Sunday, September 22, 2013

The onus always has to be on the warmongers to make their case for war

Fisk:  "Gas missiles 'were not sold to Syria'" (note that this makes the chemical attack in Syria part of the wider Benghazi scandal):
"While the Assad regime in Damascus has denied responsibility for the sarin gas missiles that killed around 1,400 Syrians in the suburb of Ghouta on 21 August, information is now circulating in the city that Russia's new "evidence" about the attack includes the dates of export of the specific rockets used and – more importantly – the countries to which they were originally sold. They were apparently manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1967 and sold by Moscow to three Arab countries, Yemen, Egypt and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libya. These details cannot be verified in documents, and Vladimir Putin has not revealed the reasons why he told Barack Obama that he knows Assad's army did not fire the sarin missiles; but if the information is correct – and it is believed to have come from Moscow – Russia did not sell this particular batch of chemical munitions to Syria.
Since Gaddafi's fall in 2011, vast quantities of his abandoned Soviet-made arms have fallen into the hands of rebel groups and al-Qa'ida-affiliated insurgents. Many were later found in Mali, some in Algeria and a vast amount in Sinai. The Syrians have long claimed that a substantial amount of Soviet-made weaponry has made its way from Libya into the hands of rebels in the country's civil war with the help of Qatar – which supported the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi and now pays for arms shipments to Syrian insurgents."
and (the logic here is impeccable, and, I believe, determinative of Syrian government innocence; my emphasis in red):
". . .grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad's army. While these international employees cannot be identified, some of them were in Damascus on 21 August and asked a series of questions to which no one has yet supplied an answer. Why, for example, would Syria wait until the UN inspectors were ensconced in Damascus on 18 August before using sarin gas little more than two days later – and only four miles from the hotel in which the UN had just checked in? Having thus presented the UN with evidence of the use of sarin – which the inspectors quickly acquired at the scene – the Assad regime, if guilty, would surely have realised that a military attack would be staged by Western nations.
As it is, Syria is now due to lose its entire strategic long-term chemical defences against a nuclear-armed Israel – because, if Western leaders are to be believed, it wanted to fire just seven missiles almost a half century old at a rebel suburb in which only 300 of the 1,400 victims (if the rebels themselves are to be believed) were fighters. As one Western NGO put it yesterday: "if Assad really wanted to use sarin gas, why for God's sake, did he wait for two years and then when the UN was actually on the ground to investigate?"
"Evidence Contradicts the Assertions of the Obama Administration & the entire US Intelligence Community"  Severe problems with the video evidence of the alleged atrocity.  Since the analysis is by a Christian nun, the Jew-controlled media has to tread carefully when casting aspersions.

"Retraction and Apology to Our Readers for Mint Press Article on Syria Gas Attack"  The alternative explanation is like a cloud of toxic gas.  Note also the massive amount of aspersion casting by Brian Whitaker, none of which has anything to do with the truth or falsity of the original reporting:
  1. "Syria 'rebel chemicals' mystery deepens"
  2. "Syria 'rebel chemicals' story gets weirder"
  3. "Yahya Ababneh exposed".
    Syria 'rebel chemicals' story gets weirder
Brian Whitaker
Brian Whitaker
We must never forget that the onus always has to be on the warmongers to make their case for war.  They have to provide conclusive proof. Syria doesn't have to do the impossible and prove it did nothing wrong any more than Iraq should have had to prove it had non-existent WMD or Libya should have had to prove it wasn't - or wasn't going to! - massacre innocent civilians.  We've been taught that even the most insane and illogical and unproved allegations are enough to lead to war.  War is the worst thing in the world.  Iraq and Libya, once fairly decent places to live for most people, are now completely and permanently wrecked by the lies of the warmongers, and it was only some quick Russian thinking that saved Syria from a similar fate based on similar lies.  The warmongers are trying to save their reputations by casting aspersions on the truth-tellers so the warmongers may be ready for their next series of lies.
blog comments powered by Disqus