Former former intelligence officer and weapons inspector Scott Ritter — the guy who warned us that Saddam had no serious threat of WMDs — is now warning us that the flow of heart-rending pictures out of Syria, and subsequent rationales for the limited military response to them, were “driven by his visceral reaction to the imagery being disseminated by anti-Assad activists.”

Not by the actual facts on the ground. Primary among them, the fact that “the rescuers were overcome by a ‘pungent smelling’ chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.”  Another actual fact, that few are considering:  “the lack of viable protective clothing worn by the ‘White Helmet’ personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin;”

Ritter goes on to explain the complex and shifting factions battling over the town of Khan Sheikhoun (which is the location of the ‘sarin attacks’ of April 4, 2017). Those factions are composed of “Islamic jihadists,” “a pro-ISIS group,” and “Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria.” In other words it’s a total ‘cluster’ — one far more complex, than the Rah-Rah sound-bites would lead outside observers to believe now.

Ritter explains that the Al Qaeda group, the “Al Nusra [Front] has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend.”

Which leads to this being the very likely scenario, according to Ritter:

If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.

In other words, if chemical weapons were not “dropped” — they quite likely were the “collateral damage” of hitting some ‘home-brew Al Nusra lab’ already there.  Terrible nonetheless, but not due to “proactive planning” on the part of Russia or Assad.  So goes the Scott Ritter examination of the actual events on the ground.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Military Might pounced on the chaos, like a Tiger sick of a long losing streak.

And here we are … conjecturing what a “war-footing” future will look like with a “newly empowered” Trump.

When Obama eschewed the standard “playbook” plays handed to him by his Military Advisors in 2013, he gave then this simultaneous rationale and warning:

Ultimately, President Obama opted to back off, observing that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”

There is much more about the “lack of logic” behind the standard scenario, that is quickly becoming our new Tonkin history … I encourage you to read it for yourself, as I have only provided a “bits and pieces” summary of Ritter’s critique our new “National Narrative” with “Trump back in charge”.

Wag The Dog — How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media
Responsibility for the chemical event in Khan Sheikhoun is still very much in question

by Scott Ritter, Contributor Author, ‘Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War’ — 04/09/2107

War is Hell.

Always was, always will be.

Those who wage it, send others to die in their place.

… gulf_of_tonkin_phantom_attack_on_us_military.jpg

By jamess/Daily Kos

Posted by The NON-Confromist