Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Sarin Gas mystery NOT

Why do I even feel the need to use my time writing this stuff.  People who WANT to believe that the world is full of good and bad people and if we bomb the hell out of the BAD people it will sort everything out are simply the bullies in the playground.  They clearly have their own problems and it seems they were bullied and ACCEPTED it.  It was probably their parents and teachers who bullied them.  They learnt well.

But unfortunately it is not like that.

When it comes to Syria it is clear there is a lot of strife over there.  It is clear that a lot of people are being pushed to feel that there is no other way than to fight.  Whether that is the Assad regime or the population or the rebels or the terrorists is not really the point.  One thing is for sure - a lot of people feel that their perspective is not understood by others.  What would really help would be to voice these opinions and have them heard.  But it is also true that people end up lying in order to 'prove' something they can't manage to prove to the numbskulls on the other side.  So people lie which makes it almost impossible to talk to resolve issues so we are back to splatting each other.

But we do know some facts;  America was working out how to control the Middle East around the turn of the century.  I certainly recall reading documents that the American administration were writing which outlined the need to control the area.  It was all about the transport and delivery of gas and oil mainly via pipelines.  They needed influence and control in Afghanistan and Iraq amongst other places.  How convenient it then turned out to be that a bunch of respectable mercenaries (financed by the Americans) turned bad and brought the World Trade Center down.

Was that not always a very spurious event?  Everything about it stinks.  How could the US be running a war game practising EXACTLY the same scenario on EXACTLY the same day?  How ridiculous to suppose they could be so up to date that they couldn't do anything to prevent the shocking and unbelievable "terrorist" attack.  Why would a bunch of religious fanatics living in caves in Afghanistan demolish the World Trade Centre towers?  Why?  And how could they do it?  The US had fully armed fighter jets - yes, fully armed and ready to go - in the vicinity and they sent them out over the Atlantic in the opposite direction.  How plausible does the collapse of those two towers look?  And what about the World Trade Centre Building 7 collapse which could not have been cause by anything other than a controlled demolition and was accidentally reported by the BBC 23 minutes before it happened?

Tony Rooke refused to pay his television license on the grounds that the BBC lied and had prior knowledge of the building collapsing.  He was significantly not found guilty when the judge saw the evidence.  Building 7 was also called the Salomon Brothers Building and at 47 stories high it mysteriously collapsed at freefall speed after the two main towers had collapsed.  This could only have been achieved by a controlled demolition.  But oddly the BBC reported the event 23 minutes before it happened!
Courts: BBC Lies Misinformation & Propaglanda on 9/11 Disqualify Them From Demanding Licence Fees
BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE
BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse
and so it goes on

But funny how it rallied public opinion to allow a full scale war against Afghanistan and Iraq.  The clinching argument for attacking Iraq was the 'proof' that Sadam possessed weapons of mass destruction.  This has since 'proved' to be lies and no one seems terribly worried about it.

Syria is another country in the list of countries the US, the UK and Europe plan to gain influence over.  They have been committed to this for years.  Does it not seem a bit odd that Assad is being relentlessly attacked by ... hang on ... that same bunch of CIA funded mercenaries that allegedly brought down the WTC?  And does it not seem odd that both Obama and Cameron pre-empted the current crisis by stating that if Assad used chemical weapons that it would be "crossing a red line".  Some months ago I recall a few news reports which never came to much where U.N. investigators were saying that the rebels had used sarin gas.  (One article in the Chicago News entitled "UN has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas" appeared back in May)

Now we are expected to believe that Assad has arbitrarily and uncharacteristically gassed some innocent people.  Both the US and the UK have claimed that Assad used sarin gas against the Syrian population.  Most of the time they say things like "it is inconceivable that the rebels used it" or "there is substantial reason to believe Assad used it" but I have heard reports stating it as a fact.  It is quite clearly NOT a fact.  And strangely there seems to be more sense for the rebels to use it.  It would provoke the US and the UK and France to bomb Assad.  Why would Assad do it?  I happen to think the rebels are simply saps for the US and the UK.  I think this is all being clumsily orchestrated by the Western powers.

Here is an interesting article entitled "UN Reveals Terrorists Not Government Used Sarin Gas" by Steve Foley and published 3 September 2013.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for the article, and the links. The last link makes for particularly interesting reading. What is for sure is that nothing is really clear in the Syrian civil war. Anyone who believes we're being told the truth is very naive. I guess the old joke from Max Headroom goes nicely with these type of situations - Question: How do you know a politician's lying? Answer: Their lips move!

    The (sad) result of all of this is of course a lot of innocent people getting bombed - and the rest - out of house and home!