Will Americans sacrifice one of their warships to start a major war?

By Jim Jones

For many years now, I have been watching and commenting on events in the Middle East; particularly so now as I see the unfolding of events prophesied in Scripture as End Time Events occurring before my eyes.  No, this is not a Bible Study! However, even the most stubborn atheist would be hard pressed to explain away all current world events as having no relevance to Scripture.

The Middle East has perked my interest as there are so many players and permutations involved as to present a venerable chessboard of possibilities. But here I want to focus just on the current events unfolding in this melodrama around the false flag chemical attack carried out by the White Helmets in Syria and the buffoon response of the West.

I am amazed by the pontificating of supposed Military Experts who go into considerable detail figuring out who would "win" in a limited war between the "West" and Russia/Syria. These guys simply astound me - I have 25 years military service and was a senior Field Rank Officer; I have some knowledge of what I am about to speak but I would never describe myself as some Expert on military matters.  Anyone, remotely connected to the military will know and tell you that there are no certainties in war and the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. [Thank you Robbie Burns].  In the military, we had a term - "the fog of war".  Meaning that once you launch into battle, there is so much that can and does happen which is unscripted and unplanned that you must rely on the training of your troops and the overall battle plan in order to succeed because your plan just went out the window.  These armchair generals who come on talk shows or give their opinions as to the capabilities of various military weapons systems are doing no more than inflating their own self image and generating circulation for the news agencies.  For a start, they are limited in their knowledge of the many systems available and use "best guess" as to the capabilities of as yet, still secret weaponry and its performance.  Their views are clouded by their own horse that they have backed and wished for outcome.  News media use these experts to generate fear  or haughty ideas in the minds of their readers which in its self, generates interest and more circulation.  It is a win-win for the MSM.  It does however, leave the armchair punter with very little concrete information to work with. Let's put aside all the expert opinions you have heard or read about. Let's try and add some subjectivity to the complex issue and approach it with plain old commonsense.

Ask yourself, "what is the cause" of this current emergency?".   What is the casus belli?  Of course, the first thing that will spring to mind is "Assad used poisonous gas against his own people". Well at least that is what the MSM of the West would have you believe. So before progressing further with our analysis of events, let us consider this gross lie. If in 2015, when the government forces were about to collapse and before Russian intervention, IF Assad had used chemical weapons it could have been understood as the last throw of the dice of a collapsing organisation intent on one last final attempt to stave off defeat.  After all, when all else seems lost, what is to lose? But that wasn't the case, in fact if you recall, Russia played an absolutely brilliant political hand and disarmed the chemical weapons issue before it could gain traction by having Assad hand over his chemical stockpile and dismantle his facilitates under international watchdogs. Explain to me, why on earth Assad would now; at a time when he is winning on all fronts using conventional weapons, risk all by using chemical weapons against his own people?  This preposterous proposition that he used chemical weapons simply beggars belief and flies against all sound judgement. The man is a medical doctor, an astute politician and a humanitarian - for him to stoop to such an act when there is absolutely no need to, would be contradictory to his whole character.  Oh yes, I know the MSM of the West call him a butcher, monster etc but they did the same thing to the German people at the start of WWI if you recall, same about Saddam, Gaddafii etc. when in reality such titles belong to the Western leaders who bombed sovereign states into submission under the pretext of bringing democracy to them.  No, there is no doubt whatsoever, this was a false flag exercise carried out with the White Helmet TV production crew, UK/US/NATO and the Israelis.

That being the case, what then was the purpose of it?  Well, does a leopard change its spots?  No. And the UK/US unholy alliance is just the same - they continue a pattern of behaviour which has served them previously.  After each major set-back the Alliance has suffered there has been some provocation.  Aleppo was a good example. Recall the hue and cry in the Western MSM about atrocities in Aleppo; all of this was to distract attention from the real issue - that of a large number of "Western" alliance Special Forces personnel had been caught by the Government forces in Aleppo and had been actively engaged in controlling and providing for the terrorists.  Through coercion/threats to the Assad government and some as yet undisclosed deals, the Alliance troops were ferried out of Aleppo in blacked out busses during the middle of the night. In this way, the West "saved face" and extracted is operators without publicity.  There must have been some "win" for Assad in this but I have failed to find it.  So far, all alleged chemical attacks have been traced back to the Terrorists and Israel/Turkey as the source.  The current situation is no different.

