Subtitles section Play video Print subtitles 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 of “Spreading 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.