All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
25:21
SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So the war propaganda remains virtually unrelenting.
This is from CBS News.
I'll put the link below. Chemical weapons watchdog OPCW defends Syria report as whistleblower claims bias.
What does this mean? Well, of course...
The way that you position two people in opposition, if you want sympathy for one person, is you accuse the other person of attacking.
You portray the difference as relatively unimportant.
And you provide the credentials of the, quote, victim first and foremost.
So here you can see chemical weapons watchdog, right?
And they're defending their Syria report as whistleblower claims bias.
Now, it's more than a whistleblower.
This fellow, Alex, is one of the nine people who went to Duma to check out this actual or alleged attack.
And then, of course, what do you do?
What do you do? You then show pictures, of course, of suffering, sad children here in this case getting oxygen and so on, right?
And so, yeah, chemical weapons watchdog defending whistleblower claims bias.
And then you have said pictures of children.
This is how you get programmed, right?
So then what do we say?
What does it say? It says the head of the world's chemical weapons watchdog said Monday he stands by a report on an alleged attack in Syria despite leaked documents casting doubt on its conclusions.
The WikiLeaks website published an email over the weekend from a member of the team that investigated the attack on the town of Douma.
Ah, you see now. See, they go from alleged attack to just straight on attack, right?
That have accused the body of covering up discrepancies.
Remember I said that if they want you to have sympathy with the group being accused of wrongdoing, they say, oh, well, you know, it's just some discrepancies.
What do those matter?
Well, if those discrepancies lead to missile attacks, if those, quote, discrepancies lead to actual war, then it seems quite important, and it's a bit more than a freaking discrepancy.
Now, then you bring in Russia, of course, Russia, the demonized, nationalistic, Christian country, that is, the left loved Russia, of course, when it was slaughtering people by the tens of millions, but now that it's not, it has become the enemy of Par excellence.
So then they say Russia and its allies have seized on the email.
That's just like Republicans pounce, right?
They seized on the email.
And so seized is one of these words that indicates sort of pathological, emotional neediness and running an agenda.
And aha! You know, like that.
Seized on the email. And an earlier document, which both questioned the conclusion by the organization...
Okay, so just so you know why this, of course, is important.
So Bashar al-Assad had control over the airspace over Duma.
He was winning against the rebels who were themselves being funded by America and other places.
And so if the chlorine attack occurred and if it was dropped from an aircraft, that would be fairly substantial proof that it was Bashar al-Assad.
Who ordered it or who carried it out, his sort of air force, because he had control over the airspace over Duma, right?
So two things need to be established.
Number one, that chlorine was certainly used, and number two, that it was dropped from an aircraft.
Now, likely dropped from an aircraft...
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You need proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone of shoplifting, for heaven's sakes.
What standard of proof do we need to launch a war wherein tens or hundreds of thousands of people could be slaughtered?
Where crucial infrastructure delivering food and medicine and water gets destroyed and disrupted?
Where you destabilize entire countries?
Where millions of people flee because they cannot survive in a war-torn hellscape?
Do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to start launching missiles and start launching wars?
Well, I think we can see from the history of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered, and you can look at my presentation, Iraq, a decade of hell, that we need, or any reasonable moral conscience needs, a couple of things to actually launch a war.
Well, first of all, of course, you need Absolute proof of wrongdoing.
Now, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's got to be absolute proof of massive wrongdoing.
And secondly, it has to actually be your fight to begin with.
Why would the US, the UK and France launch missiles just a couple of days after this report, or just a couple of days after the supposed attack, why would they launch missiles into Syria?
Is it their fight?
Well, I'll tell you why I think they did it.
So then, Britain, France, and the United States unleashed missile attacks on three suspected chemical weapons facilities.
Hmm. Ah, interesting.
So you don't have actual proof that the attack occurred.
You don't have any proof that it was dropped from Bashar al-Assad's air force.
And you don't have any proof that they're actual chemical weapons facilities.
Proof. And this is war.
This is war. So again,
Russia and Syria are allies against the Western-funded rebels, including ISIS, of course.
And so... Hey, they just claimed security would not, right?
So they were delayed, and it was just claims.
Which, again, makes Russia and Syria seem suspicious.
Like, hey, man, why wouldn't you let us go?
