Thierry Meyssan a french journalist who moved to Syria.. to report from the war.. and still living there,
have been providing information , behind the scenes from the Syrian war.. since 2011 to 2018...and his information and reports have been very accurate at times.. however his predictions many times never happens.. So he failed to predict NATO future moves most times.. but about when it comes to insider information he have been right most times.
Apparently the attack on Syria according to his sources (inside Syria government and military)
was much more hostile that we though..it was a full scale aggression against Syria .what they planned.
including destroying The Presidential palace that was targeted too.. and Syria air defenses were overwhelm at some point ,forcing Russia to use Electronic warfare to confuse NATO warships and help Syria to deal with the magnitude
of the Attack.. basically he says Russia jammed French Warships and many launchers jammed. This amazing
claim , goes in line with one of Russia top Military General that in sputnik told .it was strange how disorganized
was NATO attack and how rare it was for Russia military that NATO warships had the capability to launch
300 missiles but only fired 105.
So this suggest a connection between Thierry report that Russia blocked many missiles launches from NATO
with the Report of Russian General , mentioning how NATO had Troubles of coordination and how "Strange"
it was that NATO did not fired the 300 missiles ,they had deployed for the attack and instead fired 105..
also he mentioned how rare was that it took NATO so long to do the attack.. more than 1 hour.. to do something
they could do in half.. Theirry also mentions the chasing of British submarines by Russian submarines..
This last info was also reported by SPutnik..
The more time passes since the allied attack against Syria on 14 April 2018, the more the available information reveals the amplitude of the disaster. While the United States still mange to prevent leaks from their armies, those from France are irrevocable. Washington, Paris and London clearly demonstrated that they still intend to rule the world, but they also showed that they no longer have the means to do so.
One week after the allied attack against Syria, very many questions remain unanswered concerning the objectives of this operation and its implementation. And the few established facts contradict the official Western declarations.
The objectives of the bombing
According to the Western version of the story, these bombing attacks were not aimed at overthrowing the Syrian Arab Republic (which they call « Bachar’s régime »), but to sanction the use of chemical weapons.
However, no proof of the use of such weapons has been published. Instead, the three allies each broadcast evaluations based on the original video published by the White Helmets  — a video which was itself later contradicted by many of the people who appear in it, as well as the personnel of the hospital where it was filmed .
On the contrary, we are justified in asking whether the real objective of these raids may indeed have been to overthrow the Republic. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that missiles were fired at the Presidential palace in Damascus. This is also the interpretation by Russia, for whom the real Allied objective was to counter the « success of the Syrian armed forces in the fight to liberate their territory from international terrorism ».
The destruction of the pharmaceutical research centre in Barzeh remains a mystery. This installation was in no way secret. It had been created with the help of France. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspected it five times and found nothing that could be linked to research on chemical weapons . According to officials, in the context of international sanctions, the laboratory was carrying out research on anti-cancer products. It was not guarded, and there were no victims in the collapse of the buildings. Neither did the collapse cause the dispersion of chemical agents into the atmosphere. This situation can not help but remind us of the destruction by the United States of the Al-Shifa factory in Sudan. In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered its destruction, implemented by a salvo of four Tomahawk missiles, for a cost of one dead and ten wounded. The US intelligence services had assured that the laboratory was developing nerve gases for Oussama Ben Laden. It turned out later that it was Sudan’s main centre for the production of generic medicines . In particular, it made anti-AIDS medicine without paying the license to Gilead Science, a company directed by Donald Rumsfeld and George Schultz .
The implementation of the operation
The Allies claim to have fired 105 missiles, while the Russians counted 103 . The coordination between the different armies was handled by NATO, although it claimed no responsibility . In conformity with its statutes, the Organisation acted with the approval of the North Atlantic Council, although this is not yet certain. Indeed, the Council had not been consulted before the bombing of Tripoli (Libya), in 2011, and no-one protested. The aim of this coordination was to ensure that all the missiles fired, whether from the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the air, would all hit their targets at the same moment. However, things did not go as planned – although the Allied operation was to have been finished within half an hour, in fact it took 1 hour and 46 minutes between the first and final shot.
Prior to the attack, Russia had announced that it would riposte if any of its soldiers were killed. The Allied armies were therefore tasked with the mission of being careful to spare them.
However, the Russian army observed the shots and transmitted the coordinates of the Allied missiles to the Syrian Arab Army in real time, in order to allow the Syrians to destroy them. Besides this, when the Syrians became swamped by the number of allied missiles, the Russian army deployed its system for inhibiting the commands and controls of NATO, which paralysed most of their launchers. This was the first time that the French were confronted with this system, which had already caused problems for the United States and the British in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Kaliningrad.
Besides this, two Russian ships left the port of Tartus to play cat and mouse with a British nuclear attack submarine. .
