The White House has finally released some “evidence” they claim shows Assad carried out last week’s chemical attack, and the “evidence” was mostly derived from social media accounts, sprinkled with the standard…”we have more intelligence, but we cannot release at this time” rhetoric.
For his part, Secretary of Defense James Mattis looked to quickly quash doubts over which party was responsible for the “sarin gas” attacks, saying there was “no doubt” that the Assad regime “planned it, orchestrated it, and executed it.”
We should, of course believe the Generals and military men…they could not possibly benefit from more war, and the US Pentagon has never doctored evidence in past conflicts (Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, Libya, Ukraine).
Much like with MH17, we have social media, from “trusted” social media accounts, being used by the White House to assign blame to Russia. The report released blames Assad for the chemical weapons attack, but the real evil in the report is Russia and Putin.
To hell with evidence, The New York Times is happy with social media tweets and FB status updates to come to a final judgement. It’s called journalism in a millennial age…
The White House accused the Russian government on Tuesday of engaging in a cover-up of the chemical weapons attack last week by Syrian forces that prompted American missile strikes, saying that United States intelligence and numerous contemporaneous reports confirmed that the Syrians used sarin gas on their own people.
In a declassified four-page report that details United States intelligence on the chemical weapons attack and contains a point-by-point rebuttal of Moscow’s claims, the White House asserted that the Syrian and Russian governments had sought to confuse the world community about the assault through disinformation and “false narratives.”
The strongly worded document calls for international condemnation of Syria’s use of chemical weapons and harshly criticizes Russia for “shielding” an ally that has used weapons of mass destruction.
…Much of the report was devoted to rebutting Russia’s claim that the chemical attack last week was actually the result of a Syrian airstrike against a terrorist ammunition depot in Khan Sheikhoun that contained chemical weapons. The report also cited a video and commercial satellite imagery that showed that the chemical weapon had landed in the middle of a road, not at a weapons facility.
White House officials said United States intelligence agencies do not believe that the Islamic State or other terrorist groups have sarin gas.
You can view the full White House document below.
Here are some key points which prove how flimsy the evidence truly is, and how, given such flimsy evidence in a four page report, almost lead to a world war between nuclear powers, the entire world should take pause and stop Trump’s madness ASAP.
1. The White House “cannot publicly release all available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods.”
Of course the WH cannot release the evidence. Just trust them.
On a side note, the 2013 report from the Obama White House started almost the exact same thing, and UN determined rebels were behind the Ghouta attack.
2. All the so-called videos and satellite imagery cited in the report that traces back to Assad is nowhere to be found. No sources referenced. Nothing. Sure the report has parts which sound cinematically compelling, but with ZERO video or photographic evidence…it’s all hollywood scripted words.
There was a White House background briefing given about this report, but the Trump Administration is not releasing video of said briefing, only a transcript with a name reading, “SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL.”
3. NO ONE was willing to put their name on the report. NO ONE! This says a lot. No one wants to be on record for these lies put in writing.
4. The opening paragraph says the US is “confident” Assad carried out the attack. Not definite, not 100%, just “confident”. I am confident I will become a multi-millionaire, and own 3 homes. Confidence is nice, but it is not fact.
5. In first paragraph, the source of the claims are “observers at the scene.” ISIS and Al Qaeda observers perhaps?
6. US is confident in their assessment because they have all kinds of signals intelligence (images or video not provided), geospatial intelligence (satellite imagery not provided), laboratory samples “collected from multiple victims” and “credible open source reporting”. Would that be the credible White Helmets?
7. The problematic section entitled, “Summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Assessment of the April 4 Attack.”
Let’s take it paragraph by paragraph. Red underline highlights interesting comments and wordplay in the text.
The words “maintains the capability” and “intent to use” are red flags. The US also maintains the capability and intent to launch nuclear weapons. Does not mean they will do it.
“The opposition” is interesting wordplay for ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Assad was winning not losing. This paragraph deliberately tries to assign a false motive to the crime. Fact is Assad was winning the war against ISIS in Syria. Also notice the word “probably”. Not definitely…but “probably involved.”
“Pro-opposition social media reports” this simply means ISIS, Al Qaeda and White Helmets social media accounts. They have nothing to gain from baiting the US into attacking Assad…correct?
“Indicates” the chemical weapon was delivered by an Su-22. No proof of this “indication”, and not backed by solid imagery. No imagery is provided to show this was indeed the aircraft claimed.
Once again the word “indicates” shows up to say that “personnel historically associated” with chemical weapons attacks were at Shayrat airbase.
Really? Who are these personnel? Names please. How does the White House know these personnel committed previous chemical weapons attacks? Is there a file and historical evidence? Please share Mr. Trump?
After the attack, “there were hundred of accounts of victims” with sarin exposure symptoms. Who are these hundreds of victim accounts?
Were these accounts gathered from social media? White Helmets social media? Or ISIS social media accounts? Why not share these accounts with the public? Are they so secretive and classified that the WH cannot release these accounts which show sarin gas symptoms…diagnosed over social media?
“Open source accounts posted” from “first responders”…this is clearly White Helmets. Here is some disturbing White Helmets propaganda, as they fake saving babies, while actually killing babies.
And since when were the White Helmets chemical weapons experts, or experts in diagnosing chemical agent exposure?
“Broadcasted local videos included images”…why not share the videos and images broadcast so we can see where they came from?
“Commercial satellite imagery”…”showed impact craters around the hospital.” Craters around a war zone. That would be uncommon, right? If the imagery was commercial then why not release it? Was the hospital destroyed…photos would be useful to confirm this destruction.
Finally…“medical staff with body suits on”…you mean these guys, wearing these body suits?
8. The last two pages of the four page document is all about trying to explain how Moscow “misinforms” the public, and has a “history” of trying to draw attention away from Assad’s atrocities. The document spends more time trying to convince the reader how evil Russia is, then actually focusing on proving Assad committed the crime with factual evidence.
I am no lawyer, but my guess is that this argument would not even hold water in Judge Judy’s TV court room.
I am not alone in my assessment at this laughable White House document that is being used to push the world towards war. At least Colin Powell had some “anthrax” tubes to show. Trump’s war propagandists do not even treat us to visual aids to firm up this lie.
Administration is “confident” that what it claims is right. It doesn’t “know”, it can’t “prove”, it can’t show anything, but is “confident”. https://t.co/z91o1UrwO9
— Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) April 11, 2017
If this is accurate, it’s the flimsiest piece of evidence I’ve seen. “Couldn’t have…” and “Must have…” https://t.co/Ya2vkQrUlj
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) April 11, 2017
@CT4444 @W7VOA @irina_barkham @WhiteHouse hahaha this shit is even better than Iraq 2003
— Kirk (@kroslav) April 11, 2017
@W7VOA @WhiteHouse There’s no evidence.In the first sentence it’s written that the US believe that it was Assad.Following a lot of reports from the opposition.
— PeGü (@HikariGoi) April 11, 2017
The post 8 ways White House “evidence” exonerates Assad from chemical attack appeared first on The Duran.