But see, if it was just an airborne chemical attack, then it's one of the most dangerous places on the planet, right?
It's one of the most dangerous places on the planet.
So the fact that you're not allowed to go there and poke around when it's a war zone where people are being slaughtered by the dozen from chemical weapons dropped from the air...
Anyway...
So if you believe that this attack occurred, then of course the delay would be perfectly rational, perfectly reasonable, right?
All right. So OPC Director General, right, you got to give his full title to give him authority, right?
He said, That's a very, very deep and powerful philosophical and epistemological statement.
It is in the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team to express subjective views.
Okay, so he's saying that this guy, Alex, who says that the report was in some ways falsified, it's just his subjective view.
How is it subjective?
How is what this person claims, and he has been validated as a member of the team who went one of the nine, How can they prove that what he said was false?
So then he says, while some of these diverse views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the independent professional conclusion of the probe.
It's just words, right?
There's no actual proof of anything like this, right?
Alright, so then just nine days after the attack on Douma with the OPCW inspector still held back by Russian and Syrian officials, CBS News Seth Douane, made it into the town, into the very house where the suspected chemical attack took place.
And one neighbor told Douane, all of a sudden some gas spread around us.
We couldn't breathe. It smelled like chlorine.
Nasser Hanan's brother, Hamze, is one of the people who appeared in videos posted online by activists.
Ah, activists, right?
So in the fog of war, right, most of war is deception, right?
Oh, we're going to attack here when you're actually going to attack there.
We appear weak where we are strong.
We appear strong where we are weak.
All of these, it's all deception and lies in terms of this, right?
So if you don't have missile airstrike capacity, right, if you're just some bunch of rebels and you don't, and you're losing...
Right? Then you have a massive strong incentive to pretend that there was a chemical attack on armed civilians, right?
So that the US and the UK and France and other places will be tempted to go to war against Bashar al-Assad, your enemy, right?
So the incentive is to talk about these kinds of things and to pretend that there was an attack.
So that's a very, very strong incentive.
On the other hand, You look at Bashar al-Assad and what conceivable incentive would he have to launch a chemical attack on civilians when he's already winning the war?
When he's already capturing large swathes of territory, when he's got everyone on the run, why on earth would he drop chemical weapons on civilians, which serves absolutely zero military purpose and is going to provoke a retaliation from the Western powers against him?
It makes absolutely no sense.
It makes perfect sense for the rebels to fake an attack or to claim that there had been an attack so that the Western powers attack their enemy.
But it makes absolutely zero sense for Bashar al-Assad to do it.
And that's kind of important, right?
His brother told CBS News how Hamza had tried to wash the chemicals off of himself before succumbing.
He also brought CBS News to the roof of the building where a large missile still rested in a hole it appeared to have created when it struck.
That shell, he said, is what delivered the noxious gas that killed his brother.
Now, it's a war zone.
Do we know? Is there proof?
Is there evidence? Is there anything like that, right?
And, of course, then you want more pictures of sad children who were hurt and so on, right?
Now, see, they're no longer alleged.
That's right.
Russia had opposed granting the team the new responsibility to officially point the finger over such attacks, and Moscow threatened to block next year's budget for the OPCW over it, right?
Now, we are a fair way into this article.
I think we're more than halfway through.
Quick question for those of you who are alert to the potentials of propaganda about war.
Quick question. Do you know what the opposition that the whistleblower has to the report is?
Do you have any idea what he's pointing out, what he's criticizing?
No. You've seen allegations, you've seen on-the-ground reporting with no fact-checking, you've seen the pictures of the sad kids, you've seen all of this stuff, but you haven't actually heard what the criticism of the report is.
Alright, so, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, so then we get here.
At the time of the initial Duma probe, the OPCW only had the mandate to say whether or not toxic harms have been used, not to name perpetrators.
The email by an unidentified investigator quoted by WikiLeaks expresses the, quote, gravest concern, quote, saying the OPCW report, quote, misrepresents the facts and contains, quote, unintended bias.
It focuses on the levels of chlorine allegedly found at the site and whether or not barrels believed to have contained the chemical had been dropped from the air or placed manually.
Okay. So finally we're getting to some content, but it's not actually any real content.