It is my humble opinion that the current claim of chemical attack has the same cause - Western operators have been caught in East Duma; lots of them.  Initially, the West thought that East Duma would be impregnable; the amount of fortification and infrastructure in East Duma was very impressive and we are still learning of the total extent of it. The Western Alliance considered it a "safe haven" for its operators and poured them in there as well as giving them full support.   However, when it became clear that the government forces were gaining the upper hand in East Duma, the West started making a lot of noise in the MSM about Assad, atrocities etc  being committed. The UK especially, ramped up the anti Russian rhetoric in an asymmetrical attack on Russia while the US pushed Petr Poroshenko  to stir events in the Donbas. We had the remarkable accusations from PM May about Russian involvement in poisoning a former Russian agent - one who had served his punishment, been released by Russia and posed no threat whatsoever to Russia.  Make no mistake, all of these events are related. The UK especially wanted to extract its forces from East Duma without public humiliation.

When Assad's forces finally captured East Duma [and in a remarkably swift action] they closed in on and captured many Western agents.  This set the bar higher - the stakes were now getting very high for the West.  Recall who was making the most noise about this initially - Theresa May.  Yes, the resurrected Iron Lady wasn't about to get caught with her pants down in Syria by any upstart Assad.  Something had to be done to secure the [hidden from the public] release of Western agents from Syria. At this point the Anglo Saxon cabal went to their favourite ploy -threat of military action.  In this the UK was woefully short and stood no change of offering any substantial resistance to Assad let alone Russia and Assad.  So Donald trump did what he does best - make a lot of noise.  Rhetoric reminiscent of his bravado against North Korea issued from his mouth and on Twitter.  Generals and his war council held meetings and an attack was imminent - "within the next 10 to 48 hours".  The fleet was dispatched and the Donald Duck placed 100 KM off the coat of Tartus naval base. All of this could be considered quite comical if it was not so serious - or is it serious?  During all of these 'threats" the US high command was in constant contact with Russia.  This in itself signified the level of commitment to the attack.  If the alliance was serious, then they would plan the attack to cause maximum damage and secrecy would be of vital importance. But the US cannot afford a confrontation with Russia which they cannot control the extent of.  Russia made it quite clear that they would respond to the attack if any of their servicemen were killed or injured. Look at the Israeli attack on the Syrian airbase on 9^th April - they made sure they didn't strike any Russian personnel. The saturation bombing campaign that was envisaged [400 odd cruise missiles] held a high probability of going awry. Either in the shooting down/disabling of these missiles or the unfortunate happening of a miss-placed strike and we could be looking at a large scale retaliatory action by Russia.  Iran stated that if Israel participated in it then Iran would join in - who know where this would end up?? No, this was something that the US /Europe did not really want.  Marcon made a hasty visit to Moscow to meet with tzar Putin and in my opinion, to look for a face-saving way out for all; he was appointed the West's man in Moscow.

At this stage, some US senators got in on the act and suggested that Trump did not have lawful authority to commit troops to a war in Syria without the approval of Congress and so we now have the laughable situation where from having an attack "imminent, within the next 10 to 48 hours; it is now "I never gave a time for it".

I urge you to take the time to fully analyse the all events surrounding the Syrian crisis and rather than relying on experts to tell you what they think is happening - use your own perspicacity; take the time to look at all the events and try to join the dots. It's not that hard really, once you get out of the MSM frame of mind.

And by-the-way, what do you think the purpose was of placing the USS Donald Cook {Donald Duck] 100 km off the coast at Tartus?  This actually makes no military sense; the Donald Duck has Tomahawk missiles with a range of circa 2,500 km.  It could safely sit on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea and still reach targets inside Syria without putting itself in danger of Land to Sea missiles based at Tartus.  It carried no special eavesdropping or spying capability so no need to be so close.  Really, it was posted there as some sort of target.  Perhaps this was the idea; another casus belli but this time for an attack against Russia rather than Assad??  It would not be the first time the Yanks have resorted to sacrificing one of their ships to start a war - they did it to secure the Philippines [USS Maine in Havana Harbour].  They did it at Pearl Harbour with the Japanese. Like I said earlier - "does a leopard change its spots?".  Sit back and think about it - what possible good does it serve placing one of your ships in harm's way when there is no need to?

Really people - wake up; start thinking.

Jim Jones