George Soros Alleged to Be Behind Syrian Gas Attack

President Assad of Syria has been widely blamed for the recent poison gas attack on civilians including children that purportedly prompted the cruise missile attack by the Trump administration. This is very troubling development for a number of reasons.

Obviously, first and foremost, almost 100 innocent civilians including children and infants were gassed to death — a horrible war crime clearly committed by somebody.

Adding to the problem is the retaliation by the Trump administration in the form of a cruise missile attack, apparently on the Syrian airfield from which the attacks were claimed to have been launched. This does not comport well with his statements during his campaign in support of improved relations with Russia, and for a less interventionist foreign policy.

Finally, the fact remains that there is doubt over who actually ordered the gas attacks. It seems an odd strategy for President Assad to pursue, particular at this time. How would he gain from such actions?

Nevertheless, this is the Middle East, and it’s well to remember that what appears to be happening is often at variance with what actually is happening. And this is where George Soros may have entered the story.

The White Helmets, an al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, have reportedly staged another chemical weapon attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.

A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced “Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians.” This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV.

The White Helmets filmed much of the footage being released on the chemical attack. They have also been known to stage “rescue” videos in the past. However, this time it appears children were indeed killed in the making of this “media campaign.”

So what is alleged here is a classic “false flag” attack. There’s no question that such events have been staged many times. The questions is whether the attack in question is one.

As if the possible involvement of Soros isn’t enough, another unsavory name, Hillary Clinton, also appears in the story.

The al-Qaeda-linked rebels have claimed the chemical was sarin gas used by the Syrian government; however, the OPCW has confirmed Syria no longer has chemical weapons and completely dismantled their stockpiles in 2013.

In contrast, the rebels have not gotten rid of the chemical weapons at their disposal.

According to award winning journalist Seymour Hersch, intelligence reports show the rebels smuggled in chemical weapons from Libya through Turkey with the approval of Hillary Clinton.

Source: Inforwars

A similar perspective is provided by organizations such as the Free State Project.

Falling in unfortunate lockstep with a succession of belligerent previous presidents, Donald Trump is fomenting retaliatory military measures against Syria for a horrific chemical gas attack that killed at least 86 innocent people, dozens of them children — even while imperative questions swirl regarding who, precisely, carried out the atrocity.

While the West’s propaganda machine summarily crucified Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — deeming him a monstrous oaf deserving of the worst possible retribution — calmer minds exhorted U.S. officials to consider the simplest of legitimacy litmus test questions before decimating Syria:

What could Assad possibly stand to gain from gassing his own people to death?

Not only that, but, most necessitously, what could a hasty military response accomplish — mere days after a degree of diplomacy indicated an end to the conflict on the horizon — besides killing yet more Syrians and jarring the world into war?

What is to be made of actions taken and decisions made by President Trump that appear to be at variance with his stated foreign policy positions and goals? Given that none of us has the anything close to the complete set of facts, the answer to that question is not at all obvious.

The emotional responses we are hearing are no help at all. At this point, diligent attention paid to an number of trusted sources is the best option.

Source: The Free Thought Project

Image: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung