks around, the more extremists will reap the rewards of his brutality by escaping from justice and ensuring their narratives thrive among the disenfranchised.

The choice is not and has never been a binary one between Assad and ISIS, as some have tried to claim. Syria remains a country of many communities and many perspectives. Of a population of roughly 23 million people, no more than 20,000 (0.09 percent) have chosen to join Al Qaeda or ISIS, according to privately discussed estimates held by U.S. intelligence officials. Therefore, U.S. policy is best served by securing a future for the remaining 99.91 percent. With newfound leverage and a growing coalition of countries announcing their support for stronger action on Assad, the U.S. has an opportunity now to set Syria on a path toward something better. It will take time and resources, and likely many more risks, but that must surely hold better prospects than leaving the country to war criminals and their blind defenders.

---

Quote:

---

American intelligence officials also suspect that an attempt might have been made to frustrate efforts to gather evidence of a chemical assault. After victims were rushed to a hospital, a small drone appeared overhead before disappearing. About five hours later, the drone returned and another airstrike hit the medical center; American officials do not know if the drone or the second strike was launched by Syria or Russia.

---

Quote:

---

Sig you voted for unpredictability in the form of DJT, and unpredictability is what you got- KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
SIG fought tooth and nail here preaching Trump should be elected president because she believed it would be best for Russia. Trump just said russia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Here's the thing that a lot of conspriacy theories don't get: In order to have a technology in war, you don't just need to know it, you need to have perfected it. I suspect Russia is not there yet, and I know Syria isn't, with drones. Russia can't do anything without us knowing about it, because Russians will talk, to each other, about it.Also, no motive. Russia claimed responsibility for the attack, they didn't have a reason to hide who it was. Neither Russia nor Syria had Sarin on site, so the attack was almost certainly ISIS, so the drone strike had to cover up who it was, and those who did it would need to be involved in the cover up. In the Syria did the gas attack side there's Iran, but it's unlikely that Iran's drones are combat ready.

So, it has to be someone who would cover for ISIS. I'm going to go out on a limb and say ISIS doesn't have combat ready drones. Someone supporting ISIS does. ISIS supporters are Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Israel has armed drones. Almost no one has armed drones, most drones are surveillance. So, Israel has them because we gave them to Israel. And, Israel is on board with the PNAC plan to get rid of Assad.

Lastly, someone has to fly into this space to do the attack, which means they have to have the tacit okay of someone who is already there. That probably cuts out the Saudis. I definitely cuts out Iran.

Ergo, Motive, Mean and Opportunity leaves me with one suspect: Israel. I think that this logic which has been used to solve crimes for centuries, is pretty solid, and there's not going to be a better answer. Maybe the UN will find something.

And yeah, I know you believe the narrative, but that don't make it so.

---

Quote:

---

I like Stefan.

---

Quote:

---

I haven't bought into anarchy yet, and I don't imagine I will anytime soon, but I do agree with some of the points he brings up a lot like the non-aggression principal and I am a fan of much smaller government in general.

---

Quote:

---

Trump’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Moment

Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

The source said the Trump national security team split between the President’s close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and this week’s removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.

Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration’s CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a “false-flag” operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels — and the intelligence analysts’ similar beliefs about Tuesday’s incident.

Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night’s missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation.

If changing the narrative was Trump’s goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump’s fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

---

Quote:

---

The neocons and Israel have long sought “regime change” in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.

Trump employing a “wag the dog” strategy, in which he highlights his leadership on an international crisis to divert attention from domestic political problems, is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s decision to attack Serbia in 1999 as impeachment clouds were building around his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

Trump’s advisers, in briefing the press on Thursday night, went to great lengths to highlight Trump’s compassion toward the victims of the poison gas and his decisiveness in bombing Assad’s military in contrast to Obama’s willingness to allow the intelligence community to conduct a serious review of the evidence surrounding the 2013 sarin-gas case.

Ultimately, Obama listened to his intelligence advisers who told him there was no “slam-dunk” evidence implicating Assad’s regime and he pulled back from a military strike at the last minute – while publicly maintaining the fiction that the U.S. government was certain of Assad’s guilt.

In both cases – 2013 and 2017 – there were strong reasons to doubt Assad’s responsibility. In 2013, he had just invited United Nations inspectors into Syria to investigate cases of alleged rebel use of chemical weapons and thus it made no sense that he would launch a sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs, guaranteeing that the U.N. inspectors would be diverted to that case.

Similarly, now, Assad’s military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration’s announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking “regime change” in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help.

The counter-argument to this logic – made by The New York Times and other neocon-oriented news outlets – essentially maintains that Assad is a crazed barbarian who was testing out his newfound position of strength by baiting President Trump. Of course, if that were the case, it would have made sense that Assad would have boasted of his act, rather than deny it.

But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media.

