Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • In this video we're going to show you evidence

  • that the syrian government was framed in the chemical weapons

  • attack of August 21st, 2013.

  • We're going to explain why they were framed

  • and we're going to propose a course of action.

  • The use of chemical weapons on civilians in the syrian conflict was a crime against humanity.

  • As such it should be the subject of a real, criminal investigation

  • and those responsible should be brought to justice.

  • however if the US and NATO have their way, that's not going to happen.

  • In their book, a simple accusation is as good as a conviction

  • and therefore there's no point providing any real evidence!

  • Let's just skip right to the missile strike, shall we?

  • This isn't really surprising to anyone who's been paying attention lately

  • The United States has had Syria and Iran in their crosshairs for a long time.

  • The plans for these wars have been in the works for over a decade.

  • GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: . About ten days after 9/11 I went through the Pentagon

  • and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld

  • and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.

  • I went downstairs just to say hello

  • to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.

  • He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second."

  • I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says.

  • "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq."

  • This was on or about the 20th of September.

  • I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?"

  • He said, "I don't know."

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • He said "I guess they don't know what else to do."

  • So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said

  • "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq."

  • He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but -

  • - we've got a good military and we can take down governments" and he said

  • "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

  • So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.

  • I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said "Oh, it's worse than that."

  • He reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper and he said, "I just got this down from upstairs"

  • -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries-

  • - in five years starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

  • There are three primary psychological techniques that the powers that be in any given era use

  • to build up the public support needed to take the country to war.

  • 1. Create the impression that the aggresor is actually acting in self defense or in defense of a helpless nation.

  • This can be done by exaggerating the danger posed by an enemy, fabricating an attack and blaming it on the enemy

  • or by intentionally provoking the enemy into a response.

  • 2. Build up a crusade mythology, one that presents the aggressors as fighting for a higher ideal,

  • or for the good of all humanity. In our current era the meme ofSpreading Democracy”, “Fighting Terrorism

  • or "Defending human rights" are the most commonly used.

  • 3. De-humanize the enemy. War is mass murder,

  • therefore presenting the enemy as evil, barbaric, or subhuman

  • is essential unless you want your citizens and your soldiers questioning the morality of their actions.

  • This pattern is often supported and augmented by a sense of cultural or racial superiority,

  • the way Islamophobia is capitalized on to build moral support for this phony war on terror is a perfect example.

  • The U.S. government has a long illustrious history of using these techniques,

  • and they keep using them because they work.

  • PATRICK CLAWSON: I frankly think that Crisis initiation is really tough.

  • And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States

  • president can get us to war with Iran.

  • Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise does not come by

  • that the traditional way that America gets to war is... what would be best for U.S. interests?

  • Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II

  • as David mentioned, you may recall he had to wait for Pearl Harbor.

  • Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I

  • You may recall had to wait for the Lusitania episode.

  • Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam,

  • you may recall he had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.

  • We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded.

  • And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Ft. Sumter was attacked.

  • Which was why he ordered the commander at Ft. Sumter to do exactly that thing

  • which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.

  • So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war...

  • One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions.

  • I mentioned that explosion on August 17th

  • 72 00:04:35,836 --> 00:04:37,847 We could step up the pressure.

  • I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up.

  • Who would know why?

  • [AUDIENCE MEMBER LAUGHS]

  • We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure; I’m not advocating that.

  • But I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition

  • tyou know, it's just hat sanctions has to succeed or other things.

  • We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.

  • We could get nastier at that.

  • United States has been trying to get Iran under it's thumb for a long time.

  • In 1953 the CIA and the UK's MI6 organized a coup to topple the democratically elected prime minister of Iran

  • Mohammad Mossadegh.

  • They then installed the Shah as their puppet. The Shah, who also just happened to be brutal dictator,

  • ruled until 1979 when he was overthrown during the Iranian revolution.

  • The U.S. didn't like that,

  • so they tried to take Iran down by arming and funding Saddam Hussein against the Iranians.

  • This was during the Iranian-Iraq war,

  • also referred to as the first Persian Gulf War which lasted from 1980 to 1988.

  • The U.S. continued its support for Iraq even though they knew full well

  • that he was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

  • This now declassified top secret memo from Nov. 4, 1983 documents chemical weapons use by Iraq,

  • and discusses Iran's likely reactions.

  • Here's a second memo, written on Feb. 24, 1984 to the director of Central Intelligence

  • predicting that Iraq will use nerve agents against Iran.

