Onrust in Syrië

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Fixed?


Het Duitse BND snelt te hulp...

RT - German intelligence concludes sarin gas used on Assad’s orders – reports
2 september 2013 - The German intelligence agency has enough evidence in its possession to conclude President Bashar Assad ordered the suspected chemical attack in Syria, Germany’s Der Spiegel reports, quoting the results of a secret security briefing. The BND’s President Gerhard Schindler voiced his support for US allegations Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s government ordered the attack on the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21, Der Spiegel reported Monday.

Een pikant detail, het BND betrekt Hezbollah en Iran bij deze kwestie :

According to Der Spiegel, a reason behind Assad’s decision to deploy the gas was that this was a crucial battle for the capital where the agent might have been meant as a deterrent against rebel forces, but mistakenly the military used too much of it.

In further conclusions, the BND said only Syrian government experts could mix sarin and place it inside small rockets. The process reportedly took place several times prior to the alleged attack which sparked the investigation.

The BND apparently cited new evidence, having intercepted communications between a high level Hezbollah official and Iran’s embassy.

Ook Frankrijk snelt te hulp...


RT - France accuses Syria of 3 chemical attacks, Assad slams Western logic
2 september 2013 - At least three chemical attacks were staged in Syria between April and August, a declassified French intelligence report claims, while President Bashar Assad said it was “illogical” for the government to launch a chemical weapons strike.

The declassified nine-page French intelligence report, issued by the country’s external and military services, suggests government forces loyal to President Assad were behind the attack, which took place on August 21 in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus. "We are going to give the MPs everything we have – classified until now – to enable every one of them to take on board the reality of the unacceptable attack," French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Monday.


Terug naar af, de bal begint te rollen en men tracht er zelfs Hezbollah en Iran bij te betrekken.,

Meer over het Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)-voorstel van Obama.

Lawfare - The Administration’s Proposed Syria AUMF Is Very Broad [UPDATE on Ground Troops]
Op 1 september 2013 door Jack Goldsmith

The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria provides:

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

...

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. Again, very easy to imagine.

As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is worth, and then some. The proposed Syrian AUMF is worth a lot, for it would (in sum) permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war and the use of force has the purpose of preventing or deterring (broad concepts) the use or proliferation of WMDs in, to, or from Syria, or of protecting the U.S. and its allies from the mere threat (again, a broad concept) of use or proliferation of WMDs connected to the Syrian conflict.

Congress needs to be careful about what it authorizes.

...

UPDATE 2: I neglected perhaps the most salient implication of the proposed AUMF: The phrase “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were “necessary and appropriate.” And yes, if history is any guide, Congress can authorize the President to use force in a limited fashion with limited means (i.e. just the Navy, or just the Air Force).

Indien dit voorstel in deze vorm door het Amerikaanse congres wordt goedgekeurd ligt de weg naar Teheran en Hezbollah wagenwijd open. Meer zelfs, Obama zou overal ter wereld militair kunnen optreden indien er slechts een aanduiding van een connectie met de WMD's in Syrie bestaat.

En ik citeer nogmaals (uit Der Spiegel) :

In further conclusions, the BND said only Syrian government experts could mix sarin and place it inside small rockets. The process reportedly took place several times prior to the alleged attack which sparked the investigation.

The BND apparently cited new evidence, having intercepted communications between a high level Hezbollah official and Iran’s embassy.

[Salah]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Zonder het Westen kunnen de rebellen die oorlog nooit winnen, en dat weten ze.

Ze doen het nu al. Het zal langer duren, maar de overwinning is een zekerheid.

[Salah]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Blijkbaar wil je geen vrije verkiezingen, misschien bang dat Bashar die zal winnen, wat volgens verschillende journalisten wel eens het geval zou kunnen zijn? Als hij tot 2028 aanblijft, zal dat enkel zo zijn als de meerderheid van de SyriËrs achter hem staan. Overigens, moest Assad weinig steun hebben onder de bevolking, en echt een gehate dictator zijn, was hij al lang gevallen net als Mubarak of Ben Ali en dat weet je ook.

Vrije verkiezingen, laat ons niet lachen. Hij heeft net de grondwet gewijzigd om dictator for life te spelen. Uw naïviteit is gespeeld, je weet wel beter.