Focuses on the levels of chlorine allegedly found at the site.
Hmm. What does that mean?
I can tell you what it means.
So what it means is that Chlorine disperses pretty quickly in the air, but it wends its way into various organic chemicals in the vicinity.
But of course, chlorine is used in bleach.
Chlorine is used in a wide variety of other things.
So there's going to be a sort of background level, a normal functioning human societal level of chlorine in this organic stuff.
And so what happens is you take samples, you take them to a lab, and you find out whether the levels of chlorine Are higher than normal.
It's like background. There's always background radiation, like even here in my studio bunker, right?
There's always background radiation.
If you want to find out if radiation is present, you take your Geiger counter and you look for spikes that are far higher than background radiation.
So this is the same thing that's occurring here.
They're taking levels of chlorine in the environment and they're testing those levels to see if those levels are higher Then they would be just because there are people around using chlorine.
So that's the thing.
So they went back, I think, to The Hague.
They submitted their samples to labs, and then nothing happened.
They didn't hear back.
And then, kind of by accident, this guy found out that there were no elevated levels of chlorine in the samples.
There were no elevated levels of chlorine in the samples, which there would have been had there been an actual chemical attack, particularly one strong enough to kill people.
And, of course, the question of whether they fell from the sky or were placed there is kind of important, important.
If they fell from the sky, it's more likely, though not conclusively proven, to be Assad.
If they were placed there locally, then it was one of the rebel factions staging a false flag attack.
So, it focuses on the levels of chlorine allegedly found at the site.
That's all you hear!
It's all you hear! In this most grave and important of topics, that's all you hear.
Well, it's, you know, they're questions about the levels of chlorine.
How about the fact that the absence of elevated chlorine levels in a chlorine, allegedly chlorine attack site, pretty much established that there either was no chlorine attack or it was really, really small.
Yeah, whether it was dropped from the air or placed manually.
That's kind of important, right?
Russia and Syria have alleged that the incident was staged, since soon after it took place, Russia even attempted to bolster its case by bringing individuals who identified as Syrians, seen in staged videos after the attack, to testify at the OPCW at The Hague.
See, that's kind of important, right?
Thank you.
See, now they allege that the incident was staged.
Now they've completely blown past the chlorine evidence, right?
Russia even attempted to bolster its case by bringing the individuals who had identified a Syrian scene in staged videos, quote staged videos, after the attack to testify, right?
So that's kind of important, right?
If people say, oh yeah, that's me in the video, and this didn't happen, this wasn't real, I was forced to, or whatever it is, right?
Well, that's It's kind of eyewitness testimony that seems kind of important.
So the eyewitness testimony of, oh yeah, this chlorine attack totally killed my brother, that's totally true.
You get pictures, but people that Russia wanted us to bring in who say, no, it didn't happen, or whatever they were going to say, nope.
European OPCW members rejected the Russian-Syrian claims outright and refused to attend a session at the OPCW headquarters.
They don't even want to see and hear the evidence presented by Russia and Syria that the attack was staged.
They don't even want to see it.
All right. France's ambassador to the Netherlands, Philippe Leliot, said, This obscene masquerade does not come as a surprise from the Syrian government, which has massacred and gassed its own people for the last seven years.
Now, the OPCW has already launched an internal investigation into the leak of the earlier document by a member of the Duma team raising similar concerns.
Ah, they're on it.
They're not going to try and figure out why the information that seemed to completely disprove the allegation of a chlorine attack, why that information was absent, why the results in the reports didn't show up.
Just crazy. So, yeah, then there's more allegations against Russia.
But see, this is your propaganda, right?
This is your propaganda. And, you know, of course, the question always is why?
Why? Why? Well, let's go full screen for that.
So it's important to understand the sequence of what occurred here.
There was a claim of a chemical attack, and within two to three days, UK, US, and French missiles were raining down on Syria against Bashar al-Assad.
What is the evidence on the ground?
Well, they sent investigators out, they took samples, they went back, they submitted these samples to labs, and they never heard anything back.
And then just by accident, one of the investigators found that three weeks earlier, the results had come back, and that the levels for chlorinated organic chemicals were the same as that of the natural environment, which meant it's virtually impossible for there to have been a chemical attack.
