Depravity Redefined: Selling US Slaughter in Syria
September 10, 2013
Tony Cartalucci / PressTV & Global Research & David Kravets / Wired Magazine
The corporate interests driving the United States, its resources, and policy, have invoked dead children in the latest and grisliest propaganda campaign yet, directed at the American public to build support for an otherwise unjustified and universally unwanted war with Syria.
(September 8, 2013) -- The corporate interests driving the United States, its resources, and policy, have invoked dead children in the latest and grisliest propaganda campaign yet, directed at the American public to build support for an otherwise unjustified and universally unwanted war with Syria.
The headline of CNN's "First on CNN: Videos show glimpse into evidence for Syria intervention," suggests that by watching the grotesque videos, some sort of evidence exists to justify an assault on Syria. Instead, the videos only show yet again, the crime, and only the crime -- a crime which no one, including the Syrian government, denies occurred.
What is missing, as has been the case since the US leveled accusations against the Syrian government on August 21, 2013, is any evidence at all as to who actually committed this crime.
Even upon reading the US' own assessments of the incident reveal there is no evidence. The best the US can say is [emphasis added]:
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.
Assessing with "high confidence" is not enough to execute a single criminal within the US justice system, yet somehow is enough to justify a military assault on a sovereign nation on the other side of the planet, which poses no threat to the United States, and will inevitably lead to the death of Syrian soldiers and civilians, while assisting sectarian extremists, many of whom openly pledge allegiance to Al Qaeda.
At face value, the US has no case against Syria, and no credibility after habitually using equally tenuous evidence as justification for military assaults against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and beyond.
That CNN is using dead children as "evidence" indicates that the dubious media outlet is attempting to manipulate the American public on the most visceral emotional level possible to sell a war the corporate interests CNN represents desires.
CNN and other Western outlets, have been caught overtly fabricating stories throughout the subversion of Syria, starting in 2011 when they disingenuously portrayed the flooding of Syria with armed extremists as the "Arab Spring," up to and including featured interviews with "Syria Danny," who was later revealed to be staging gun fire in the background of theatrical (and fabricated) casualty reports given to CNN's Anderson Cooper.
Exploiting dead children to manipulate the public emotionally enables the US to circumvent not only its absolute lack of evidence, but hopefully the myriad of logical conclusions an otherwise rational, intelligent person might draw.
Regarding US Claims
US Claim #1: The Syrian "Regime" Used Chemical Weapons in a Desperate Bid to Save Damascus.
Reality: The US claims in its assessment that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in a desperate struggle for Damascus:
The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital.
The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime's frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.
Yet it appears that mostly women and children were the victims of the attack -- apparently killed in the middle of the night while they slept.
The US and its collaborators expect the world to believe:
that the Syrian government risked using chemical weapons in Damascus, under the nose of UN inspectors, to clear out stalwart "opposition" fighters, and only managed to mass murder women and children in the process while giving the West a long-desired justification for military intervention. And despite "employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems" and allegedly also sarin nerve gas, the Ghouta area was still under terrorist control after the attack.
It should be noted that Ghouta is on the very edge of Damascus, facing open country that stretches to the Al Qaeda infested Syrian-Iraqi border and the extremist hotbed of Al Anbar province in Iraq -- implicating another, and the most likely culprit, Al Qaeda.
US Claim #2: The "Opposition" Lacks the Capabilities to Carry Out Such an Attack.
Reality: The US, in its assessment states:
We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime's preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition.
The "opposition" in Syria is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda allegedly carried out the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, destroying three (including Building 7) World Trade Center towers in New York City and striking at the very heart of America's trillion dollar military might, the Pentagon itself -- killing in a single day nearly 3,000 using nothing more than box-cutters, pepper spray, and 4 commandeered aircraft.
The US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has acknowledged that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria is Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front.
The US State Department's official press statement titled, "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," states explicitly that:
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks -- ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations -- in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.
It is also confirmed that many fighters joining al Nusra come from abroad, including from the recently decimated Libya, where a significant arsenal of chemical weapons have fallen into the hands of a sectarian extremist government which is openly funding and arming terrorists in Syria.
The US and its collaborators expect the world to believe:
that despite Al Qaeda having struck at the very heart of US military might, after circumventing a trillion dollar defense system of unprecedented capabilities, it is now somehow incapable of obtaining and using against civilians, chemical weapons -- a scenario the US has warned the world of and in fact, used as justification for invading Iraq in 2003. Either we've been lied to about the official explanation regarding 9/11, or we've been lied to about the capabilities of Al Qaeda in Syria -- or more likely, both.
Clearly, at face value, none of what the US proposes regarding the alleged chemical attacks in Syria is rational. The propaganda rolled out against Syria is poorly retreaded lies from the illegal, abhorrent Iraq invasion and occupation and the more recent NATO atrocities committed against the Libyan people who are still suffering from NATO's "humanitarian intervention" there.
What does it mean when the combined, multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence resources of the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others are categorically incapable of providing a single shred of credible evidence to make their case? That evidence does not exist? Or that it does, but simply points the finger unfavorably in another direction?
Without actual evidence of who committed the crimes showcased on CNN, the first and most important question that must be answered is "cui bono?" -- or -- to whose benefit?
Clearly, the chemical attacks carried out under the nose of UN inspectors, leaving shocking images of dead women and children used to manipulate the public on an emotional level, benefits the special interests driving US, British, European, and Arab policy. These are the same interests who in 2007 openly conspired to initiate a sectarian bloodbath to drown Lebanon, Syria, and Iran -- a documented conspiracy being realized in full, beginning in 2011.
The danger of a Syrian government surviving the insidious machinations of Western special interests and restoring order in a unified Syria is an unacceptable outcome for Washington, London, Paris, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv. The unprecedented impetus behind this unpopular, universally opposed war with Syria reeks of desperation and a corporate-financier axis that has used and abused all of its tricks one too many times.
Whatever the outcome in Syria may be, these corporate-financier interests have exposed themselves and have long-since resigned their legitimacy. All that they do now, they do in the open, against the will of the world, amidst growing dissent, and against the background of a socio-technological paradigm shift undermining their institutions and international rackets permanently. However vigorously these interests appear to be digging their grave, it is still, ultimately a grave.
Senators Authorizing Syria Strike
Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No
David Kravets / Wired Magazine
(September 05, 2013) -- "Wired" -Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.
Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED's request.
Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a "limited" strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.
The analysis of contributions from employees and PACs of defense industry interests ranges from 2007 through 2012 -- based on data tracked by OpenSecrets.org.
The authorization must be approved by the full Senate and House.
Among other things, the deal sets a 60-day engagement limit, and bars US ground troops from combat missions. The plan essentially is the legal basis to authorize President Barack Obama to punish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons, killing some 1,400 people as part of its ongoing civil war.
The top three defense-campaign earners who voted "yes" were:
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000;
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at $127,350; and
Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.
The top three defense-campaign earners who voted "no" were:
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) at $86,500;
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at $62,790; and
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) at $59,250.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.