[zonbron]

Steeds verbazingwekkender : De Amerikanen wisten reeds 3 dagen op voorhand dat de chemische aanval zou plaatsvinden.

Daily Mail - Intelligence report says U.S. officials knew about nerve-gas attack in Syria three days before it killed over 1,400 people - including more than 400 children
2 september 2013 - 'In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were association with preparations for a chemical weapons attack,' the U.S. intelligence report released by the Obama administration said. At the briefing, officials would not answer of whether or not they warned rebel forced before the attack. But at least two opposition members told Foreign Policy magazine that they had no idea the attack was coming.


What's next?

[Salah]

Frankrijk publiceert bewijzen chemische aanval in Syrië

De Franse regering heeft vandaag een document met zogenaamde bewijzen voor het gebruik van gifgas in de Syrische burgeroorlog gepubliceerd. Het negen bladzijden tellende rapport werd vanavond op de internetsite van premier Jean-Marc Ayrault geplaatst. Het materiaal zou gebaseerd zijn op bevindingen van de Franse geheime dienst. De Franse regering wil daarmee niet alleen het bezit van chemische wapens in Syrië bewijzen, maar ook het gebruik ervan en de daders aantonen.

Syrië heeft een van de grootste voorraden aan chemische wapens, luidt het in het document. Daarin zouden zich ook enkele honderden tonnen mosterdgas en sarin bevinden. Daarnaast verwijst het rapport ook naar de Syrische wapensystemen, waarmee chemische granaten afgevuurd konden worden.

Bij de aanval van 21 augustus heeft het regime "opzettelijk een drempel overschreden". Parijs zou 47 videobeelden systematisch technisch geanalyseerd hebben. Daarbij kwamen berichten van ooggetuigen.

Volgens de Franse bevindingen werden bij de vermoedelijke gifgasaanval op 21 augustus tot 1.500 mensen gedood zijn. De getroffen gebieden zouden eerder volledig in handen van rebellen zijn geweest. Volgens "geloofwaardige informatie van verschillende bondgenoten" werden op de dag voor de aanval specifieke voorbereidingen van de Syrische strijdkrachten getroffen.

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/9616/On...in-Syrie.dhtml

[Salah]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah

Er is een high ranking generaal die gedeserteerd is, die bewijzen en bezwarend materiaal heeft tegen het regime, ook van de chemische aanval. Daags volgt er een persconferentie.

Hardcore loyalisten verlaten het zinkend schip. De chemische aanvallen zullen voor hen een rode lijn geweest zijn.

At least 50 more Syrian Republican Guards defect in Damascus Suburb: Syrian Media Center



Defection of 55 soldiers from besieged division17 in Raqqa

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah

Frankrijk publiceert bewijzen chemische aanval in Syrië



http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/9616/On...in-Syrie.dhtml

Nu geloven we ineens de Franse inlichtingendiensten. Anayseren van videobeelden, ja ja... Hollande heeft niet de guts om z'n deelname aan een agressie tegen Syrië voor te leggen voor het parlement. Volgens enquetes is de grote meerderheid van de bevolking tegen.

Als er echt bewijzen zijn dat het regime achter de aanval zit, dat de VS en Frankrijk de bewijzen voorleggen aan de VN-veiligheidsraad en aan specialisten van het internationaal gerechtshof. Dat doen ze niet natuurlijk, omdat ze maar al te goed weten dat deze onzin weggelachen zal worden door de specialisten, net als 10 jaar geleden i. v. m. Irak.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah

Ze doen het nu al. Het zal langer duren, maar de overwinning is een zekerheid.

Dat verhaaltje hoor ik nu al 2 jaar.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah

Vrije verkiezingen, laat ons niet lachen. Hij heeft net de grondwet gewijzigd om dictator for life te spelen. Uw naïviteit is gespeeld, je weet wel beter.

Een onderhandelde oplossing zou zowiezo vrije verkiezingen inhouden, maar dat durven de rebellen niet. Ten eerste omdat ze natuurlijk net als U voor het Kalifaat zijn en dus tegen democratie, en ten tweede omdat dan wel eens zou kunnen blijken hoe klein hun aanhang is in Syrië.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah

Hardcore loyalisten verlaten het zinkend schip. De chemische aanvallen zullen voor hen een rode lijn geweest zijn.

