Why Are They Lying About Syria?

It’s tough to find something less popular than our own Congress.  However, tough doesn’t mean impossible.  In fact, only 9% support starting a war with Syria and potentially sparking World War III.  Great.  So what are our public servants in Washington furiously trying to do?  Start another war, of course.  And to enlist help in this monstrous endeavor, the media news outlets continue to repeat exactly what they’re told by our present lawless administration.

Never mind that critical questions—when asked—seem to favor an opposite storyline.  Why aren’t our mainstream news outlets asking critical questions?  Were they all purchased in a stealth bail-out several years back along with GM and foolish financial institutions?  Who knows?  But they certainly seem quite careful to avoid any questioning of the official narrative.  With friends like these…

I rarely watch any TV shows, but of those I watch, formulaic crime shows such as Monk or Castle rank highly.  My wife and I are getting good enough to identify their patterns and often solve the mysteries within a few minutes of the shows’ openings.  How?  Most of the following issues must be clearly established in these shows before the cops can make an arrest—motive, evidence, means, and opportunity.  What happens when we seek to establish these things within the official narrative of the Syrian conflict?

First, does the suspect have motive?  In this case, does Syria’s Assad have motive to hit his own people with nerve gas while UN inspectors are roaming the area?  No.  If nothing else, the timing is terrible, since he’d obviously be caught.  (But maybe that’s the real goal of a different suspect—someone besides Assad?)  How about opportunity?  Sure, but why not cover your tracks, rather than be immediately busted by UN inspectors?  That would be similar to robbing a liquor store with a patrol car outside.  However, it was a perfect opportunity for a false-flag provocation.  By whom?  By the rebels attempting to oust Assad, of course.  What better time to commit atrocities against the innocent and pin it on your enemy?  Perfect opportunity.

Next, does the evidence point to the suspect, and does the suspect have the means to commit the crime?  Did Assad have the capacity to hit his own people with nerve gas?  Perhaps so.  However, from the reading I’ve been doing, the type of gas used was not military grade, so this doesn’t seem like a good match for the Syrian government.  Experts on nerve agents cite how those caring for the gas victims should have become overwhelmingly sick in handling the victims without any sort of protective gear—and would have, if the nature of the gas was military grade.  Therefore, they conclude the gas used was probably of a less potent, non-military grade that used industrial chemicals.  (Now who might be stuck using a less potent variety of nerve agent gas?  Why would you do that if you had military grade gas and your goal was to kill people?)

This video asks similar questions and cites evidence problematic to the official narrative.  I recommend taking a few minutes and hearing it out, particularly if you haven’t yet seen the other side of the story.  After all, the official narrative simply doesn’t make any sense.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *