Assad agrees with Trump: Syrian terrorists among immigrants

No surprise. Assad and Putin want them to suffer as much as possible.


Of course he would claim that the innocent refugees are terrorists.

He also claims that he didn't gas them.  He either claims that the innocent victims were the ones with the gas, or that it wasn't poison gas at all.

I wouldn't accept or adopt any of those craven lies.  Nobody should.


It like one of those riddles where you know that one person (Assad) always lies and the other two - Putin and Trump - sometimes tell the truth.



South_Mountaineer said:

Of course he would claim that the innocent refugees are terrorists.

He also claims that he didn't gas them.  He either claims that the innocent victims were the ones with the gas, or that it wasn't poison gas at all.

I wouldn't accept or adopt any of those craven lies.  Nobody should.

Lots of knowledgeable Americans agree with his claim that he didn't gas them. And they're not craven, they're patriotic -- in contrast to the craven parrots of the establishment media.



tjohn said:

It like one of those riddles where you know that one person (Assad) always lies and the other two - Putin and Trump - sometimes tell the truth.

I'm old enough to remember when Saddam was called a liar because he said he had no weapons of mass destruction.



paulsurovell said:

Lots of knowledgeable Americans agree with his claim that he didn't gas them. And they're not craven, they're patriotic -- in contrast to the craven parrots of the establishment media.

So you believe Assad's denials?



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Lots of knowledgeable Americans agree with his claim that he didn't gas them. And they're not craven, they're patriotic -- in contrast to the craven parrots of the establishment media.
So you believe Assad's denials?

Read my postings on the Syria-Iraq 2.0? thread. They appeared before Assad's interview.

I think my last post related to MIT ballistics expert Theodore Postol who reviewed the White House "evidence" and concluded:

http://bit.ly/2o7uUYh

“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.”


paulsurovell said:


Read my postings on the Syria-Iraq 2.0? thread. They appeared before Assad's interview.

I think my last post related to MIT ballistics expert Theodore Postol who reviewed the White House "evidence" and concluded:

No, I didn't. So you are saying you don't think Assad drop sarin gas on Syrians? Or that you don't think there is enough conclusive evidence one way or the other?



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:


Read my postings on the Syria-Iraq 2.0? thread. They appeared before Assad's interview.

I think my last post related to MIT ballistics expert Theodore Postol who reviewed the White House "evidence" and concluded:

No, I didn't. So you are saying you don't think Assad drop sarin gas on Syrians? Or that you don't think there is enough conclusive evidence one way or the other?

I've posted US intelligence sources as well as Postol who reject the allegation that Assad used CW.  I find them credible and the official story to be implausible. As Scott Ritter, who knows something about false claims of WMDs says:

The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d


Ritter is under the illusion that Assad functions in a logical fashion. Yeah, he doesn't want to "risk everything."

And Postol doesn't "reject the allegation that Assad used CW." He questions whether it was dropped from the air. Assad doesn't suggest that the source of the sarin was someone else. Instead, he says there was no attack at all, insisting that it was all staged, calling it a "play."

So you once again seem to be collecting skeptics without providing a plausible alternative theory.




dave23 said:

Ritter is under the illusion that Assad functions in a logical fashion. Yeah, he doesn't want to "risk everything."

And Postol doesn't "reject the allegation that Assad used CW." He questions whether it was dropped from the air. Assad doesn't suggest that the source of the sarin was someone else. Instead, he says there was no attack at all, insisting that it was all staged, calling it a "play."

So you once again seem to be collecting skeptics without providing a plausible alternative theory.

The intelligence sources that I cited do not believe the chemicals were sarin. Check out the thread.  Postol's analysis says that if you assume the "evidence" provided by the White House, you must conclude that the sarin (assumed by the WH) was not dropped by aircraft.


That thread isn't very helpful. As South Mountaineer points out, you post contradictory theories. I'm familiar with that tactic of yours. You collect skeptical info and create centrithreads, never feeling obligated to present a plausible theory.


I am somewhat surprised that Assad admits that there are refugees.


By the way, the interview and news story are two months old.  Two months before the recent incident and follow-up one-off missile strike from Trump.

So, it is puzzling as to why this thread was started, with the "new bedfellows" comment as the only explanation.  Perhaps the OP might elaborate, especially as to why he thought it worth a discussion (because it's hard to imagine he wanted it to go in the direction that it did).

paulsurovell said:

New bedfellows:


http://www.politico.com/story/...



Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."

And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?



jamie said:

Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."


And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?

I suggest you read Scott Ritter's entire piece, but this excerpt addresses the likelihood that information, including the videos, were manipulated by the anti-Assad Al Qaeda forces who control the territory around the incident:

To sustain this illogic, the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the “White Helmets,” the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message (Donald Trump has all but acknowledged that these images played a major role in his decision to reevaluate his opinion of Bashar al-Assad and order the cruise missile attack on Al Shayrat airbase.) 
Many of the fighters affiliated with Tahrir al-Sham are veterans of the battle for Aleppo, and as such are intimately familiar with the tools and trade of the extensive propaganda battle that was waged simultaneously with the actual fighting in an effort to sway western public opinion toward adopting a more aggressive stance in opposition to the Syrian government of Assad. These tools were brought to bear in promoting a counter-narrative about the Khan Sheikhoun chemical incident (ironically, many of the activists in question, including the “White Helmets,” were trained and equipped in social media manipulation tactics using money provided by the United States; that these techniques would end up being used to manipulate an American President into carrying out an act of war most likely never factored into the thinking of the State Department personnel who conceived and implemented the program).
Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a “Sarin nerve agent” attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.
And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account.  Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by “White Helmet” rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the “White Helmets” is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a “White Helmet” base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there. 
The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)
More than 20 victims of the Khan Sheikhoun incident were transported to Turkish hospitals for care; three subsequently died. According to the Turkish Justice Minister, autopsies conducted on the bodies confirm that the cause of death was exposure to chemical agents. The World Health Organization has indicated that the symptoms of the Khan Sheikhoun victims are consistent with both Sarin and Chlorine exposure. American media outlets have latched onto the Turkish and WHO statements as “proof” of Syrian government involvement; however, any exposure to the chlorine/white phosphorous blend associated with Al Nusra chemical weapons would produce similar symptoms. 
Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in 2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened). But the Trump administration chose to act before these samples could be processed, perhaps afraid that their results would not sustain the underlying allegation of the employment of Sarin by the Syrian air force.
Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing “evidence” to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented.  These outlets have made a deliberate decision to endorse the view of Al Qaeda over a narrative provided by Russian and Syrian government authorities without any effort to fact check either position. These actions, however, do not seem to shock the conscience of the American public; when it comes to Syria, the mainstream American media and its audience has long ago ceded the narrative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist anti-regime elements.
The real culprits here are the Trump administration, and President Trump himself. The president’s record of placing more weight on what he sees on television than the intelligence briefings he may or may not be getting, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and unfamiliarity with the nuances and complexities of both foreign and national security policy, created the conditions where the imagery of the Khan Sheikhoun victims that had been disseminated by pro-Al Nusra (i.e., Al Qaeda) outlets could influence critical life-or-death decisions.
That President Trump could be susceptible to such obvious manipulation is not surprising, given his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight; that his national security team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump’s opinion or forestall action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous. History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d



South_Mountaineer said:

By the way, the interview and news story are two months old.  Two months before the recent incident and follow-up one-off missile strike from Trump.

So, it is puzzling as to why this thread was started, with the "new bedfellows" comment as the only explanation.  Perhaps the OP might elaborate, especially as to why he thought it worth a discussion (because it's hard to imagine he wanted it to go in the direction that it did).
paulsurovell said:

New bedfellows:


http://www.politico.com/story/...

Thank you, I'll modified the OP to "bedfellows."



jamie said:

Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."


And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?

If my count is correct, Assad's position means that we have four (4) proposed explanations for what took place:

1.  No attack, nobody injured (especially children), "fabricated" and "unconvincing" - Assad explanation.

2.  An attack, but not poison gas - paulsurovell explanation.

3.  An attack, but it was the opposition who had the poison gas - paulsurovell explanation (alternative).

4.  An attack, with Assad's forces using poison gas - Occam's Razor explanation.



dave23 said:

That thread isn't very helpful. As South Mountaineer points out, you post contradictory theories. I'm familiar with that tactic of yours. You collect skeptical info and create centrithreads, never feeling obligated to present a plausible theory.

The sources I posted are consistent in their view that the Trump Administration is propagating a false story to justify military action. I think they are also consistent in their theories of what happened, but I'd be curious to know what you find "contradictory" about them.

[ If you're referring to Postol, keep in mind that he assumed the facts alleged in the White House report and then performed an analysis which concluded that the report showed the opposite of what it attempted to prove -- that Assad did not drop sarin on April 4th ]



South_Mountaineer said:

jamie said:

Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."


And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?

If my count is correct, Assad's position means that we have four (4) proposed explanations for what took place:

1.  No attack, nobody injured (especially children), "fabricated" and "unconvincing" - Assad explanation.

2.  An attack, but not poison gas - paulsurovell explanation.

3.  An attack, but it was the opposition who had the poison gas - paulsurovell explanation (alternative).

4.  An attack, with Assad's forces using poison gas - Occam's Razor explanation.

Numbers (2) and (3) are misstated.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is indicative of the sources I posted, provides the following explanation (as cited in the "2.0" thread):

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what
happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...

The problem in my view is that Trump reacted precipitously, possibly because Ivanka was horrified by the pictures.  Trump should have worked the process going through the U.N.  At this point, the picture is very muddied because our own government will, in fact, work to cover up the truth if they reacted before fully understanding the facts.



paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

jamie said:

Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."


And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?

If my count is correct, Assad's position means that we have four (4) proposed explanations for what took place:

1.  No attack, nobody injured (especially children), "fabricated" and "unconvincing" - Assad explanation.

2.  An attack, but not poison gas - paulsurovell explanation.

3.  An attack, but it was the opposition who had the poison gas - paulsurovell explanation (alternative).

4.  An attack, with Assad's forces using poison gas - Occam's Razor explanation.

Numbers (2) and (3) are misstated.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is indicative of the sources I posted, provides the following explanation (as cited in the "2.0" thread):


2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what
happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...

Read your own posts.  The "VIPS" statement isn't the only thing you've posted.  You've posted material pointing to AQ affiliates as having sarin.  


I know. It's a very big bucket that you can throw almost anything into. No need for logic or consistency. Start with an outcome and work backwards. It's lazy and cynical and dismisses the suffering of Syrians.

paulsurovell said:



dave23 said:

That thread isn't very helpful. As South Mountaineer points out, you post contradictory theories. I'm familiar with that tactic of yours. You collect skeptical info and create centrithreads, never feeling obligated to present a plausible theory.

The sources I posted are consistent in their view that the Trump Administration is propagating a false story to justify military action. I think they are also consistent in their theories of what happened, but I'd be curious to know what you find "contradictory" about them.

[ If you're referring to Postol, keep in mind that he assumed the facts alleged in the White House report and then performed an analysis which concluded that the report showed the opposite of what it attempted to prove -- that Assad did not drop sarin on April 4th


South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

jamie said:

Assad also believes that the photos/videos of atrocities in Syria have been photoshopped/doctored.

In regards to the famous picture of the boy in the ambulance: This is a forged picture and not a real one," he alleges. "We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one specifically is a forged one."


And in regards to the latest attack: He suggested that photographs showing children who had died in the attack on a rebel-held town in Idlib province, which provoked revulsion around the world, were staged. The entire incident was "fabricated" and "unconvincing," Assad claimed.

So - how can you take anything this guy is saying seriously?

If my count is correct, Assad's position means that we have four (4) proposed explanations for what took place:

1.  No attack, nobody injured (especially children), "fabricated" and "unconvincing" - Assad explanation.

2.  An attack, but not poison gas - paulsurovell explanation.

3.  An attack, but it was the opposition who had the poison gas - paulsurovell explanation (alternative).

4.  An attack, with Assad's forces using poison gas - Occam's Razor explanation.

Numbers (2) and (3) are misstated.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is indicative of the sources I posted, provides the following explanation (as cited in the "2.0" thread):


2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what
happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...

Read your own posts.  The "VIPS" statement isn't the only thing you've posted.  You've posted material pointing to AQ affiliates as having sarin.  

The issue you raised was my "explanations" of what happened on April 4th, not whether Syrian rebels affiliated with Al Qaeda have the ability to produce or obtain sarin. Apples and oranges.



dave23 said:

I know. It's a very big bucket that you can throw almost anything into. No need for logic or consistency. Start with an outcome and work backwards. It's lazy and cynical and dismisses the suffering of Syrians.
paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

That thread isn't very helpful. As South Mountaineer points out, you post contradictory theories. I'm familiar with that tactic of yours. You collect skeptical info and create centrithreads, never feeling obligated to present a plausible theory.

The sources I posted are consistent in their view that the Trump Administration is propagating a false story to justify military action. I think they are also consistent in their theories of what happened, but I'd be curious to know what you find "contradictory" about them.

[ If you're referring to Postol, keep in mind that he assumed the facts alleged in the White House report and then performed an analysis which concluded that the report showed the opposite of what it attempted to prove -- that Assad did not drop sarin on April 4th

You're just throwing around words without references to anything I've posted. Sorry, but that's really lazy, cynical and dismissive.


I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.

An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.



drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.


An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.

An investigation is irreparably tainted at this point.  Suppose the U.S. government concluded that a resistance group fired a few 122 mm rockets with chemical weapon warheads.  How would our government ever admit that.


same here.  the U.S.'s history of stories of atrocities used to justify military action are generally shameful (remember the phony "babies being thrown out of incubators" story in Iraq?).  How often do we find out months or years later that the descriptions of an event were fabricated to sell military action to the American people?  From my POV, the default position shouldn't be for the U.S. to act unless the accused country can prove an atrocity didn't happen as described.  Our default position should be that we don't attack until we can prove the atrocity did happen as described.  Do we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Assad regime intentionally attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons? I would conclude that we don't.

drummerboy said:

I have to say I'm on Paul's side here. The use of chemical weapons simply doesn't make any sense at all by Assad - politically or militarily. And to imply that Assad is not capable of acting "rationally" because, I guess, he's a murderous dictator is kind of silly.

We get manipulated by the Army pretty frequently (remember Jessica Lynch? Iraq babies being thrown from their incubators?)

I'm not necessarily saying Assad didn't do it - it just seems to me that his doing it is about as likely as him not doing it.


An investigation of the attack is in order. To pretend that one knows for certain what happened is foolish in this case.



It was a great moment for Trump, however.  He could talk about how he approved the attack between mouthfuls of chocolate cake he was enjoying with President Xi Jinping.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.