Ook het verhaaltje van de ratten die het zinkende schip verlaten hoor ik nu al 2 jaar...

[epicurist_dirk]

Arabische liga besliste gisteren ” aanvallen, aanvallen” Vandaag stellen ze niet aanvallen. Dat is het nu juist met die islam gasten ze veranderen sneller dan de wind van mening. Bovendien is hun manier van werken steeds een vorm van dictatuur.

Om de islam worden schat te gebruiken: hoeveel “martelaars” heeft het westen nu al geofferd om hen aan een democratische belijd te helpen.

Wat is het resultaat, ze vechten nog steeds tegen elkaar. Een ding hebben ze wel gemeen, het is steeds de schuld van het westen.

Misschien moeten we Doen zoals de Russen en de Chinezen, de oude linkse strategie >> wapens leveren. En voor de rest niets doen.

Want elkaar uitmoorden, de keel oversnijden, vergassen enz. doen ze al eeuwen.

Alleen hebben de Russen en de Chinezen “martelaars” en daarom ook niet de naam in de moslim wereld dat het ‘allemaal schuld is van het westen’

[tomm]

The head of the Arab League has said military intervention in Syria is not an option - a further blow to United States' efforts to act over a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last month.

Following emergency meetings in Cairo on Monday, secretary general, Nabil Elaraby, said the League held the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad responsible for the August 21 attack, but a "military option is out of the question".

He said that the United Nations inspectors who had investigated the attack site "do not have the powers to say who committed this... so, all the inspectors will say is that chemical weapons have been used".

Zelfs z'n Saudische vriendjes verlaten Obama.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...147676742.html

[epicurist_dirk]

zijn: Moet Alleen hebben de Russen en de Chinezen géén “martelaars” en daarom ook niet de naam in de moslim wereld dat het ‘allemaal schuld is van het westen’

[tomm]

De nieuwe autoriteiten in Egypte, die ook absoluut tegen een aanval op Syrië zijn, laten de Syrische islamisten weten dat ze niet langer welkom zijn.

Faced with strict new visa restrictions and a crackdown in which dozens of Syrian refugees have been arrested and detained by the security services, many now feel that the dangers of a six-day sea crossing across the Mediterranean are far outweighed by the hostile measures being meted out by a suspicious Egyptian regime.
"The Muslim Brotherhood were looking after us and now they are gone," said 27-year-old Sami Ahmed, one of the two men waiting to be trafficked by "the doctor".

Morsi, a leading figure from the Brotherhood - an orthodox Sunni organisation - was a staunch enemy of Bashar al-Assad, whose regime brass is heavily drawn from Syria's Shia Alawite community.

Under the Brotherhood, Syrians fleeing the civil war enjoyed visa-free entry, residence permits and full access to public services. Many also benefited from charity work provided by the Brotherhood.

But following Morsi's downfall last month, the tide began to turn. TV talk shows started airing allegations that Syrians were fomenting pro-Morsi rallies in Cairo, while the government introduced strict new entry requirements. In the hours after the July 3 coup, a planeload of Syrian refugees was turned back at Cairo airport. Scores of refugees were also stopped at army checkpoints and later detained.

"When we first arrived in Egypt a year ago we felt very welcome by Egyptians," said 53-year-old Dima Mohamed, Sami's mother. "Now they tell us: 'Morsi has gone away, go away after him, we don't want Syrians.'"

According to Elizabeth Tan, an official from the UN's refugee agency in Cairo, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of refugees opting to leave Egypt since the introduction of new visa regulations. But she said the main incentive appeared to be the accompanying rise in anti-Syrian sentiment among the Egyptian population.

"I think this kind of public opinion trend against Syrians last month was the big issue," she said. "If they no longer feel welcome, when they have somewhere else to go, they might consider it."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...421198224.html

[tomm]

If I were very optimistic, I'd say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament, and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook - he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it's Congress' fault.

But unfortunately, I don't think that much optimism is warranted. Obama's speech - not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command are not time-bound - gives opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilise, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president accurately described it, "some things are more important than partisan politics". For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama's progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial.

Obama said he will "seek Congressional authorisation" for a military strike on Syria. He said he believes US policy is "stronger" if the president and Congress are united, but made clear his belief that he "has the authority to strike without" congressional support. That's the bottom line. The first question shouted by the press as he left the White House rose garden was "will you still attack if Congress votes no?" He didn't answer.