Alarm within the U.S. intelligence community about Trump’s hasty decision to attack Syria reverberated from the Middle East back to Washington, where former CIA officer Philip Giraldi reported hearing from his intelligence contacts in the field that they were shocked at how the new poison-gas story was being distorted by Trump and the mainstream U.S. news media.

Giraldi told Scott Horton’s Webcast: “I’m hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we’re all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham.”

Giraldi said his sources were more in line with an analysis postulating an accidental release of the poison gas after an Al Qaeda arms depot was hit by a Russian airstrike.

“The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving … which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear.”

Giraldi said the anger within the intelligence community over the distortion of intelligence to justify Trump’s military retaliation was so great that some covert officers were considering going public.

---

Quote:

---

“People in both the agency [the CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known – but maybe he didn’t – and they’re afraid that this is moving toward a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict,” Giraldi said before Thursday night’s missile strike. “They are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the U.S. media.”

The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades. For instance, The New York Times on Friday published a lead story by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear that treated the Syrian government’s responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact. The lengthy story did not even deign to include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment of poison gas.

The article also fit with Trump’s desire that he be portrayed as a decisive and forceful leader. He is depicted as presiding over intense deliberations of war or peace and displaying a deep humanitarianism regarding the poison-gas victims, one of the rare moments when the Times, which has become a reliable neocon propaganda sheet, has written anything favorable about Trump at all.

According to Syrian reports on Friday, the U.S. attack killed 13 people, including five soldiers at the airbase.

[NYT author] Gordon, whose service to the neocon cause is notorious, was the lead author with

---

Quote:

---

Judith Miller

---

Quote:

---

of the Times’ bogus “aluminum tube” story in 2002 which falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program, an article that was then cited by President George W. Bush’s aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003.

In the movie [Wag the Dog], the White House operation is a cynical psychological operation to convince the American people that innocent Albanian children, including an attractive girl carrying a cat, are in danger when, In reality, the girl was an actor posing before a green screen that allowed scenes of fiery ruins to be inserted as background.

Today, because Trump and his administration are now committed to convincing Americans that Assad really was responsible for Tuesday’s poison-gas tragedy, the prospects for a full and open investigation are effectively ended. We may never know if there is truth to those allegations or whether we are being manipulated by another “wag the dog” psyop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
I kinda feel like the agenda monkeys are willing to take out anyone who opposes them, including the president, and he'll just drag his heels as he goes down agenda road. But I suspect that's for the best. If they got rid of him all the useful idiots would jump for joy.

---

Quote:

---

The Shayrat Incident: What is Donald Trump thinking???

By J.Hawk

Given the complexities of both international and domestic US politics, the US cruise missile strike on the Shayrat Airbase in the Homs Province in Syria cannot be subjected to causal reductionism. It is highly unlikely the decision was made on the basis of a single set of considerations. Rather, it was the outcome of several overlapping sets of problems with which the Trump Administration is coping right now. One can clearly argue and disagree over the relative importance of these factors. However, one should not deny all of them are present in the mind of Donald Trump (because yes, he has one) and in the minds of his cabinet and advisers. So, in no particular order:

“Only Nixon could go to China”

That’s because of Nixon’s impeccable McCarthyite credentials which meant that no matter what he did, he would not be treated as an appeaser at home. Even, in effect, giving away all of South Vietnam did not hurt his standing with the conservatives. Trump has no such credentials–he is a “Russian agent”, remember? But now that, in the words of Fareed Zakaria, Trump has become president, that cloud seems to be dissipating. Furthermore, even Nixon felt that before engaging in Vietnam negotiations he needed to escalate the war, which he did with enormous human costs. One of the demands of the US hegemony is the maintenance of the fiction that, no matter what the negotiation is, the US always negotiates from the position of strength. The demonstrated US ability to strike a Syrian military target in spite of Russian objections–though with a warning of several hours which evidently was necessary to avert a Russian retaliation–gives Trump the ability to reclaim that position of strength in the eyes of the US public. This is admittedly a rather optimistic interpretation–we’ll see whether the Trump team uses it in order to actually pursue negotiations in good faith. The calm Russian reaction so far, which after all included non-interference with the US strike, suggests that maybe the Kremlin understands Trump’s predicament.

The reason you don’t generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2017

China is watching

With China’s president being in the US even as the cruise missiles were raining on Syria, one can’t help thinking he was also an intended recipient of this message. Let’s not forget the US is placing ABM systems in South Korea and is threatening unilateral military action against North Korea unless China does something to make North Korea behave in accordance with US preferences.

