In the latest step to ratchet up US-Russia tensions ahead of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s Moscow visit, US officials today accused Russia of knowing ahead of time that Syria was going to carry out a chemical weapons attack against rebels in Idlib Province.
The “evidence” to back this claim up, the officials claimed, was the presence of a Russian drone overhead near a hospital victims were taken to, though they provided no evidence the drone actually was Russian, and US officials initially conceded they weren’t sure about the drone’s identity.
On top of that, they are accusing an airstrike against the one of the hospitals by an unidentified jet to be proof Russia tried to destroy the evidence, despite admitting that they don’t know that the plane was Russian, and not Syrian.
While the claims are that a drone wouldn’t be near a hospital unless they knew a chemical attack was imminent, and that no jet would bomb a hospital except to destroy intelligence, the US routinely has drones looming over various areas in its assorted warzones, and indeed routinely attacks hospitals and rescue teams in “double-tap” strikes to kill those wounded in its own airstrikes.
Buried amidst all the unverified allegations against Russia by unnamed “senior officials,” came one significant concession, that the “US has no proof of Russian involvement in the actual chemical attack in northern Syria.” That’s unsurprising, as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) hasn’t even been able to confirm that the attack took place yet, though the US quickly attacked Syria on that basis without waiting for such a determination.
And now, having attacked Syria on the basis of a premature assumption, the US seems to be doubling down on ever-worsening US-Russia relations by making even more reckless allegations, which they themselves concede they have no way of proving, seemingly just to keep tensions high.
While Tillerson’s visit to Russia was initially expected to be an effort to secure normalization of US-Russia relations after years of hostilities, it now seems like Tillerson would be doing well if he manages to avoid making things any worse than they already are, and doesn’t end up starting a war.
The antiwar people on this site are allowing the warmakers to get away with not allowing an impartial investigation of the guilt on the gas attack.
Now we have this article that allows them to actually move beyond that and let everyone assume that it had to be Assad.
The same game as was played for the Iraq war is being played right in front of our faces and nobody is screaming bloody murder.
> Now we have this article that allows them to actually move beyond that and let everyone assume that it had to be Assad.
Reading comprehension problems? Yes you have. Do a text search for:
“That’s unsurprising, as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) hasn’t even been able to confirm that the attack took
place yet”
WHAT IS A BARREL BOMB?
Van Susteren is going off the deep end yammering about Assad’s HORRIBLE use of barrel bombs that blow people to smithereens. (her actual words)
Is a barrel bomb a horrible weapon that needs to be condemned? Or is it as I understand it to be a crudely made bomb enclosed in an oil barrel, and contains explosives and schrapnel?
Can somebody please explain why that would be a less humane kind of bomb than huge US sophisticated bombs that are certainly more deadly?
The propagandists push the idea that because it’s not a precision guided munition, that it kills indiscriminately. Of course it’s all b.s. from the people who would murder 100 at a wedding to get one guy or pump hummus up someones rear because it was mealtime.
Thanks! I was pretty sure I understood what it was.
No, actually I knew what it was but I wanted to bring some awareness to some of the zombies on this site. Sick!
Putin did it, he was spotted riding away from the scene shirtless on a bear, with an AK and sunglasses
This is almost funny. In the end the US will drop this bulls**t and settle on Assad doing it on his own. As long as they can keep the narrative going that Assad did it they don’t care about getting caught passing along a little fake news.
Just who the hell is in charge of US foreign policy these days? Is it that Nimrata Randhawa (alias Nikki Haley) hag?
Explanation: Nikki wants to run in 2020. She is gunning to be the ‘mainstream GOP candidate’. Her selling points: governor and ambassador hence experience. Trump does not mind.
She’s got no chance against Kamala Harris then, who comes across as far more diplomatic mature and sensible than Nimrod.
The analysis of an event at which you were not present and which has very few direct witnesses must take into account all possible explanations. In this case the Russian-Syrian account which may be correct or wrong. If you do not do that you conduct propaganda.