According to the Russian and Syrian staff, 73 missiles were destroyed in flight , a figure which is haughtily contested by the Allied staff. Yet, on the ground , everyone – including myself – could see the activity of the anti-aircraft defense, and no-one saw the impacts of the 105 allied missiles announced.
The Allies immediately specified that any more precise information was classified. However, the specialised forums proffered all sorts of unverifiable revelations about the massive failure of this operation.
The most that we know for certain is that a French plane was unable to fire one of its missiles, and was obliged to jettison it out to sea without triggering it , and that two French multi-mission frigates suffered a computer failure and were unable to fire their naval Cruise missiles  — these are symptoms that are well known by anyone who has had to face up to the Russian inhibitor weapon.
The Syrian defence was over-run by the number of missiles which were fired from every direction. It therefore chose to defend in priority certain targets, like the Presidential palace, and to sacrifice others like the research centre in Bazeh. Since then, Russia has announced that it will be delivering new anti-missile batteries to Syria.
In any case, this operation is clearly the greatest military fiasco since the Second World War.
These bombings are certainly illegal from the point of view of international law – none of the three aggressors has been attacked by the Syrian Arab Republic, and their action was not authorised by the Security Council.
The Allies therefore communicated about the legality of their initiative. This was denied by the legal service of the German Bundestag. . Indeed, apart from the fantastical character of the supposed attack in the Ghouta, this type of bombing in no way guarantees an end to the suffering of the civil population.
As for France, it continually stressed that it was not going to war against « Bachar’s regime » - comments that were immediately contradicted by Syria, which returned President el-Assad’s Grand Cross of the Légion d’Honneur to the Romanian ambassador, who represents French interests in Damascus. « There is no honour for President Assad in wearing a decoration attributed by a slave régime of the United States which supports terrorists », declared the Presidential spokesman.
Some authors close to NATO evoke the « responsibility of protection » (R2P) proclaimed by the UNO. Once again, that’s not the point. In fact, the R2P only applies in order to compensate failed states, which is clearly not the case of the Syrian Arab Republic, whose public services are still functioning after 7 years of war.
Finally, while the United States, France and the United Kingdom showed with this operation that they exist outside of international law, they also showed that their armies are not what they used to be.
Probably the most important report of the aftermath of the NATO attack on Syria..
Now on the subject of the mystery with the destruction of the pharmaceutical research centre in Barzeh.
After looking the images from drones of the damages.. ie.. Does not correlate to the damage of cruise missiles..
ie.. some tall buildings received no damages .but other right next to them collapsed ..
and then we are supposed to believe NATO fired 76 missiles on them?
Now i have 2 theories..
1)Either The missiles attacks were staged between Russia and US ,to help Trump save face , with the
deep state...since they wanted to bomb Syria and send a message to Russia. if this is the case ,this
could allow Trump to silence his enemies ,and show the deep state that is pointless to launch cruise missiles
against Syria.. since they can intercept vast majority of them.. from Russia point of view ,it will be better
a war with a divided weakened US under Trump... with elites divided.. democrats vs republicans. and also give
the reason to Trump that no military solution possible for Syria. if it was all 100% staged fight. then probably
the missiles not even had explosives inside.. just an empty tube ,which will explain the lack of fires and smoke
in Syria after the attack.
2)Or.. that Syria with Russia help intercepted+jammed+blind the missiles to crash early, to 95%- 99% of the missiles.. but to help Trump save face of the total failure of the attack ,something that could force Congress to demand an even larger attack to restore the image of US... Then Russia ordered Syrian army to bomb its own research center with precision artillery ,or just deploy bombs in some buildings base to make them collapse.. and make it look NATO missiles effectively destroyed Assad Chemical Facility.. and allowing Trump to say "Mission accomplish. " Assad got "punished".
It have to be told.. that NATO ,specially France and US ,knew very well there was nothing in the research center
of value.. it was just a pharmaceutical developed by France and inspected by United nations monitors many times
and got cleared... So the attack on the research center was 100% symbolical.. but what is really a mystery for me
is the damages of the research center.. do not appear to be from very powerful missiles.. but that it was an inside Job by Syrian army.. to give something to NATO ,so they can save face.. for their failed attack..and not have to deal with
the Deep State pressure to do another attack.
So Russia disable some launchers of NATO warships and jammed many missiles and nearly defeated vast majority
of the missiles.. from 95% to 99%. and the research center destruction was staged . And it was empty anyway and no longer in use.
im my opinion ,the most likely scenario is #2... NATO failed almost completely the attack 95%- 99%,
and some theater was done after it .. to give NATO a reason to retreat.. since finally Assad "ost its "chemical
stock piles.". with the bombing. but there is a small possibility that the number#1case, was what really happened.
but more likely is #2...with a little bit assurance and coordination to avoid Russian army casualties..
if #2 theory is right.. then NATO Navies will be in very serious trouble ..in real war with Russia.
warships computers can be disable and missiles jammed and intercepted. and british stealth submarines not
so stealthy as it was told....