Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?” The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting.
They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card – the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other – the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.
The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.
Could that happen?
Maybe.
Let’s hope so.
But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.
That is about the last thing that we need right now.
The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post…
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.
If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.
If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.
So why in the world should the United States get involved?
This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.
Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.
And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.
And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.
If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.
So all of those “pro-Israel” websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are “pro-Israel”, you should not want this war. It would not be good for Israel.
If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.
War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?
If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this…
It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.
And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad…
Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.
Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond.
Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.
And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of “defense readiness” from “five” to “two” in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen…
Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad’s government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.
Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness has been raised to “two” from “five”, a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. “One” is the highest level of alert.
And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?
According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis…
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.
And this is someone that isn’t just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, “Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.”
The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak’s bombshell findings…
The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.
Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin…
Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”
It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.
But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:
As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.
The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”
At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
Are you starting to get the picture?
The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.
And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.
According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.
And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria…
Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.
However, is is clear that he is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress – even if they vote against it – or the American people stop him.
Let’s just hope that he doesn’t start World War III in the process.
If War Incorporated wants us to go to war, then we’ll be going to war! Besides, this all another dog and pony show to distract us away from the IRS, Benghazi, ObamaCare, etc. The big downside is that we might actually end up in WWIII as a result.
Just reaffirms my belief that Obama’s job is to do as much damage to America as he can for as long as he can, even if it means getting us into another war or WWIII. Do NOT be surprised if he launches an attack against Syria regardless of what Congress says or does.
As Ovomit is totally a creature of the Saudis and their allies, as well as bowing to the Saudi King, a US attack on Syria is a certainty.
Ovomit just has to generate enough “outrage” and make sure the timing doesn’t conflict with his tee time.
Book it.
[img]http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/24970[/img]
Frightening Obama and Heinz’s bitch are running the bandwagon to Armageddon. That’s what happens when you elect someone (or hire someone) based on their skin color instead of their experience. There’s no telling how many more fuck-ups our incompetent imbecile president is going to get us into before everything collapses.
Rodeo Clown Diplomacy
[img]http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/24977[/img]
I wonder if Iran or Syria rained down a few cruise missiles on DC if we would consider it a “Police Action” like Obama and some in Congress claim a similar attack on Syria would be called. Perhaps it depends on whose bull is getting gored.
First: The Saudis had better be prepared for a lose of income form oil because of the threats from Iran and Russia to bomb Saudi oil sites if there is an invasion of Syria.
Then there is the threat from the Iranians to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The Egyptians can close the Suez Canal anytime.
And Israel will likely get bombed this time.
An oil shortage would take prices to new highs and maybe rationing. Then the US would have a war AND a collapsing economy to deal with.
Killer blow: Countries start dumping US Bonds and Treasuries, destroying the petrodollar..
And there is always the possibility of a nuclear 3rd world war.
I had a long conversation with my father last night about Syria and its role in the global playing field.
Syria is trying its damnedest to be the Archduke Ferdinand for the coming conflict. It would be too easy for things to kick off and start snowballing.
We might not end up fighting with China (directly) in this conflict, but we will absolutely be fighting the Russians yet again.
And now it looks like Weepy No Balls Boehner is going to back Obama’s drive to bomb Syria.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/boehner-im-going-support-presidents-call-action-syria_752675.html
I fucking swear, whenever Obama meets “privately” with his so-called “opposition”, they fucking change their story.
What goes on in those private meetings must be either snake charming on a cosmic scale or brass knuckle blackmail. Or just plain old swapping the bodies like attack of the body snatchers.
Or they get clued into the fact that the US is on the brink of fiscal collapse and they had better get on board the WAG THE DOG Kubuki Dance toot sweet.
Rubio, McCain, Graham, Boehner – no matter the issue, once they meet with Obama, they change their tune. Fuck ’em.
[img[/img]
I dont suppose anyone has bothered to ask why were helping the Saudis?
Could it be because were hopelessly addicted to fossil fuel and the saudis can make us dance to any tune they like?
Hey, Iran isnt going to help us anythime soon.
All the poppycock about us being Israels bitches etc…. and the powerful Israeli lobby, as it turns out was just that, poppycock!
Its our own damm fault for allowing our selves to become dependent on fossil fuel.
Yep, fucking brain dead morons getting brain washed everywhere!
Of course it wouldnt hurt us none to stand by long time allies, not disclosing any names uh ISRAEL ooops just a little slip, who have been there for us but we got President fuckwad Obama leading from behind his fucking tele prompter cheering on the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.
Way to go idiot progressive liberals….
Syria – Cui bono? Part 1
By Golem XIV on September 1, 2013in latest
Once again the current rulers of the USA have decided some little dusky-brown skinned people need to be saved from some other dusky-brown skinned people. Once again they’ll be saving them by bombing. Carefully, of course, and with every effort made to kill only the bad brown ones and not the good brown ones, and in a strictly limited numbers. It’s going to be another one of those Shock, Awe and Mutilate humanitarian gestures by a regime which specializes in them. Never, I think, has any regime been so consistently ‘called upon by history’ and its own ‘moral beliefs’ to save so many people so often in such an explosive manner.
A NOTE ON REGIME v GOVERNMENT – I have noticed that when our leaders approve of the people running a country those people get called ‘the government’ while those they do not approve of seem to get called ‘the regime’ instead. And of course our ever compliant and rarely questioning media always obligingly use whichever term is fed to them allowing the manipulation to go unchallenged. The regime/government difference has nothing to do with democratic or not – Saudi is not democratic but is always either ‘the rulers of’ or ‘the government of’, but never ‘the regime’. So I thought I would simply reverse the manipulation for a while to see how it feels.
The run up to the Iraq war was based on telling lies. This time the run up to war is based on trying to ensure no one asks ‘Why’, ‘What for’ and ‘Cui Bono’ (Who benefits)?
The use of limited questions
The regimes in America, Britain and France want you to fixate on a simple question – did the Assad regime use chemical weapons? And they want to convince you that the answer to this question is of purely moral importance to them. As deeply moral and caring people – and a nobel peace prize winner himself – Mr Obama wants to establish that unlike other people, other ‘regimes’, he and his democratic government, his “Shining City on the Hill” to quote President Reagan’s famous speech, have no grubbier motives, no hidden agenda or real politik policy objectives. Our enemies, the ‘evil doers’ may have ulterior motives – in fact they always do. We don’t. We are simple moral crusaders – sorry, not crusdaers,err.. liberators! Yes, that’s it.
To this end Mr Obama declared in August 2012, that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a ‘Red Line’. The Red Line idea caught on. A month later Mr Netanyahu used it and drew his own Red Line in a speech at the UN about Iran’s quest for nuclear technology. ‘Red Lines’, ‘Lines in the Sand’, plus ca change. “Change you can believe in”? Kiss my arse!
Why are lines in the sand and red lines so popular? They make the world a simple place. If you can accept them they enclose you in a world where there are no complex criss-crossing of motives and policies, no need to wonder ‘who benefits?’ There are just clear lines, with right on one side and wrong on the other. They are easy to get into a sound bite, visually memorable and easy for a compliant media to sell to the hard-of-thinking. What is not to like, when you want to have people forget to ask any questions?
And our media have talked about virtually nothing else but these red lines and whether we have proof or not that they have been crossed. They have been so focused on this quest for proof they have offered nearly no deeper analysis. A simple cover has been pulled over all the real complexities of who is after what.
Of course having proof sounds so right. Who could argue with it? The problem is that in the real world proof in human affairs is often so elusive that the quest for it quickly degenerates into claim and counter-claim. What I belive we are in danger of losing sight of, as a result of this insistence on proof, is analysis. Proof that some action or event took place does not guarantee that you understand WHY it happened. For that you need analysis. But I have begun to feel that our governments don’t like analysis because anyone can do it. It is democratic. Whereas insisting on proof is a convenient thing for those who claim to have it but cannot show it to us because it is too…secret.
It seems ot me that those same people who insist on proof have taken to dismissing any analysis they don’t like as ‘conspiracy theory’. In fact I wonder if analysis as a whole is being slowly demonized as conspiracy. I want to argue that proof is great where you can get it. But to make a fetish of it and forget analysis is to surrender to authority. It is not proof we need but understanding.
What is being covered over?
1) History
The US regime says it now has proof of chemical weapons use and who used them and therefore, according to Secretary of State- John Kerry, quoted in The Guardian,
“We can not accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale,..”
Which sticks in the throat a little. Formerly classified documents seen by Foreign Policy Magazine show very clearly that the American military and intelligence machine has been quite happy to see chemical weapons used when those using them were their allies – as was the case in the 1980′s when the US smiled upon Sadam Hussein’s use of gas against the Iranians.
From Foreign Policy’s excellent article,
Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.
Thousands of Iranian troops died. And when the same weapons were used again in 1988, this time to gas Iraqi civilians, there was not a murmur of moral concern in the regimes in America and Europe. A friend of mine was one of the scientists who did the work on those gas attacks and remembers the indifference and denial.
