NATO false flags in Ukraine [and elsewhere]: The debate

From the rush transcript:

Last month, US intel admitted actually NATO member Turkey had false flagged the attack, which killed some 1,400 civilians, to justify invasion. Not a single mainstream outlet reported it.

Source: NATO false flags in Ukraine (E39) — RT The Truthseeker.

Article continues below the video.

That sent me researching just to find out if it was more than I already knew. The following are links I read to double check things plus a little more (they open in new tabs):

  1. New Study Refines View of Sarin Attack in Syria, by C. J. Chivers. Published: December 28, 2013
  2. Whose sarin?, by Seymour M. Hersh. Vol. 35 No. 24 · 19 December 2013. pages 9-12 | 5515 words
  3. Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire: What the legendary reporter gets wrong about Syria's sarin attacks, bY Eliot Higgins. December 9, 2013
  4. The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdogan and the Syrian rebels. Vol. 36 No. 8 · 17 April 2014. pages 21-24 | 5870 words
  5. Whose sarin?, by Jamie Allinson. Letters. Vol. 36 No. 9 · 8 May 2014
  6. It's clear that Turkey was not involved in the chemical attack on Syria: The sources and conclusions used to support Seymour Hersh's argument just don't stack up. The perpetrators lie closer to home, by Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta. theguardian com. Tuesday 22 April 2014
  7. Whose sarin?, by Richard Lloyd and Ted Postol; Spokane, Washington; Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Letters. Vol. 36 No. 10 · 22 May 2014
  8. The Pathetic U.S. Media Coverage: False Flag in Odessa, by Mike Whitney. May 08, 2014


Tom Usher

You decide for yourself. I'm leaning way over on Sy Hersh's side of this whole thing mostly because of his track record of citing intelligence insiders and then the whole truth finally coming out substantiating Sy's reporting, over and over. Why would his sources suddenly become total garbage? It's not credible. They all would have to have been gotten to by the neocons within and without the Obama administration and completely turned just to false feed Sy Hersh. To what end?

Perhaps you'll imagine Sy Hersh has started making it all up as he goes along because his sources have all dried up. You'll have to prove that to me. I've seen such things happen before, but I wasn't buying the author's stories to begin with. They smelled. Sy's writing hasn't smelled. I've questioned his reasoning at times but always left him with the benefit of the doubt, reserved judgment, left myself open to being convinced.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.