There is little question that the Obama administration was blindsided by the British parliament's vote against the prime minister's proposal to endorse war. They were prepared to go to war without United Nations authorisation, but were counting on the UK as the core partner in a new iteration of a Bush-style "coalition of the willing." Then NATO made clear it would not participate, and the Arab League refused to endorse a military strike. France may stay in Obama's corner, but that won't be enough.

And Congress was getting restive, with more than 200 members signing one or another letter demanding that the White House consult with them. Too many pesky journalists were reprinting Obama's own words from 2007, when then-candidate Obama told the Boston Globe that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorise a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't stop. And that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no.

However frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorises the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That's the authorisation President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally.

The problem for President Obama is he still is determined to use military force, despite the requirements of international law. He says he doesn't need that authority - that maybe he'll use the 1999 Kosovo precedent
to "go around" the Security Council. The problem, of course, is that the 1999 US-NATO assault on Serbia and Kosovo was illegal - faced with a sure Russian veto, Bill Clinton simply announced he would not ask for Council permission. Instead, he would get permission from the NATO high command. But aside from the hammer-and-nail problem (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if you're NATO military leaders looking for re-legitimation, everything looks like it needs a military solution), nothing in international law allows NATO to substitute for the Security Council. The Charter was specifically designed to make it difficult to get authorisation for military force - its whole raison d'etre is to stand against the scourge of war. So any new decision to go to use military force without Council authority means that use of force is illegal.

Right now, in Syria, that means that members of Congress have the chance to prevent another illegal US war. If Congress should approve it, likely for political or partisan reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, their vote would mean direct complicity in an illegal and immoral war.

Pentagon officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be (remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed. Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even more culpable.

Dangerous

A US military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to "stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians could face similar retaliation from the government.

A US strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who gain will be the most extreme Islamist forces within the opposition, particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda. They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and a great local target.

There is also the danger of escalation between the US and Russia, already at odds in one of the five wars currently underway in Syria. So far that has been limited to a war of words between Washington and Moscow, but with the G-20 meeting scheduled for next week in St Petersburg, President Putin may feel compelled to push back more directly, perhaps with new economic or other measures.

Crucially, a military strike without United Nations authorisation undermines the urgent need for serious, tough diplomacy to end the Syrian war. The US just cancelled a meeting with Russia to talk about negotiations; a couple of months ago, Russia cancelled one. They both must be pushed to meet urgently to arrange and implement an immediate ceasefire and an arms embargo on all sides in Syria.

And finally, what happens the day after? If Syria retaliates against a US missile strike - with an attack on a US warship, or a US base in a neighbouring country, or on US troops in the region, or against Israel ... do we really think the US will simply stand back and say "no, this was just a one-time surgical strike, we won't respond"? What happens when that inevitable response pushes the US closer towards direct full-scale involvement in the Syrian civil war?

The word to Congress now must be - you got the vote. That's important, because now you can use that vote to say NO to military action.

What should the US do?


First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?

First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.
Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.
Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.
President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.
Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)
Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes.
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN Defy US Power, on the legacy of the February 15 protests.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...319670421.html

[Snerror]

Zou het ook niet kunnen dat Hollande meedoet uit electorale overwegingen? Met al die Soennieten in Frankrijk?

[Snerror]

Zou het ook niet kunnen dat Hollande meedoet uit electorale overwegingen? Met al die Soennieten in Frankrijk?

[circe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Snerror

Zou het ook niet kunnen dat Hollande meedoet uit electorale overwegingen? Met al die Soennieten in Frankrijk?

twijfel je daar nog aan?

[Piero]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door circe

twijfel je daar nog aan?

Een vorm van landverraad dus? Foei.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Vertel me nu eens iets dat ik nog niet wist...

UITERAARD, diplomatie is eigenlijk synoniem voor theater.

Het draait erom dat het allemaal gebaseerd is op leugens. Die gifgas aanval is de zoveelste false flag.

Het is niet zomaar een spontane verontwaardiging tegenover die grote boze slechte Assad. Het is een ingecalculeerde propaganda campagna voor het verder zetten van de plan van de illuminati in het Midden-Oosten.