Is the Chemical Attack in Syria a False Flag Perpetrated by Washington?

Next year will mark the 50^th anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.  It was that false flag event that persuaded Congress to give President Johnson a blank check to retaliate against the supposedly unprovoked attack by North Vietnam on an American warship patrolling international waters off the coast of Indochina.  The fraudulent claim by Johnson resulted in the Vietnam War fiasco which claimed the lives of over 50,000 young Americans and produced millions of Vietnamese casualties.

Now Barack Obama is potentially up to his own false flag event in Syria.  In an effort to justify U.S. military intervention in the Syrian conflict, the Obama Administration has accused Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad of perpetrating the chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus last week.  Speaking forcefully, earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry stated, “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.”  The Secretary chose his words carefully in an effort to rally a war-weary U.S. citizenry for another military adventure on the other side of the world.

Was al-Assad responsible for the attack?  The Administration has tried and convicted him before a team of U.N. inspectors has had a chance to finish its investigation.  It claims he alone possesses the means to carry out such an atrocity in Syria.  At least 4 U.S. warships are sitting off the coast of Syria waiting for Obama to give the order to attack Syrian military and government targets.  It seems likely that a U.S. attack on al-Assad forces is imminent.

But there are at least two other possibilities of who may be responsible for the chemical attack last week.  In May, members of the Al-Nusra front, an Al-Qaeda affiliated group which many analysts believe to be “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian resistance, were apprehended by Turkish security forces in Turkey while in possession of 2 kilograms of sarin gas.  Thus al-Assad does not have a monopoly on chemical agents in Syria as the U.S. asserts and it is possible that Al-Nusra perpetrated the chemical attack last week to provoke the U.S. into striking the Syrian regime in an effort to help its own cause.

But there may be an even scarier possibility of who was responsible for the chemical attack last week on the outskirts of Damascus – the Obama Administration.  Emails from the British-based contractor Britam Defence released in January by a Malaysian hacker showed a plan “approved by Washington” that would fund Syrian rebels to carry out chemical attacks in Syria which the U.S. could use as a pretense for military action against al-Assad.

Is it hard to believe that an American administration could be guilty of such an atrocity?  Not really if one looks at history objectively.  American history is littered with examples of our government producing coups, assassinations, lies about weapons of mass destruction, and other events that simply didn’t happen in order to accomplish its goals.

Let’s not forget that the current administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms facilitated the sale of approximately 1400 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious.  Ultimately the program resulted in the death of a U.S. border agent, Brian Terry, and no doubt scores of others caught up in Mexico’s failed war on drugs.

It is possible that Washington could stoop to any depth to carry out its aims.  Americans who believe that only other country’s governments are capable of heinous acts are simply naïve.

Of course, it is possible that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people.  But, knowing that it would provoke U.S. military intervention in Syria, it just doesn’t make any sense for him to do it.  On the other hand, just like in 1964 when President Johnson was getting intense pressure from the military-industrial complex to escalate the war in Vietnam, Obama is receiving the same kind of pressure with regards to Syria today.  Unfortunately, like Johnson, he doesn’t seem to have the courage to resist it either.

Common Sense Gun Law Prevails in North Carolina

It’s a rare circumstance indeed, but I give Kudos to North Carolina’s state government.  Recently, Governor Pat McCrory signed legislation that allows gun owners with concealed carry permits to take their firearms into restaurants and bars.  Additionally, the measure allows concealed carry on greenways, playgrounds, and other public recreation areas as well as permitting the storing of weapons in locked vehicles on the campuses of public schools and universities.

It should be noted that the legislation provides for a great degree of local control.  Private property is respected by giving bar and restaurant owners the right to forbid guns on their premises.  Municipal governments retain the right to pass ordinances restricting concealed carry on public land.

In light of all of the shooting tragedies in public places in recent years, North Carolina’s new gun law represents a common sense approach to self-defense and crime prevention.  There is no softer target for a deranged assailant than a gun-free zone.  Just knowing that someone in a public place could possess the means to defend themselves and others will deter some criminals from striking.  Those undeterred could find themselves the victim of their own criminal madness.

If only Suzanna Hupp had been permitted, under Texas law, on October 16, 1991, to bring her firearm into a Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.  On that day, while having lunch with her parents, George Hennard crashed his truck into the front of the restaurant and proceeded to gun down 23 people including both of Hupp’s parents.  Hupp, a gun owner, instinctively reached for her .38 revolver, only to realize she had left it locked in her vehicle because Texas had just passed a new law banning concealed carry.  There is no question that if given the opportunity, Hupp would have prevented some of the carnage.

To be sure, there have been many other times when law-abiding gun owners could have saved lives if they were allowed to pack heat in public places.  Conversely, many gun owners have saved lives through the benefit of concealed carry laws and by being at the right place at the right time.  Back in 1995 the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law published a study that indicated that law abiding gun owners use their weapons for defensive purposes as many as 2.5 million times a year.  This calculates to guns being used 60 times more to protect innocent lives than being used in the commission of a crime.  Thus, loosening gun laws would make us safer because it would give responsible gun owners more ability to intervene in crisis situations like Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook Elementary.

It’s common sense that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding citizens leaving them vulnerable to the whims of criminals.  Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, continues to experience high rates of gun violence.

Additionally, gun control laws are inhumane.  They leave gun owners like Suzanna Hupp defenseless and helpless to save lives in a crisis.

That is why North Carolina’s new gun law is a common sense approach to self-defense and crime prevention.  It gives responsible gun owners the ability to save lives in a crisis.