Liars Lie: Moscow Has ‘Irrefutable’ Evidence Alleged Chemical Incident in Syria’s Douma Was a “False-Flag Attack”

April 17, 2018

First, the person who allegedly spoke the words as printed in the above title, Aleksandr Shulgin, is being described by Russian state news media as a “diplomat”. This means that we can safely assume that the person knows what he is talking about. One doesn’t become a diplomat straight out of high school. Or do we by now?

The Russian government’s claim is this:

The chemical attack was a false flag attack, concocted by the UK/US (that is very plausible though). This means that there was an attack, of an undefined nature, except that it was carried out by someone else other than is being claimed. That’s what false flag attack means.

For the above, Russian diplomats have, so they say, irrefutable evidence. Or do they?

Think about it…

RT: “The diplomat added that the incident had been a ‘pre-planned false-flag attack by the British security services, which could have also been aided by their allies in Washington.’ ‘Things unfolded according to the pre-written scenario prepared by Washington. There’s no doubt, the Americans play ‘first fiddle’ in all of this,’ Shulgin said, adding that “attack” was staged by “pseudo-humanitarian NGOs,” which are under the patronage of the Syrian government’s foreign adversaries. Russian radiological, chemical and biological-warfare units carefully examined the scene of the alleged attack mentioned in the NGOs’ reports immediately after the liberation of Douma from the militant groups, Shulgin said. He then drew attention to the fact that the Russian military specialists found “not a single piece of evidence” substantiating the claims about the alleged chemical attack.

So, the people, we the audience, are once again left confused (which is the whole purpose of waging information wars, regardless of the government or political or sectarian camp). Thus, by design.

It’s very simple. You can’t have a false flag attack without there having been an attack at all.

This leads us to the following options:

  • Either RT, Russian state news media, is deliberately catering to the international and specifically US “truthers”, bloggers and activists by using catch phrases like “false flag” to trigger clicks, website traffic and conditioning of foreign audiences at the behest of Russian oligarchs;
  • Or, Russian diplomats don’t know the meaning of “false flag” attack, which is very (very) unlikely;
  • Or, there was no chemical attack but no one can prove either side of the narrative. The US can’t prove there was one and Russia can’t come up with a credible debunking of the UK/US claims (as I point out with this report)

Whatever the case may be, it is again proven that ALL sides in this war are liars and they aren’t worth a single shred of your trust.

But that’s exactly what you would expect to happen in a monostream where shades of opinion are allowed as long as you believe in one of the scripted narratives provided by the wizard(s) in Emerald  City.