  • Note that the source of these documents is "Foreign Policy Magazine"

  • which is an extremely pro-establishment publication by any standards.

  • In spite of this, friendly diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Saddam continued.

  • This video of Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan meeting with Saddam,

  • was taken on December 20, 1983, which was after the first memo.

  • This means that those running the U.S. knew Saddam was killing people with poison gas and they didn't care.

  • Taking down Iran was more important to the U.S. government than protecting human rights,

  • and it still is.

  • Saddam failed to defeat Iran, so the U.S. switched tactics,

  • and for a long time they tried to go after Iran directly by accusing them of building nuclear weapons in order to justify military strikes.

  • However, this line of worn out propaganda didn't gain any traction

  • largely because the U.S. government had lost most of its credibility in their trumped up claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

  • You can only cry wolf so many times before people start rolling their eyes.

  • Their agenda fell apart completely when elements within the CIA and Mossad came forward

  • stating that there was no evidence that Iran even intended to build such a weapon.

  • Not to be deterred by little details like the truth,

  • these chicken hawk neo-cons decided to go after Syria to get to Iran.

  • They know that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement and if NATO forces enter Syria

  • Iran will be drawn into the fight, and then these little deranged psychopaths in suits will get their war.

  • We still have to maintain appearances though.

  • We wouldn't want people to think this was about controlling the world's oil supply

  • and protecting the petrodollar would we?

  • No, no, put those crazy conspiracy theories out of your mind

  • We're here to spread democracy and freedom, to protect human rights

  • with 50 caliber machine guns and drone strikes.

  • If it were obvious that the U.S. was attacking Syria it would be very difficult to obtain international or domestic support.

  • So rather than attacking Syria directly the US and NATO have been running a proxy war

  • by arming and funding the syrian rebels.

  • To obscure the source of this support US allies in the region

  • such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been used to purchase weapons and then route them to Syria via Turkey.

  • This pattern of arming and funding dictators or extremist groups to get take down non-cooperative governments

  • has been a key element in America's foreign policy ever since the creation of the CIA

  • after World War II.

  • SECRETARY CLINTON: We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan.

  • I mean let's remember here the people we are fighting today, we funded twenty years ago...

  • Let's not just talk about this in a general sense. Who was running that operation?

  • US national security advisor Brzezinski flew to Pakistan to set about rallying resistance.

  • He wanted to arm the Mujahedin without revealing America's role.

  • On the Afghan border near the Khyber Pass, he urged the Soldiers of God to redouble their efforts.

  • BRZEZINSKI: We know of their deep belief in God,

  • and we are confident that their struggle will succeed.

  • BRZEZINSKI: That land over there is yours.

  • You will go back to it one day,

  • because your fight will prevail and you'll have your homes and your mosques back again,

  • because your cause is right and God is on your side.

  • Just in case you're thinking this is irrelevant to our current situation

  • we should point out that Zbigniew Brzezinski is an acknowledged friend and mentor of Barack Obama.

  • BARACK OBAMA: He has proven to be an outstanding friend

  • and somebody who I’ve learned an immense amount from.

  • And for him to support me in this campaign and then be willing to come out here to Iowa

  • is testimony to his generosity so if everybody could please give Dr. Brzezinski another round of applause...

  • History proves that these dictators and extremists that the U.S. government installs are disposable

  • and the very qualities that made them useful against enemies are later used to demonize them

  • and thereby providing the justification for a full on invasion.

  • This should be taken as a warning to those rebel groups that the U.S. is using to destabilize Syria right now.

  • Now who are these Syrian rebels? This Free Syrian Army that the U.S. government so vocally supports?

  • Well, while the west has tried to paint them as local freedom fighters

  • the reality is that the conflict has attracted foreign Jihadist from multiple countries

  • many of whom openly declare their intent to replace Assad's secular government with Sharia law.

  • Numerous mainstream reports are already surfacing of Sharia motivated atrocities committed by the rebels.

  • These reports are backed up by video footage that is far too graphic for me to show here.

  • If you do a google search you can find videos of men being beheaded and women being shot,

  • Yet the US government isn't deterred by these details.

  • They still want to help these extremists topple the Syrian government.

  • Funny isn't it how they require FBI background checks to buy a deer rifle in the states

  • but if you're a foreign Jihadist trying to overthrow a government that Washington isn't on good terms with

  • they'll send you rocket launchers and heavy artillery no questions asked.

  • And how do you reconcile the fact that the U.S. is fighting religious extremists in Afghanistan calling them terrorists,

  • while supporting those same groups in Syria calling them freedom fighters.

