Donald Trump has succumbed to a British intelligence fabrication intended to corner him into escalating the war in Syria.
In the above 31 August 2013 tweet, he recognised that the same scenario then confronting Barack Obama was a sure path to WWIII. The danger of world war is even greater now, as Russia is now present in Syria, and any US escalation risks a showdown between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers. Yet, in the face of this danger, the British and Australian governments are cheering Trump on.
Trump’s action is inexplicable. Until now, he has been emphatic in his opposition to regime change in Syria and fully mindful of the danger of WWIII. What is clear, however, are the motives of those in the broader US government structures and intelligence agencies, the British government and its agencies, and the Australian government, who hitherto attacked Trump for his stated desire for better relations with Russia but are applauding him now he has resorted to war. Their agenda has nothing to do with controlling chemical weapons—it is regime change, ultimately aimed at Russia and China. And as with Iraq and Libya, they will tell any lie to achieve it.
The big lie in this instance is the chemical weapons (CW) attack blamed on Assad. Rupert Murdoch’s war propaganda machine, which was instrumental in launching the Iraq war, has gone into high gear attacking anybody who casts doubt on the CW claim. Just as Murdoch’s atrocious Sun newspaper in the UK called opponents of the Iraq war “scum” and “traitors”, it is now calling those who doubt the chemical weapons claim “sick trolls”. Murdoch’s minions at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph have joined forces with Paul Barry at the ABC’s Media Watch to attack Australians who doubt the lie.
For the record, here is a partial list of prominent, “mainstream” people who outright question the claim Assad committed the attack and/or insist on a full investigation:
Add to that list UN Security Council members Russia, China and Bolivia, who rejected the wild accusations hurled by Britain to whip up support for regime change.
A British Manipulation
Contrast the credibility of those who doubt the Assad CW attack claims, and oppose a military escalation, with the source of the claims of a CW attack—British intelligence. Whereas the likes of Scott Ritter, Jeremy Corbyn, Russia and China also opposed the Iraq war, recognising it was based on a lie, it was Britain’s intelligence agencies which fabricated the key intelligence claims that led to that war, including that Saddam was procuring nuclear weapons, and that his non-existent WMDs were capable of being deployed to strike Europe in 45 minutes.
The British government has been manoeuvring for this US escalation since Trump’s unexpected election on a platform of opposition to regime change in Syria. A 12 November 2016 Telegraph article, headlined “Trump-Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis as British ministers demand assurances from US over Russia”, reported the British government’s “number one” priority would be to convince Trump of the need to remove Assad. The next day Murdoch’s Times reported “Britain’s plan to tame Trump”, revealing Britain’s US ambassador rushed off a memo to the May government on the night of the election in which the ambassador confided that Trump would “be open to outside influence if pitched right … we should be well placed to do this”.
Up until last week, that effort with regard to Syria was failing. In fact, on 31 March Trump’s administration had announced that regime change in Syria was no longer US policy. The alleged CW attack in Idlib occurred four days later.
Journalist Peter Hitchens described the area in which the alleged attack happened:
“No independent Western journalist could go there. He or she would be killed or kidnapped within hours. Any report which comes from that region is filtered through people who you never see in the film that does get out. … These are the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, alias the al-Nusra Front, alias al-Qaeda, the Syrian ‘opposition’ which we in the West have been supporting for several years … the same movement which destroyed Manhattan’s Twin Towers.”
The supposed doctor who first tweeted claims of an attack is actually a British accused terrorist, Shajul Islam, who despite having been put on trial in the UK for terrorism offences and kidnapping was able to travel to Syria to join al-Qaeda’s fight to overthrow Assad. This indicates he is a product of MI5’s “covenant of security” with terrorist groups which has incubated an army of UK jihadists, many of whom are MI5 agents and informers.
Another British intelligence project, the so-called White Helmets, who are funded by the British Foreign Office and USAID, provided the graphic images of the victims of the attack that were shown at the UN and to Donald Trump. The White Helmets only operate in terrorist-controlled areas, as they are in fact members of al-Qaeda. Even Barack Obama, who funded the White Helmets, blocked their leader from travelling to the USA last year due to his connections to terrorists.
Britain then used the unverified footage from the White Helmets as “evidence” to instigate a fiery confrontation at the 5 April UN Security Council meeting. Britain’s UN ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, made wild accusations, even that Russia and China, by opposing regime change, gave “encouragement” to Assad to use chemical weapons. China’s ambassador rebuked Rycroft for distorting China’s position, “untenable” logic, and “using the Security Council in an abusive manner for his own political purposes”.
As the Citizens Electoral Council has documented in the Australian Alert Service magazine, British intelligence has also been the source of all of the major claims of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign. The McCarthyite hysteria this has incited is intended to drive Trump from office, or corner him into the kind of action he has now taken in Syria. The British and their accomplices in the US intelligence community have got their way in this instance. However, if the world is to avoid a dangerous showdown that could escalate to nuclear war, it is imperative that all people of good will in Australia, the UK and USA demand their governments drop the regime change agenda, and work towards improved relations with Russia and China.