I continue to believe that the US airstrike on Syria was a big mistake. And I hope I’m wrong.

I outlined my reasons for that belief in an article a few days ago. In short, Assad had no motive to do this but al-Nusra, the rebels trying to depose Assad do have a strong motive. They are on their heels. Assad is winning big, one more reason he has no motive to gas his own civilians.

Combine that with the shakiest evidence that no rookie prosecutor would get away with taking into a court of law and all signs point to Assad being innocent.

In the following video, listen to British PM Theresa May parrot the evidence that the Trump administration used to justify its attack on a sovereign:

  1. Some people have reported that there were government helicopters in the area.
  2. There was a gas attack believed to be by barrel bombs as fragments of barrel bombs were found in the area. “Citing scientific and medical evidence, there could be no doubt that the chemical attack occurred,” May reported to the House of Commons.
  3. “No other group could have carried out this attack,” May declared. “The opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. [ISIS] does not even have a presence in Douma.” Then why the hell would Assad bomb Douma? His fight is with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda offshoot, by the way, not ISIS). Again, Assad had no motive to be there. NONE!

An act of war against a sovereign nation based upon THAT? Really?


  1. John owns a 2014 Mustang.
  2. A 2014 Mustang closely matching the description of John’s Mustang was seen in the vicinity of a murder, even though there is no photographic evidence. Only reports from witnesses whose credibility cannot be confirmed.
  3. John is charged with capital murder.

Add to this analogy that John drove through that area every day but had absolutely no motive to murder the victim.

How long do you think a prosecutor would keep his job prosecuting this case? What jury would convict John based upon that evidence? John would be a “person of interest” pending further investigation, which is exactly what should have been done in this case, except it wasn’t.

From NTK

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Monday that “a significant body of information, including intelligence” points the finger at the Assad regime for the chemical attack on Syrian civilians last week. Further, May accused Russia, along with its partners in the Syrian regime, of attempting to destroy evidence of their complicity in the attack.

Citing scientific and medical evidence, there could be no doubt that the chemical attack occurred, she told the House of Commons.

“The Syrian regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure samples are not being smuggled from this area,” May said. And the prime minister told her colleagues that the Kremlin was conducting “a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack.”

“No other group could have carried out this attack,” she added. “The opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. [ISIS] does not even have a presence in Douma.”

Alongside their American and French counterparts, the U.K. military joined in striking the Assad regime’s chemical weapons capabilities. President Trump indicated that the operation could be ongoing, if Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s forces continue to use chemical weapons.

Think about it. How hard would it be for al-Nusra to get its hands on barrel bombs or manufacture them themselves. They still appear to be well-funded, receiving plenty of money from Iran via Barack Hussein via We the People.

There are many tons of Saddam Hussein’s chemical stockpiles scattered around Syria. It would be very easy for a terrorist organization to offer a few thousand dollars to a Syrian military guard to allow a few pieces of ordnance to slip through the cracks. I’m sure accountability is around zero. Imagine the sensation that using those weapons on civilians, especially children, and blaming it on Assad, would create in the Western press.

I’m not saying that Assad is innocent. He may be guilty. However, no one has provided sufficiently hard evidence that he is, let alone proof. In fact, all of the evidence suggests otherwise, especially motive. Assad had none.

This attack was carried out by terrorists. Assad is not a terrorist.

And, I am not blaming President Trump. I still question the objectivity and reliability of the intel he is receiving. The swamp runs deep!