Things just keep getting more and more absurd. Is it possible to laugh at the absurdity of the statements made by political leaders, without laughing at the horrible results which may accrue from following through with the absurd statements, suggestions, and decisions? Well I hope so, because I have a strong urge to laugh in mockery and ridicule at some of the things being said regarding the chemical attack in Syria.
After George Zimmerman was found ‘not guilty’ in the Trayvon Martin murder trial, at least one of the jurors lamented that her ‘not guilty’ vote was the fault of that terribly unfair US Constitution. If the Constitution did not insist that a person cannot be found guilty without solid evidence proving his/her guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, she would have been able to ‘follow her heart’ and find George Zimmerman guilty of murder. How terribly unfair that she should be required to base her decision on evidence rather than ‘gut-feelings’ and emotion! 🙄
Well, at least she was willing to actually abide by the Constitution and elementary rules of justice, even though she wished she didn’t have to. It seems that the White House feels such simple rules of justice no longer apply to it, though. It is now acknowledging that despite all of its vociferous claims of the clear guilt of Bashar al-Assad’s Government for the recent chemical attack, it in fact does not have “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” that this is in fact the case. But: “This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,” we are told.
So, in other words, President Obama would have us believe that it is unreasonable to expect him to actually provide evidence of the guilt of the Syrian Government before we launch missile attacks destroying property and killing people. It should be enough for us to “trust” him – take his word for it – and follow his perception of what is “common-sense”!
Are you getting that same almost irresistible urge to laugh out loud that I’m getting?
The problem being faced by the White House is that so many people are refusing to be fooled by him in the same way they were fooled by George W. Bush and company into going along with the invasion of Iraq. We were told that the US Government had incontrovertible evidence of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”; but we needed to “trust” them on that, because for “national security” reasons they couldn’t produce the evidence. What little “evidence” they did produce proved to be fabricated, and was received from “Israel’s” Mossad and Saudi “Intelligence” under Prince Bandar. Barack Obama and John Kerry (and other warmongers) have been spouting the same line (lies) about solid evidence of Bashar Assad’s guilt – but again they’re not producing it. It’s all simply assertions that they have such evidence. See, for example, Rep. Alan Grayson’s article in the New York Times; or this Yahoo News article Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence. Then there is this memorandum for President Obama from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) which not only calls into question the supposed evidence for Assad’s guilt, but insists that the best evidence indicates that the culprits in the attack were the “Syrian rebels”.
So with so many people calling their bluff, as it were, President Obama and friends are backing up and saying they really don’t need solid evidence; “common sense” is sufficient. Of course, what one person considers “common sense”, someone else may consider absurdity.
So what is the “common sense” argument being advocated? (1) The area which was subjected to the chemicals had been occupied for a while by the “rebels”; and (2) the Syrian Government fired missiles at the “rebels” – which the warmongers assert was the method of delivery for the chemicals. So given that it was the “rebels” who were the ‘target’, and the (supposedly) chemical bearing missiles came from the Syrian Government forces, it’s “obvious” who was responsible.
Now as to point #1, very few people, if any, would question that toxic chemicals were released in the claimed area, and that many people died or were otherwise injured by those chemicals (although there is a rather large discrepancy concerning the number of dead and injured). But this fact, as horrible as it is, does not in any way indicate who was responsible for the attack. Yes, everyone would like to see the guilty ones punished; but who are the guilty ones?
Concerning point #2, again no one questions that the Syrian Government forces fire missiles at the “rebels” frequently. What is NOT known, though, is whether any of those missiles were loaded with chemical weapons. That is mere assertion on the part of the warmongers, based on the presupposition that Assad is the guilty party! If Assad is guilty, then yes it stands to reason that the probable method of delivery of the chemicals was the missiles. If Assad is NOT guilty, but instead the rebels themselves released the chemicals as a ‘false flag’, then obviously some other ‘method of delivery’ was involved.
It is this latter premise – that the rebels themselves carried out a ‘false flag’ operation – that many of us consider to be the actual ‘common sense’ argument. Absent overwhelmingly solid evidence to the contrary, we maintain that ‘common sense’ dictates that it would be “impossible” to believe President Assad would be so enormously stupid as to play right into the hands of the warmongers by giving them what they want “on a silver platter” as it were. Currently he is winning the war by conventional means, and so is by no means in so desperate a situation as to practically invite open US and NATO intervention in the war by flagrantly crossing the ‘red line’ set by President Obama.
On the contrary, “common sense” tells us that Obama’s foolish ‘red line’ just provided the warmongers with the perfect opportunity to ‘force the hand’ of the apparently ‘reluctant’ President Obama. All they had to do was set up a ‘chemical weapons attack’ which could be made to appear to originate with the Syrian Government, and then they would have Obama “over a barrel”. He would be in the same position as Herod in the New Testament story of the beheading of John the Baptist. Herod was so thrilled with the dancing of his wife’s daughter that he promised the daughter he would give her anything she asked up to half his kingdom. She went running to her mother to get suggestions as to what to request. Her mother, who deeply hated John, told her to request John’s head on a silver platter. Herod was obviously “in a pickle”; he didn’t want to murder John, but he couldn’t go back on his word either. His promise to his step-daughter won out, and John was killed.
President Obama made just such a foolish promise with his ‘red line’ declaration. All that had to be done by those who desired full-fledged and open US involvement in Syria, was to set up a ‘chemical weapons attack’ which would appear to be Assad’s doing, and Obama would be without any excuse. (US and “Israeli” “Intelligence” agencies have “PhD’s” in lies, deception, and false flags; and Saudi Prince Bandar is no ‘slouch’ in those areas, either).
I maintain that “common sense” would indicate this as a much more likely scenario than that President Assad would launch a chemical attack. And in fact, some of the “rebels” themselves have reportedly admitted that they were responsible for this attack. Prince Bandar provided the chemical weapons to the rebels, with the obvious intent that they would be used. But in this case the scheduled use of the weapons got accidentally moved up when the “rebel” handlers mishandled the chemicals. They say they were not even aware that the weapons were chemicals; and even if they had known, they did not have the training to know how to use them ‘properly’. So they complain that it was Prince Bandar’s fault for not informing them as to what they had and how to handle it properly.
Therefore, I insist that although Obama and his crew may believe that “Intelligence does not work that way”, justice most certainly does demand that “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” is necessary before the USA, NATO, or the UN can destroy property and lives in retaliation for alleged war crimes. But even if one only thinks a “common-sense test” is required, the White House case for war against Syria doesn’t even pass that test! It’s simply laughable, although the consequences of pursuing his absurd agenda are not at all funny.