Did Syria really use chemical weapons or is it simply being made to look that way?
I read an article today by Doug Hagmann of Canada Free Press. In it, he shares with us information he says he received from one of his "insiders." The information specifically notes that the recent chemical attacks in Syria were most likely not done by Assad's forces even though that's what we're told to believe. According to the insider, it's all part of a magic show to delude people and the media plays willingly along.
There are some facts related to the Syrian situation that make a strong case for the fact that the chemical attack was not done by Assad's forces. "The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for a while. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat?"
If anti-Assad rebels are losing, Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons. He can simply keep the pressure up and wait it out. Plus, Russia has his back and China has an interest in the region as well. It's not as if Syria is left to fend for themselves. What this ultimately means is that if the U.S. gets into this war, we will be fighting against Russia.
Does anyone seem to care that Barack Obama seems to have gotten us involved in at least as many wars/conflicts as George W. Bush did. What a surprise. Another politician who makes promises he does not keep. Somehow, that's Bush's fault, I'm sure.
I was also reading a book by Dr. John Coleman this morning called "The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations." Coleman has spent most of life researching, connecting the dots, and the "study of 37,000 pages of the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Globe, and Congressional Record." Critics simply call him a "conspiracy theorist."
At any rate, one of his chapters deals with the 1991 Gulf War and the propaganda that was employed to dupe Americans into thinking that we needed to invade Iraq. It's interesting how the scenario is very similar to present day Syria.
We originally heard that Saddam was using chemical weapons against the Kurds from Colin Powell after he returned from Iraq and stated that Hussein had gassed Kurds during the Iraq-Iran War. Coleman states that "the gas-filled missiles that fell on the Kurdish village were phosgene, a type not possessed by Iraq, but they were in an arsenal in Iran. What happened was that during an Iraqi offensive, the Iranians fired a large number of gas-filled rockets at Iraqi position, but some fell short among the Kurds along the border. This was confirmed by the U.S. Military College of War report, which entirely exonerated Iraq."  The damage was done. The world believed that Saddam was gassing Kurds. He was definitely a bad guy.
We were also witness to the "eye witness" testimony of a young woman who said, in part, "I saw the Iraqi soldiers pull the new born babies out of the incubators and thrown (sic) them on the ground."  Who (except abortionists and pro-choice people) would not be moved by such testimony? Unfortunately, it was all bunk. The woman "turned out to be the teenage daughter of the Al Sabah family's Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington" and the woman had not been in Kuwait during the time she said these atrocities were occurring. She had, in fact, been "with her father at the ambassador's Washington residence."  It can even be proven that Bush had met the woman several times previously.
These events helped shape public opinion so that it seemed right to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's dictatorship. This is exactly what the US did. Any chance it was about oil, not Democracy? Well, since the dollar has been fiat money for quite some time (in exchange for oil, under Nixon), it's a real possibility.
Years later, we have the same line of reasoning used by Obama with respect to the Arab Spring. While he says he's pushing for Democracy, it appears as though the Middle East, including North Africa is no better off today after having ousted Mubarak, Qadaffi, and others. Certainly, the Muslim Brotherhood is no better than Mubarak and in many ways, worse. There is also lots of oil in them there parts of the world.
Now, we have the Syrian situation, which is going to get really out of hand, very quickly. Kerry has just held a press conference today in which he states that the chemical attack in Syria is "undeniable" and is a "moral obscenity." He further stated, "What is before us today is real, and it is compelling."
You know, trying hard to keep my sarcasm and incredulity in check, why should we believe what we are told by our government? Here we are how many years later after Bush went into Iraq and we're hearing the same talking points and with the same amount of equivocation. Only the names and faces have changed.
I also am amazed at how these same politicians who can be so certain that a chemical attack occurred, are unable to give a solid, sound, straightforward answer when it comes to Benghazi. This is the height of demagoguery, yet it exists because America was taken over by the global elite decades ago.
Doug Hagmann's article goes on to say that his insider says we are approaching WW III if the US engages with Syria. Russia will not stand by and just watch. Neither will China who has an interest in that area of the world. In fact, think of the oil and who would control it.
If this becomes a huge, long drawn out war of any large scale, we will watch the economy tank. Hagmann also says that it will result in the full death of the dollar, to be replaced by another currency altogether.
I think it is hugely ironic that Obama - who promised to end wars - continued them and while he says he wants Democracy to rise where dictatorships currently do (the same thing Woodrow Wilson said in the early 1900s that got us into WW I), he seems to care far more about Democracy in other nations than in America. Here, he's too busy stripping Americans of their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Let's face it. Our government tells us what we want to hear and they still do whatever they want anyway. Years ago, Willi Munzenberg (connected with Tavistock Institute) stated, "All news is lies and all propaganda is disguised as news."
The sooner we realize that, the sooner things will start making sense.
 Dr. John Coleman, The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, (2005), pp. 79-80
 Ibid, p. 102
 Ibid, p. 102Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.