Elk mens moet tijdens zijn leven risico's nemen.
We doen dat alleen als de mogelijke voordelen groter zijn dan de kans op schade.
Rijk en machtig wordt je alleen als je goed begrijpt wat de risico's zijn die je neemt en wat de schade of het profijt kan zijn. Als je daar goed in bent kun je ver komen.
Maar soms hoef je niet zo slim te zijn om te weten hoe het schade-versus-profijt plaatje er uit ziet: Assad kon helemaal geen profijt behalen door 33 babies en 18 vrouwen te doden met gifgas. Wie de resterende 36 doden zijn is mij niet bekend, maar wellicht de vaders en oudere broers en zusen vabn de getroffen burgers.
Welk nut hebben deze dode burgers voor Assad?
Na 6 jaar oorlog en 6 hjaar lang de belofte van Amerika dat het Assadzo zou vergaan als Ghadaffi ( Assad is met een mes in de anus gestoken en zo vermoord) was er e9indelijk een president die zei : "Assadmag blijven."
Zijn soldaten zijn aan de winnende hand.
Welk persoon gaat dan met gifgas babies en burgers doden?
Wie kiest zo bewust voor zelfmoord na 6 jaar vechten tegen de leugens van de hele media wereld?
Want dàt weet Assad maar al te goed: de Nerocons willen hem nog steeds dood, en die rode gifgaslijn is nog steeds van kracht.
Ik beweer dat we op basis van bovenstaande feiten a priori kunnen weten dat Assad geen gifgas heeft gebruikt.
Precies zoals we a priori weten dat een heel gelukkig iemand geen zelfmoord pleegt.
Extra indirect bewijs ( dat Assad niet schuldig is) is er volop voorhanden.
1. Ook 'Ghouta' zou door Assad gedaan zijn, maar die bewering wordt alleen nog door ongeïnformeerde bronnen herhaald. ( Die zijn er wel heel veel.)
De NYT, nooit verlegen om een leugen te vertellen, durft NU niet meer te beweren dat Ghouta door Assad is gedaan. Ze beweert nu nog wel dat KS door Assad is gedaan, maar als over enkele maanden de waarheid onomsotelijk vast zal staan, zal ze dat ook niet meer durven beweren.
Daar ligt men bij de NYT niet wakker van: zolang 'de massa' maar overtuigd is dat Assad een beest is, vindt men het bij de NYT goed. Herziening van haar standpunt wordt altijd met stille trom gedaan, en wordt dor weinigen opgemerkt.
2. De bronnen die Assad's schuld onderbouwen zijn niet veel waard: Een Turkse mijnheer, een 'afgeluisterd bericht' van de Amerikanen. Een meisje dat in de nacht of vroege ochtend een bom zag vallen en toen gifgas slachtoffers zag. Een Guardian journalist die zegt dat de bom nergens schade aanrichtte en dus alleen gifgas bevatte. Witte Helmen ( gefinancierd door Het Westen dat als in 2001 wist dat Assda kapot moest) die de Sarin slkachtoffers met blote handen aanraken m aar zelf niet ziek worden.
Het is een trieste verzameling ongeloofwaardige bronnen.
Kijk hoe schaamteloos ve Volkskrant bericht geeft: http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/deze-bewijzen-heeft-de-vs-tegen-syrie-van-afgeluisterde-gesprekken-tot-een-drone~a4486632/
Tot slot wil ik de helft van dit artikel hier voledig citeren: http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.nl/2017/04/medialens-trumps-tomahawks-instant.html
Former chief UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter – who defied a false political and media consensus by accurately claiming Iraq had been disarmed of 90-95% of its WMD by December 1998 - wrote:
'Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a "Sarin nerve agent" attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a "pungent odor" and "blue-yellow" clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.'
Indeed, in a much-discussed article, Guardian reporter Kareem Shaheen wrote:
'All that remains of the attack on the town in rebel-held Idlib province is a faint stench that tingles the nostrils and a small green fragment from the rocket.'
But as the BBC reports:
'Sarin is almost impossible to detect because it is a clear, colourless and tasteless liquid that has no odour in its purest form.'
'The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the "White Helmet" personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a "pungent smelling" chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)'
'Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing "evidence" to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented.'History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives.'
Philip Giraldi, a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, who has an impressive track record in exposing fake government claims, commented:
'I am hearing from sources on the ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties.'Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he should already have known - but maybe didn't - and they're afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict.'
'These are essentially sources that are right on top of the issue right in the Middle East. They're people who are stationed there with the military and the Intelligence agencies that are aware and have seen the intelligence. And, as I say, they are coming back to contacts over here in the US essentially that they astonished at how this is being played by the administration and by the media and in some cases people are considering going public to stop it. They're that concerned about it, that upset by what's going on.'
'There was an attack but it was with conventional weapons - a bomb - and the bomb ignited the chemicals that were already in place that had been put in there. Now bear in mind, Assad had no motive for doing this. If anything, he had a negative motive. Trump said there was no longer any reason to remove him from office, well, this was a big win for him [Assad]. To turn around and use chemical weapons 48 hours later, does not fit any reasonable scenario, although I've seen some floated out there, but they are quite ridiculous.'
Our search of the Lexis press database found no mentions of Blix, Giraldi or Ritter in any UK newspaper since the alleged attack in Syria.
THE ART OF 'HUMANITARIAN' WARMONGERING
Is it conceivable that the entire corporate political and media system could be using an unproven, even fraudulent, atrocity claim to justify a case for war?
In October 1990, in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, as the US worked hard to build a case for war, it was claimed that Iraqi stormtroopers had smashed their way into a Kuwait City hospital, ripped hundreds of babies from their incubators and left them on the floor to die. In their book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described how the most powerful and heart-rending testimony came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, initially known only as Nayirah:
'Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City... "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where... babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."'
In fact, Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US. Stauber and Rampton noted that Nayirah had been coached by US PR company Hill & Knowlton's vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado 'in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony'. The story of the 312 murdered babies was an outright lie. Journalist John MacArthur, author of The Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War, commented:
'Of all the accusations made against the dictator [Saddam Hussein], none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.'
In December 1998, Unscom arms inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq at a sensitive time in US politics, as Bill Clinton faced impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton launched a 4-day series of strikes, Operation Desert Fox, the day before his impeachment referendum was scheduled, and called them off two hours after the vote. Scott Ritter, then chief weapons inspector, noted that just prior to the strikes, 'Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis.' (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War on Iraq, Profile Books, 2002, p.52)
In a report published on the second day of bombing, Ritter was quoted as saying:
'What [head of Unscom] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing.'
Ritter said US government sources had told him three weeks earlier that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan and impeachment'. (Quoted, New York Post, December 17, 1998)
As another war loomed in March 2003, in an article titled, 'See men shredded, then say you don't back war' (Ann Clwyd, The Times, March 18, 2003), Labour MP Ann Clwyd claimed that Saddam Hussein's goons were feeding opponents into a machine 'designed for shredding plastic' and dumping their minced remains into 'plastic bags' for use as 'fish food'. As Brendan O'Neil commented in the Guardian, Clwyd had based her story on the uncorroborated claims of 'one individual from northern Iraq. Neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch, in their numerous investigations into human rights abuses in Iraq, had ever heard anyone talk of a human-shredding machine'.
In 2011, Western governments and media were united in demanding action to halt a massacre that Muammar Gaddafi was said to be intending to commit in Benghazi. In 2016, a UK parliamentary committee report found:
'Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence... Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi's 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.'
We could cite numerous similar examples. If we had a free press, a central focus would be to consider any and all new atrocity claims in the light of this remarkable track record of gross deception serving state violence.