In response to Re: False Flags:
Another skeptic of the Obama administration’s “slam dunk” case on Syria has emerged.
Writing at PJ Media, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy details Al-Qaeda’s ceaseless endeavors over the years to acquire, manufacture, and eventually use chemical weapons, and links to a report in the Long War Journal about an al Qaeda chemical weapons cell recently broken up in Iraq.
I believe the concentration on chemical weapons, including President Obama’s credibility-crippling recklessness in labeling their use a “red line,” misses the point — at best. It diverts attention from the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad himself has been.
But if we are going to make this a debate about chemical weapons, is it not worth factoring in that Assad’s opposition includes elements that have been seeking to use chemical weapons against the United States for more than two decades? That al-Qaeda recently and repeatedly used chemical weapons in Iraq? And that — as Bill Roggio notes — al Nusrah, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, is suspected of using chemical weapons in Syria just six months ago?
And he links to Bryan Preston’s piece, also penned at PJ Media yesterday: Yossef Bodansky: ‘Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?’
Here’s what’s not in dispute. Obama declared a “red line,” the use of chemical weapons, in August 2012. Chemical weapons, sarin, were used at least once in Syria, on August 21. Sarin may have been used by the rebels back in May. That’s unconfirmed. Sarin is not the greatest strategic weapon of mass destruction. But sarin is not terribly difficult to manufacture or obtain. Non-state actors have done it. Japanese terrorists Aum Shinrikyo manufactured sarin and used it to attack the Tokyo subway system in 1995, killing 13 and earning death sentences for the cult’s leaders. Both sides in Syria’s civil war are suspected, broadly speaking, to possess that specific chemical weapon. Assad is known to have stockpiles of it, and al Qaeda could either steal from his stores or make it themselves (or obtain it from elsewhere). Both sides are quite capable of perpetrating mass murder on civilians. The question is, which side stood to benefit more from the use of this specific type of mass murder one year to the day after Obama’s “red line” comments sent waves around the world?
Again – I don’t know much about Bodansky, but I do know some very smart people are taking his piece about a possible false flag attack in Syria very seriously.
And then there’s this….
The Daily Mail posted a story about an Obama administration scheme to blame a chemical weapons attack on Assad, last January.
Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.
That story was taken down following a libel suit launched by Britam Defense and Intelligence against the Daily Mail.