On several occasions we have seen false flag gas attacks in Syria blamed on the Assad government in an effort to justify US intervention. The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Except of course, when US and its allies use them. The false flags are used to drum up anger and resentment when innocent civilians are massacred in barbaric ways, but what of the White Phosphorous (WP) attacks?

Is there really any difference?

Whether it's Sarin gas from US ratlines starting in Libya, through Turkey and Qatar that end up being used in false flags by US supported terrorists or WP being dropped over a city in US airstrikes, it is the US and its allies who employ these horrific weapons they so despise.

As US backed forces creep into Raqqa, currently held by ISIS, video footage has been released showing the trade mark 'medusa' effect produced by White Phosphorous munitions. White phosphorous is banned for use in civilian areas but the toxic weapon is classified as an ' incendiary weapon' which allows for its use for illuminating and smoke screening purposes. The phenomenon could also be produced by another banned weapon, cluster bombs, in either case it suggests that illegal weapons are being used in the battle for Raqqa.

ALM News - Video Link

@v4vapid archive

Is White Phosphorus a Chemical Weapon?

Raqqa

ISIS has been engaged in ongoing street battles with the Syrian and Russian forces. The US has been supplying and funding the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) with heavy weaponry, supplies, intelligence and air support. The US military maintains that their involvement is necessary in the eradication of ISIS from Raqqa and the region.

The US has taken the liberty to also bomb pro-government forces in US designated 'deconfliction zones'. These 'deconfliction zones' have not been authorized by Syria or Russia and pro-goverment forces claim that the zones classified by the US provide a justification for attacking Syrian forces entering the area.

Additionally, there are reports of mounting civilian casualties and growing concerns about what the ultimate strategic goal is for Syria after Raqqa has been taken and if and when ISIS is defeated.

Dividing Syria

There is growing speculation that the end game of US military now has shifted from regime change to a partitioning of Syria.

The plan, which was not drafted by the Syrians, would allow the U.S. to draw dividing lines across the entire nation and redistribute key oil and gas resources within Syria to the sectarian group of its choosing. In addition, the plan would give the majority of Syrian territory to Sunni Muslims, a region that would likely be governed by a “council” comprising U.S.-backed Sunni militant groups, nearly all of which have the stated intention of creating a radical Wahhabi theocracy that would likely end up waging new conflicts with the other autonomous regions.

Partition-style “nation-building” is not a new tactic, having previously been used by Western imperial powers in Africa to weaken the continent through the use of internal conflict caused by manufactured sectarianism and subsequently making Africa’s rich resources more exploitable. Syria is no exception, as the conflict itself, far from being a “revolution,” has been about weakening Syria and dividing it along sectarian lines to make its own oil and gas reserves – as well as its strategic position – more exploitable.

Source: Anti Media

This map shows roughly how a balkanized Syria would look like divided along ethnic lines-

Whatever the end goal is, the potential for a wider conflict across the entire middle east is growing by the day.