But of course today the gas attacks are by a someone our rulers no longer like and therefore, in Mr Kerry’s mind,
“History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction,..”
Funny how history in America is always very closely aligned with American foreign policy. Anyway, Mr Kerry said he would present a compelling case, which was supposed to be in the document released along with his speach. Only the document is long on assertion of who was responsible and mostly devoid of actual proof.
Mr Kerry and the regime he serves are nevertheless quite certain. History, apparently is also certain. British intelligence is not. The document compiled by the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee said, there was only
…some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack,..a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks.
Perhaps I am missing it but nothing in that shouts ‘Proof’.
2) confusing proof of use with proof of perpetrator
Let’s be clear. Proof that chemical weapons were used is quite different from proof of who used them. The former is a questions of chemical residues. The latter requires eyewitnesses, photographs or video showing who used them or a confesssion from those who used them. Nothing else is proof.
Falling short of actual proof you can offer a case based on showing who had the means, the opportunity and the motive. But of course all that pulls back the cover of the simple ‘ask no questions and offer no analysis’ and opens up a real debate.
So what do we know? Early on there were reports of chemical attacks. The US was quick to seize upon them. At the time the video evidence did not suggest organophosphates (Sarin and other modern gases are organophosphates). The most tell tale thing to look for is pin-point pupils. In the early attacks the videos showed lots of distressing frothing and choking but not pin-point pupils. There were reports from people in the affected areas saying they smelt Chlorine. So it seemed likely that someone got their hands on industrial chemicals including chlorine and perhaps other nasty chemicals such as insecticides and simply used them in home made mortars and rocket payloads.
More recently videos have shown adults and children dying and some of them did appear to have pin-point pupils. Obviously a less ambiguous proof would be an actual sample, which should be possible to get. When Sarin breaks down, one of the residues produced is isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), which is specific only to Sarin. Find it and you have proof Sarin was used. The French say they have such samples from as long ago as April. Brought to them, they say, by journalists working in Syria for the French newspaper Le Monde. The French claim they have a full audit trail of who had the samples and where and so can guarantee the samples were not tampered with. The French may be telling the truth or they could have tampered with the samples to get the result they wanted. The French have a very definite agenda and interest which I’ll come back to.
For what it’s worth the French let the UK Chemical Warfare group at Porton Down test the samples and they concurred the tests showed positive for IMPA.
The only reliable non-government agency on the ground in Syria that has spoken up is Medicins Sans Frontieres. They have by far the most people on the ground who see and treat the actual casualties and have the best relationships with local hospitals and doctors and are, in my opion a trustworthy oragnization.
In a press release on 24th August 2013 they said,
MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.
So some sort of neurotoxic agent has probably been used and if we believe the French it was Sarin. But no one has proof of WHO was responsable. That is what Mr Kerry and the Obama regime should have said but didn’t.
3) Various groups might have been responsible.
We don’t have proof so we should proceed carefully as a good detective would do – Means, Opportunity and Motive.
The Assad government.
They have the means. They are one of the few countries which have not signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Five countries have not signed at all, two have signed but never ratified. The two are Israel and Burma, the five are Syria, Egypt, South Sudan, North Korea and Angola.
Chemical weapons are far simpler to use than nuclear or biological. They are the poor man’s mass and indiscrimiate murder weapon. They can be delivered by most means, from mortar to missile. All you need to do is be careful not to break the container while you are still handling it, make sure the wind disperses it where you want it (simple enough if you fire it far enough away from your own side) and make sure the explosion disperses but does not destroy the chemical.
In Syria the delivery may have been by plane, missile/rocket or mortar. There have been several claims of unguided missile attacks in the past and the US document concentrates on a recent rocket attack which it thinks was carrying a chemical payload.
Motive is the troubling bit for the Assad regime. Various experts and commentators (see second half of article) have pointed out that it made little or no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons which would not achieve any decisive military objective but would certainly bring down international condemnation upon their heads and would cross Mr Obama’s red line. Of course someone, senior or junior, still could have.
The Rebels
Back in May the US regime (gets to be insulting doesn’t it) was already claiming Assad’s forces were using chemical weapons. So it was an almighty embarrasment when a former Swiss Atorney-General, Carla Del Ponte, now a member of a UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria that had been working in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and people working in field hospitals, said they felt there was growing evidence of gas attacks but by rebel forces. Reuters quoted her and the Obama regime was in danger of looking like what it was.
Since then the US has just ignored the UN evidence.