  • It doesn't make sense at all if you take the U.S. government's propaganda at face value.

  • On March 19th, 2013 sarin gas was used in Syria near Aleppo.

  • Israel and the US promptly blamed the syrian government for the attacks

  • even though many of those who were killed were syrian government soldiers.

  • Obama began talking about the event as a red line that had been crossed

  • and the war mongers began their saber rattling in ernest.

  • However the U.N. insisted on investigating the issue themselves,

  • and on May 6th, 2013 UN investigator, Carla Del Ponte,

  • went public stating that evidence from their investigation indicated that it was syrian rebels that had used the sarin gas

  • and that there was no indication that the syrian government

  • had launched any chemical attacks whatsoever.

  • Russia's U.N. ambassador Vitaly Churkin,

  • agreed with Del Ponte after Russian experts visited the location where the projectile struck

  • and took their own samples of material from the site.

  • Those samples were then analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

  • According to lab results they found that the presence of Hexogen, utilized as an opening charge,

  • and which is not used in standard chemical munitions pointed to the attack being launched by the rebels.

  • Rather than cover this development

  • the mainstream media did what they always do when they don't want the public to look at something:

  • the simply changed the subject.

  • Now of course the fact that the U.S. backed rebels

  • had attempted to frame the Syrian government in order to build support for a NATO invasion would be bad enough

  • they were trying to start a war of aggression, but let's remember that sarin gas was in fact used.

  • and the U.S. is supporting those who used it. That makes them an accomplice.

  • You would think that the US would withdraw it's support after such an event, but it didn't.

  • In fact it increased it.

  • In July the US began openly discusing "kinetic strikes" against Syria as if their lies hadn't been exposed.

  • This of course brings us to the attack on August 21st, 2013

  • where they attempted once again to frame the Syrian government for the use of sarin gas,

  • and once again they got caught.

  • The first wave of media coverage tried to pin the attack on the Syrian government,

  • and the U.S. and France instantly came out condemning Assad.

  • By August 24th, the Pentagon had already announced plans for missile strikes,

  • but even as they did their story was already falling apart.

  • The Syrian army came forward that same day with footage to back up their report

  • that they had uncovered a massive chemical weapons cache in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar.

  • This is the exact neighborhood where the chemical attack took place.

  • Then witnesses came forward with this video footage showing the rebels preparing what appears to be crude chemical weapons rockets for an attack.

  • If you look closely at these rockets you'll see that the device shown is clearly improvised.

  • This isn't a mass produced military grade munition like Assad would have. This is homemade.

  • Reuters acknowledges in this article that photos of rockets matching the description in this clip

  • are currently being examined by experts.

  • These experts say the rockets in the pictures they have are "Relatively basic and with crude stabilizing fins"

  • they also say that they "bear a striking resemblance to devices found elsewhere in Syria in the aftermath of much smaller suspected attacks".

  • If that's the case, and if the U.N. and Russia have evidence that the rebels

  • were the ones who were behind the first chemical weapons attacks back in March, then what does that tell us?

  • Let's put this case together as a district attorney might when deciding who to prosecute for a crime.

  • Let's establish motive, means, opportunity and evidence.

  • These are the elements you need to reach a guilty verdict in a court.

  • Who had motive? Not the Syrian government.

  • The Syrian military has been making strong gains this past few months. They didn't need to use chemical weapons.

  • Furthermore they knew full well that the U.S. and NATO where looking for any excuse to invade,

  • so the last thing they would want to do would be to give them that excuse.

  • The rebels on the other hand do have motive since they knew they could count on the western media to spin the story in their favor,

  • and that's exactly what's happened.

  • But did the rebels have the means and the oportunity? Actually yes, they did.

  • On May 31st, 2013 security forces in Turkey found a 2 kg. cylinder filled with sarin gas

  • after searching the homes of Syrian militants.

  • On July 7, the Syrian army went public about a chemical lab they had found belonging to rebels in the city of Banias.

  • In terms of evidence everything that has been released to the public so far points to the rebels being behind the attack.

  • If the U.S. government has any real evidence to support their side of the story why don't they produce it?

  • The so called intel document that they released on August 30th to justify their position

  • doesn't contain any evidence at all, it's just a statement of opinion. They're talking about bombing a nation,

  • taking us into a war that will most likely spin out of control drawing in Iran, Russia and China just based on their word.

  • Both Russia and China have openly sided with Syria and Iran

  • and Russia has warned that thermonuclear war could result if the U.S.