The Idlib chemical attack in Syria was a desperate attempt to reignite a war in Syria.

It was a catalyst. A fraudulent pretext, and a false flag.

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The past year or so in Syria has decisively pushed out the al-Qaeda lite forces while simultaneously diminishing U.S. influence there as Russia has become the de facto regulating force in the region, making its own bilateral deals with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

But American objectives are not to be forgotten, and somehow they will be met.

The phony chemical attacks of 2013 and the phony chemical attacks of 2017 were both engineered to garner public support for an attack on Syria, and for ousting Assad to meet the objectives of a secretive agenda.

The effort failed in 2013 after Congress got cold feet about launching another war, and the public spoke out in overwhelming opposition to more war.

In 2017, President Trump acted so quickly that a public dialogue was not possible. No one waited for evidence, inquiries or proof of the deeds done.  Instead, it was a hasty pretext to do exactly what cheated presidential candidate Ron Paul suggests was done to prevent ‘peace from breaking out’…

via RT:

“A victory of neo-conservatives” – that’s how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon.

Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus’ guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.

“I don’t think the evidence is there, at least it hasn’t been presented, and they need a so-called excuse… our government and their coalition.”

“If any of this was true, I don’t know why they couldn’t wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn’t go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can’t think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it’s helping ISIS, because it’s helping Al-Qaeda.”

“From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. […] “I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn’t want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on.”

Every indication points to the fact that this was a false flag pretext to bomb Syria – designed to keep the U.S. engaged in the region, and upping the ante with direct intervention, all while being engineered to give President Trump a little bump in the polls.

Perhaps more importantly, it earned Trump a few points and pats on the back from the establishment media – who quickly sang his praises in unison after striking Syria, completely reversing on their constant derision of him just before.

Launching a strike, and assuming the role of Commander in Chief means fulfilling his real campaign promises, the ones that really count. Not the ones he made in stadiums and arenas and debates, but the promises he made when he struck a deal. That’s business.

In the world of the Deep State, Donald Trump just became a made man… now that he has launched missiles, true presidential material.

Never mind that just a week before, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the world that Assad could stay for now. Nobody seems to have tipped him off that there was about to be a 180; or perhaps it was this statement that triggered a coup within the system.

They wagered, rightly, how the President would react.

“I don’t believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it’s hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty.”


There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we’re there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess.

“The peace talks have ended now. They’re terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don’t expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future.”

More important questions hang in the balance:

You Might Like

Will this break out into wider war? Are the rumors true that Trump will inevitably send in ground troops? Or is there a master strategy in the works? Who is steering this dangerous game? The POTUS? The generals? The deep state? A shadow advisor?

Courtesy of