Some time later RT reported that Assad’s forces had found a storehouse of rebel chemicals which it suggested was proof of rebel chemical use. In my opnion it was just a poor piece of propaganda. The report said there were “toxic substances” including Chlorine, “corrosive substances”, which, it quoted Syria’s UN ambassador as saying, were
“capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country.”
Capable of destroying the whole city? Unlikely. Among the bottles of chemicals the embedded video shows are bags of caustic soda. With which you could clean a whole city perhaps but not destroy it. The article then gives the names of two other chemicals it says were found: monoethylene glycol and polyethylene glycol. The former is rated as moderately toxic. It is used as the coolant in fridges and air-conditioning. The latter is used, among other things, in laxatives and in hospitals for whole bowel irrigation. To destroy a whole city that way would be messy, smelly and traumatic, but difficult.
It seems to me that both Rebels and Assad, are aware of what a coup it would be if they had ‘proof’ showing the other side using gas. So far both sides have provided propaganda and asssertion rather than proof.
Do the rebels have the means to use chemical weapons? They might well do. They could have seized government stores or been supplied by others. There are plenty of claims that Saudi or Qatar have provided the rebels with chemical weapons. The most recent published on 29th August by MintPress News says the very attack the US regime blames on Assad and holds up as the atrocity over which the US will go to war, was in fact carried out by rebels who admit it was them.
The article begins,
As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
It then goes on,
…from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack.
The article describes how chemical weapons were smuggled in through tunnels by rebels who did not understand what they were carrying and there was an accident.
The reporter who spoke to the rebels, families and victims on the ground in Ghouta in Syria was Yahya Ababneh. The article was written for MintPress News by Dale Gavlak, who is a freelance journalist who has in the past worked for AP. Is the report true? Or are the journalists lying or being fed lies? Sadly the endless lies of the Iraq War and the financial crisis have ensured that no one believes anyone.
I believe this means we cannot and should not hope that some report, some ‘proof’ is going to appear and be so conclusive that we will all accept it and all arguments will be over. I believe, therefore, our only hope for clarity is to try to understand the broader context in which all these conflicting claims and warring factions exist and focus not on ‘is this or that report or claim true, do we have proof?, because we won’t. Instead of looking for proof which is always elusive and always contested, we should look for understanding. And the key to understanding is motive, which is there just beneath the surface.
So back to Means, Opportunity and Motive.
If the rebels were given chemical weapons would they they have the means to deliver them? it’s not impossible. A mortar, small artillery shell or rocket will do.
Do they have the motive? They certainly have a far stronger motive than the Assad side. The rebels know if they can make it look as if the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, then they have given Mr Obama the excuse he needs. So they have every motive. All that would stand in their way is common humanity and care for innocent victims. Both of which are commonly in short supply in war.
So far I have been using the term ‘rebels’ much as our media and governments use it – lazily. The use of the term ‘rebels’ suggests they are a uniform bunch. It suggests they are Syrians opposed to Assad. In fact the ‘rebels’ are not all Syrian and though they are united in opposition to Assad they are certainly not all on the same side. They have one common enemy but serve different masters who have different agendas. And this is where we begin to do what our rulers have been keen to prevent – look at the real complexities of who is working for whom and for what advantage.
I am sorry this has been so long but I felt if I jumped straight to offering my analysis without addressing what has been claimed and how the whole issue has been carefully framed as a quest for ‘proof’ then my analysis would founder because people would feel I had not addressed any of the questions our masters claim are the essential ones. I felt I had to show why I felt their approach was wrong before I offered the beginnings of what I hope is better.
@napari says, “…I dont suppose anyone has bothered to ask why were helping the Saudis?..”
I have.
Dick Cheney, proven ties.
Bush I & II, proven ties
Clintons, both of them, plus various other administration members, lots and lots and lots of money.
My assumption is also Blair, Netanyahou, and scores of other world “leaders” drunk on the easy money from the house of Saud and until recently, China.
Plus, I’m sure the Ob amas are already on the gift-giving, future speech presenting list.
The evidence of this collusion is decades old and runs deep. The complete and utter refusal to find it repugnant and corrupt is why they think we will continue to stand by mutely.
They are probably right.
We are so fubar. So very fubar. Every part of me is screaming “stock up! prepare! this is it!” and I’ve been silenced from even suggesting it.
So I wait. It sucks. Such is life.
[img[/img]
[img[/img]
Who benefits from a strike on Syria? Apparently Raytheon, the manufacturer of cruise missiles …
[img[/img]