The Swamp drained Trump

It is also unquestionable that Trump has been very effectively “tamed” by the establishment. Nearly every one of his promises is now highly unlikely to be implemented, be it health care reform, tax reform, immigration reform, boosting manufacturing, the trillion dollar infrastructure program…and the end to the war in Syria combined with reconciliation with Russia. While that does not necessarily mean that neoconservatives, neoliberals, and globalists have entirely taken over his administration, it does mean the administration has to appease them by diluting his original objectives and perhaps even sacrificing some goals entirely in order to achieve others. On the other hand, surely Trump is aware that embracing the Hillary agenda in its entirety is a surefire way to go down in history as a universally reviled president.

Time is not your friend

The whole spectacle smells of desperation. An obviously false-flag use of chemical weapons is pinned on the Syrian government and, within 63 hours, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever save a few social media posts, off go the cruise missiles. Such a flimsy premise for military action is unheard of even by US standards–the invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, even the imposition of sanctions on Russia over Ukraine were all preceded by a much longer process, with considerably greater effort given to provide at least the fig leaf of legality. Here there was nothing of the sort, which prompted Bolivia to express what no doubt many were thinking at the UN by displaying a photo of the infamous “Colin Powell and the vial of anthrax” photo during the UNSC deliberations. So why the hurry? Part of it no doubt has to do with the fact the rebels are losing. There is no plausible way, short of a direct overland NATO intervention, to turn the tide of the war. So it is up to the Western diplomacy to snatch a victory out of a jaws of hybrid war defeat. But the later the negotiations commence, the worse the starting position of West-backed groups.

The other reason for haste is the need to cut down on international commitments in order to focus on the domestic agenda which, in the US, means a major reduction in government services and expenditures. Trump Administration’s provocative actions in Syria are par for the course. They are directly comparable to the harsh rhetoric directed at Europe (the aim there also being the reduction of US security commitments) and the saber-rattling on North Korea.

Opening Bid

Just because time is not on your side does not mean you can show weakness by appearing over-eager to offer concessions–in fact, rather the opposite. Both Trump and Tillerson are hard-nosed negotiators who know how operate under pressure. Trump, in particular, is a billionnaire largely by the dint of being an obstinate, almost unreasonable negotiator not afraid of brinksmanship. The same can be said of Tillerson’s tenure at Exxon. These two are not in the business of giving “freebies” to the competitors, and any letting down of the guard in Syria and elsewhere would be just that–a freebie. Setting up an unrealistic set of initial demands is part of Trump’s negotiating style, one that we have also seen in his rhetoric aimed at China and in the “bill” for NATO services given to Angela Merkel. Any concession down from “Assad must go” will therefore have to be paid for with Russian and Syrian concessions elsewhere. As to what the acceptable ground for compromise might be was suggested by the notes of moderation emanating from the Trump team itself following the strike. Trump’s own statement that followed the missile strikes did not call for Assad’s ouster. In other words, that’s clearly not a non-negotiable US demand at this point–had Trump said “Assad must go”, it would have all but killed any prospect of a negotiated settlement, just as it did for the Obama Administration which painted itself into a corner. Had the Tomahawk strike actually caused serious damage or killed Russian troops, there likewise would not have any possibility of forward movement in the foreseeable future. Trump so far as avoided burning his bridges, which gives cause for guarded optimism. But that does not mean that the future negotiations will be easy or bring the war in Syria to a rapid conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

The real question is, why would Assad have gassed his citizens? What was there to gain from doing so? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

---

Quote:

---

Looks like possibly the MSM/Globalists/Neocon/Neolibs now have control over Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
fwiw I agree. False flag attack for sure.

I'm still puzzled in/ disappointed about Trump. Unless he's got some backchannel communication going on, it looks like he's in this for real. Trump knows how to aggressively negotiate which means come on strong and keep them guessing. But I'm not entirely sure he knows how to play either a long game or a long con. (I take that all back if it turns out he didn't become president by a fluke. In which case - he's brilliant.)

---

Quote:

---

Russia Slams "Absurd" Trump Demands, Warns Tillerson "Don't Strike Syria Again"

Amid attempts to "clarify areas of sharp difference," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blasted the Trump administration’s "ambiguous and contradictory" foreign policy at the start of talks with Tillerson in Moscow Wednesday calling the demand for the Kremlin to abandon Assad "absurd." Furthermore, he warned Tillerson that Russia "believes it’s fundamentally important not to let these actions happen again." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-12/russia-slams-absurb-trump-dem
ands-warns-tillerson-dont-strike-syria-again

---

Quote:

---

Lavrov Rejects America's "Hysterical Campaign" Of Interventionism: "We Know All Too Well How This Ends"

On Syria and US Intervention...

"The future of Syria has to be determined by the Syrians themselves," says Lavrov. Sounds like Tillerson didn't convince Russia of his viewpoint that Assad must go.

