We have an "airtight circumstantial case", they said.
So now the U.S. is "preparing to declassify" their intelligence report which proves (sort of) that Assad used chemical weapons. This magical intelligence report strangely hasn't been presented to the U.N. security council which the U.S. is trying to do an end run around despite the U.S. claiming to have had this report the entire time. Not to mention, remember when the U.S. and Turkey said they "had evidence" months ago about a chemical attack? Where's that evidence again?
The U.S.'s plan to shock the world into blind support of another illegal war of aggression isn't going over too well. One would imagine that they had hoped to start "droppin' bombz" before the public stepped back and started to question events. TOO LATE! The public, especially in Britain, remembering the
Of course the mainstream media (and unfortunately some mislead bloggers who I've seen refer to the idea that the "western backed" rebels would attack the Syrian people with chemical weapons as a pretense for war as a "crackpot conspiracy theory" - despite a report back in January claiming exactly that) continues to refer to Iraq as a mistake even though it was revealed long ago it was in fact a bold-faced lie by the Bush Administration and likewise continue to repeat the "it's not possible that the rebels could have deployed these weapons" mantra. Not possible eh?
Government narratives are fun. You are being lead to believe that the rebels, a "ragtag group of fighters" can not pull off a major attack yet at the same time the government narrative for the "war on terror" is that some ragtag group of "terrorists" somehow managed to pull off the largest attack in recent history. The rebels are the terrorists that pulled off that amazing attack (if you believe the government narrative). Of course to believe the current narrative you must also believe the 9/11 narrative, so which is it? Are they just a bunch of disorganized fighters or are they the evil geniuses we've been "fighting" and violating international law in the process for the last decade?
This is called double-think, holding two completely contrary opinions in your mind at the same time. They can not both be true, yet you are meant to believe they are. This narrative falls apart further when one discovers that Turkey has already caught the "rebels" attempting to carry out a chemical weapon attack there. Isn't it interesting though that when a NATO country uses chemicals to oppress dissent that's perfectly ok?
We are now being told that any strike will be "punitive" and not meant to topple Assad or "give the rebels the advantage" nor is it "taking sides". Of course we are certainly on the side of the "rebels" since we dismiss the very idea that they could be responsible without a shred of evidence to back the claim. Of course any strike is a move to topple Assad, if not directly, as the "western backed" rebels are aiming to topple Assad and it's not like a military strike on Assad will make him stronger. So yup, we're meant to believe that despite the U.S. training the "rebels" to topple Assad, that despite the U.S. becoming upset with Israel that they did not attack Syria in 2006, and that despite the U.S. moving forward with oil licenses in the highly contested Golan this strike has nothing to do with "taking sides". This is in the face of ever-increasing support of the rebels by the western nations as they continue to lose ground to Assad's forces.
As I said before, at this point how could anyone believe western governments about anything? Pretty simple: you can't.
Click here to recommend this post on progressivebloggers.ca and help other people find this information.
Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.
Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.