The “chemical attack” at Khan Sheikoun was fake and a show, though some people in there were probably real victims of war. This video for example, of doctors and patients in emergence rooms was theater, taken over a longer time period. The main presenter was a well-known Takfiri but with links to British services.
The whole show was perfected, by specialists one would think, to fit for U.S. screens. The male “victims” were clean shaven, despite living in al-Qaeda land. They even had two blond “Syrian” kids in there (vid) to convince the racists that “revenge” was needed.
Dilbert creator Scott Adams, one of the few who understood Trump’s persuasion style and predicted his win, remarks:
It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.
I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.
So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?
He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart.
The response by the U.S. was not completely fake but as small as it could be. The base was warned and had been evacuated. All movable and valuable stuff had been taken away. The attack was even smaller than planned.
Russia says only 23 out of 59 cruise missiles hit the base. The others were shot down by air defense or diverted by Electronic Counter Measures. The Pentagon insists that all 59 hit.
But the pictures and video from the base only show damage to 11 aircraft shelters. Additionally one radar, one missile launcher and a fuel depot were hit. That effect is too small for 59 impacts. The base was in use again 12 hours after the strike. The attack on it was not really serious.
Adams makes it look as if Trump did not sign off on the whole stunt before it happened. As if it was made for Trump’s consumption. Why does he think so? Does he believe the CIA bureaucrats would not ask for a direct order from the president before launching such a risky operation?
The pictures and scenes were not constructed for Trump’s consumption. They were constructed for consumption by the “western” public. They followed Trump’s persuasion style.
The same style he used during the campaign and that let him win. Trump had several reasons to create such an incident. This was a stunt to his liking. It was his production. The blond children allowed for his Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered … punch line. Trump proudly produced and presented to you: “Trump the President”.
The whole show was designed to let Trump look strong and presidential and to get rid of the “Russia Gate” nonsense the neocons ran against him. The prospect of stopping those attacks was an offer he could not refuse. Here a tweet of mine sent on the evening before the attack was launched:
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA
If Trump now commits to war on Syria the anti-Trump “Russia spies” campaign will immediately stop.
Ransom paid, hostage released
8:23 PM – 6 Apr 2017
Editorial boards of NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USAToday, DailyNews, SJ Mercury News, Houston Chon & Chicago Sun Times all endorsed Trumps Syria strikes.
“Russia Gate” is – for now – forgiven and forgotten. The NeverTrump-ers laud the strike and want more of them, ever more war and “regime change” in favor of al-Qaeda’s rule.
More strikes may well come. The precedent has been established. Whenever al-Qaeda in Idleb comes under pressure and needs help we will see another fake “chemical attack”. Will Trump follow up on those?
Or will he manage to set aside the outrage that will follow such “attacks” when it does not fit his plans? Was this a one-time show? Or will Trump serialize it?
The open Syrian, Iranian and Russian response will be an intensification of the operations in Idleb. They will smash the “rebels” there by air and push more troops into that direction.
The Russian organized flight coordination over Syria has been called off. Belgium already said its airforce will no longer take part in any U.S. “coalition” operation over Syria. Others will follow that example. An asymmetric response elsewhere will follow later. U.S. forces in the wider region better watch their backs.
Some people have wondered why the Chinese criticism of the attack at the UN Security Council or during Xi’s meeting with Trump was rather mild. The Chinese believe that the best that can happen to them is a United States bogged down in further Middle East calamities.
If the U.S. is busy in Iraq, Yemen and Syria it will have fewer capacity to mess up North Korea or seek a conflict over this or that atoll in the South China Sea. I can not blame them for that position.
Bonus: A truly journalistic highlight in U.S. news coverage of our time is this recommendation by CNN:
Jake Tapper @jaketapper
For more on Syria follow @AlabedBana
4:59pm · 4 Apr 2017
Do it! Be informed! Follow the 7 year old daughter of a Syrian Takfiri in Turkey. She can not understand, speak or write English but knows the depth of international relations. Her producers will let her look more intelligent that Tapper will ever be. (For background on that M.I.T./MI-6 child exploitation see here.)
Here are 45 times Trump said attacking Syria was a bad idea and might start World War III. “We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in World War III over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.