*U.S., RUSSIA DISCUSSED ASSAD'S FUTURE AT LENGTH: TILLERSON
*U.S. VIEW IS ASSAD FAMILY REIGN COMING TO END: TILLERSON
*LAVROV: RUSSIA SAW NO PROOF SYRIA CARRIED OUT CHEMICAL ATTACK
*RUSSIA BEST PLACED TO HELP ASSAD RECOGNIZE REALITY: TILLERSON
*LAVROV: NO INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFERENCES ON SYRIA, UKRAINE W/ U.S.
*LAVROV CONDEMNS 'HYSTERICAL CAMPAIGN' IN U.S. TO BOMB SYRIA
*RUSSIA WANTS TO FIND TRUTH ON SYRIA CHEMICAL ATTACK: LAVROV
*U.S. HAS NO FIRM EVIDENCE RUSSIA INVOLVED IN ATTACK: TILLERSON


"I recall from the past [America's] fixation on the removal of various foreign authoritarian or totalitarian leaders... we know all too well how this ends..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-12/lavrov-rejects-americas-hyste
rical-campaign-interventionism-we-know-all-too-well-how]

Quote:

---

Putin told Tillerson why U.S.-Russian ties in bad state: Kremlin
Russian President Vladimir Putin used a meeting with visiting U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Wednesday to give his views on why U.S.-Russian relations had reached such a low point, a Kremlin spokesman said.

The spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told a conference call with reporters on Thursday that the tone of the meeting had been "fairly constructive." He said the Russian hope was that Putin's message would be passed on to U.S. President Donald Trump.

He said general agreement was reached at the meeting of the need to keep open lines of communication between Moscow and Washington. Peskov also said Putin had given Tillerson his views on the situation in Syria, and how it was likely to develop.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-tillerson-putin-idUSKBN17
F13M?il=0

---

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

Quote:

---

I'd say considering all that, Syria by almost any measure, is the world's top most cluster f*ck at this time with Assad as it's president.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I KNOW Syrian Xtians, who had family in Aleppo. They fled, not because they "hated Assad" but because the Sunni extremists look over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

The real question is, why would Assad have gassed his citizens? What was there to gain from doing so? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

---

Why? Why not? He's a madman, a bloodthirsty brute who used chemical weapons many times before without any consequences. He figured he has his Russian pals there to protect him, and the gutless all-talk West would never act, so there was nothing to lose. His "gain" was that he could do it, and the joy he gets from seeing dead kids. The fact that Russia, Syria, and Iran are criticizing Trump for responding but staying mum on gassing children tells you just how fucked-up these psychotic gangsters are.

---

Standard operating procedure for a brutal dictator completely removed from his people, used to flush out the people/citizens/terrorists/rebels/angry mob who want him dead, from the only safe place they can find to hide: amongst his own people. Since he sees no difference, no biggie. And yes, a big fat middle finger to the US at the same time. "I dare you."
Maybe "dropping chemical bombs" is what DT means by "negotiating?"

==============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
How refreshing to see at least one Liberal who doesn't fantasize conspiracies everywhere. Bravo!

---

Quote:

---

Dear Larry,

I am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on April 11, 2017.

I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4. This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.

However, if one assumes, as does the White House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.

The only undisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity.

The report instead repeats observations of physical effects suffered by victims that with very little doubt indicate nerve agent poisoning.

The only source the document cites as evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun.

I have located this crater using Google Earth and there is absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft. The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement.

...

Analysis of the debris as shown in the photographs cited by the White House clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load of sarin.

---

Quote:

---

Senior White House and administration officials tell me Trump's national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, has been quietly pressing his colleagues to question the underlying assumptions of a draft war plan against the Islamic State that would maintain only a light U.S. ground troop presence in Syria. McMaster's critics inside the administration say he wants to send tens of thousands of ground troops to the Euphrates River Valley.

... McMaster himself has found resistance to a more robust ground troop presence in Syria. In two meetings since the end of February of Trump's national security cabinet, known as the principals' committee, Trump's top advisers have failed to reach consensus on the Islamic State strategy. The White House and administration officials say Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford and General Joseph Votel, who is in charge of U.S. Central Command, oppose sending more conventional forces into Syria. Meanwhile, White House senior strategist Stephen Bannon has derided McMaster to his colleagues as trying to start a new Iraq War, according to these sources. ....

He argued that U.S. forces in Iraq would have been caught up inside a civil war had they stayed.

The cadre of former military advisers to Petraeus took a different view. They argued that America's abandonment of Iraq gave the Shiite majority there a license to pursue a sectarian agenda that provided a political and military opening for the Islamic State. An active U.S. presence in Iraq would have restrained those sectarian forces.

One of those advisers was H.R. McMaster. It's now up to Trump to decide whether to test the Petraeus camp's theory or try to defeat the Islamic State with a light footprint in Syria. Put another way, Trump must decide whether he wants to wage Bush's war or continue Obama's.

---