The email claims that the OPCW report changed the language on the levels of chlorine allegedly found compared to what the investigators had originally written.
And that's massively significant.
They want this war.
They want to destroy Bashar al-Assad.
They want to fund radical extremists in the region.
They do. Why?
Why, why, why?
Well, Bashar al-Assad protects Christians.
And if there's one thing that you can see that is quite a common thread through the world these days is a massive hostility towards Christians, a covering up of massive persecution against Christians, And a complete lack of sympathy for the destruction of Christians, of Christian churches, and of Christian society all around the world.
Christians are statistically the most persecuted group in the world at the moment.
And if you were an atheist or a leftist or a communist, your natural enemy is Christianity, which I think gives you a sense of who's driving this kind of agenda and this kind of conversation.
Everything that is supported is hostile to Christianity.
and everything and everyone who is opposed is supportive to, sympathetic for, or actually is, a Christian.
This war against Syria, I mean, Trump is having a tough time enough just getting troops out of Syria, the remaining U.S. troops out of Syria, Under any other president, this war would already be underway.
Tens of thousands of people or more would have been slaughtered.
And you wouldn't see their pictures on the mainstream media websites or on the news footage.
You wouldn't see any. You would see glorious pictures of What is it, ABC? Recently was a firing range in Kentucky, but they passed it off as, anyway.
So you would see all of these glorious weapons flying into the sky like fireworks, like Hellzone hard-on to rape a remote region.
You'd see all of the glorious weaponry.
You'd see the brave troops, but you wouldn't see The broken up children.
You wouldn't see the smashed weddings.
You wouldn't see the eviscerated people.
You wouldn't see bowels on the ground.
You wouldn't see people disassembled and thrown against walls.
You wouldn't see any of that.
So they are controlling this narrative in a very powerful way.
Why? I think that there's hatred to Christianity in general.
I also think that if you look at The media and their model.
Well, when there's a war, people tune into the media, and the media can sell a lot of ads.
And, of course, the military-industrial complex makes a lot of money when there's a war because it burns up the very goods and services that they're producing, from bombs to bullets to human beings.
And then, of course, there's money for reconstruction.
You kill people, you break things, and then you go build things, usually in the middle of nowhere, that serve no one.
So you've got a combination of the media, you've got the military-industrial complex, and you have the lust for unearned power that accrues to political leaders in a time of war.
You don't change your horses midstream.
When you're in a war, there is continuity.
And while Trump is far from a perfect Christian, of course there is no such thing as a perfect Christian outside of Christ himself, He limited his response to pounding, I think it was an airport with a couple of missiles, but there's no new war.
Under Hillary, absolutely there would have been a war.
Under Obama, who dropped 100,000 bombs in the Middle East, there absolutely would have been a war.
And this is one of the reasons why the warmongers in the media hate people like me.
People who push back against war.
I was pushing back against this as hard as humanly possible all throughout this time.
You can do a search on my channel for videos on Syria.
Now, I pushed back.
And millions of people saw and heard what I did.
And, of course, I'm not alone.
Far from it. There are many other, even more prominent people, of course, also pushing back against this pro-war narrative.
So if you were part of this, like if you liked, if you subscribed, if you shared, if you talked about the ideas and you pushed back against this horrifying narrative, take a bow, my friend.
Take a bow. If you made videos, if you publicized, if you wrote, if you spoke about this, take a bow.
We stopped a war.
We stopped a war.
And each one of us who did this, through that process, through that courage, through accepting the inevitable blowback that comes from standing between the beast of war and its shivering prey, we saved more lives than any doctor will in his or her entire career.
So please, you know, help those of us who are standing between the predators and their prey.
Please, please help me to continue what I'm doing.
It is a tough time for philosophy at the moment, my friends.
It really, really is. Please go to freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
I'll put the link below. Please, please help me out and support.
Hoping to get the documentary on Hong Kong out within two weeks.
Because... Those who are in charge of the world, with very few exceptions, are devils who care nothing for the continuance of our traditions, our culture, our values, or our lives.
They are like black-eyed gods staring us into oblivion.
And there's a quote since I read about this.
There's a quote from King Lear.
Which is one of the blackest plays ever written.
Which I think sums up our relationship with the elites.
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods.
▲
Export Selection