'live,' on
  your TV

.. no truth ...

  .. no trial ...

    .. no justice

Thesis/Subtitle: No innocent has a chance, when confronted by committed criminals.

Corollary: One can't even call this 'trial by media,' since the 'Assad = guilty' verdict preceded all action.

[update, 11:11]


Trigger article:

Australian Government expels top Syrian diplomat
Broadcast: 29/05/2012
  «CHRIS UHLMANN: So, why did it take this long to act against Syria? This has been going on for quite some time now - about 10,000 people have died?
BOB CARR: The Kofi Annan peace plan was resolved in April - Kofi Annan acting on behalf of the Arab League and the United Nations, so he's a joint special envoy. He recommended, and it was adopted, a plan that emphasised a cessation of hostilities and political engagement; they're the best ways of summing up the six points. Since then, it's become clear that the Assad government will not cease hostilities, it will not give effect or a ceasefire. I think this terrible massacre has confirmed that.»

Comment 1: Carr's "I think ... has confirmed that" attempts to convict Assad on what amounts to *no* evidence. Or, at least no good evidence.

Comment 2: Throughout this vile saga, the 'unspoken allegation' is that the Syrian govt. is responsible for the majority of deaths, basically on little-to-no evidence other that of 'interested party' assertions.

Comment 3: Proof of Carr's own unbalanced assertions is here:

  «The regime would be afraid that if it winds down the military presence, takes the tanks and the cannon out of built-up areas, as Kofi Annan has been arguing, it will be overcome by popular opposition - that is, the resistance.» 
[AusBC/7.30 ibid.]

Comment 1: More than 50% of the Syrian people recently took part in an election - to which the 'opposition' had urged a boycott; *this* indicates that any opposition is in the minority.

Comment 2: Note that since 'it takes two to tango,' IF the govt. were to stop shooting THEN the opposition must do so simultaneously. BUT: the opposition rejects any ceasefire (as the 'rebels' in Libya), so unless both stop, nobody stops. And there is a difference; the Syrian govt. itself has the primary responsibility to protect its own citizens - here, from externally instigated & supported aggressive attack = Nuremberg-class war crime.


A so-called 'evidence' article:

28 May 2012 Last updated at 21:35 GMT
Syria Houla massacre: Survivors recount horror
  «Survivors who spoke to the BBC, and the local commander of the Free Syrian Army, said the people who carried out the killings were militiamen - shabbiha [me: shabiha? - spelling] - from nearby Alawite villages.
We can't confirm their accounts, but they are consistent with one another, and also with the reports given by activist groups on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the massacres.»

Comment 1: "He said, she said" = hearsay.

Comment 2: "Activist groups" are *not* disinterested observers; further, if the bbc can find one liar, they can find any number more to 'corroborate' each other. See (1) = "He said, she said" = hearsay.

'Balance' from the bbc:

  «But Syrian leaders will be giving Kofi Annan a different account in his talks in Damascus. They still insist that what they admit was a massacre was the work of hundreds of armed rebels who massed in the area, and carried out the killings in order to derail the peace process and provoke intervention by Nato.» 
[bbc/'news' ibid.]

Comment: See my note yesterday: It makes *no* sense for Assad to put his own neck into a noose. It makes *every* sense, for those who covet then murder, to make Assad look as bad as possible. There is a difference; the Zs have form, having stolen almost an entire country (Palestine), murdering as they went. US ditto, Iraq (B, B & H; 100s of 1000s dead) & Libya (F+UK/NATO). For mass-murderers-to-steal, lying is a snack; you work it out.

A confounding article:

Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon
Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark
by A Concerned Citizen
July 23, 2006
  «"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan... » 
[globalresearch.ca/quotes General Wesley Clark]

Comment: It's called 'telegraphing your punches,' a possible 'security breach' or outright hubris. But once this particular cat was out of the bag, no-one can say we weren't warned. Not as if any warning (or anything else - failing the citizenry rejecting their so-called leaders' criminality) could have stopped the Pentagon (NATO+SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on, i.e. F+UK as in Libya) juggernaut.


Lemma: At any crime-scene, one examines 'means, motive, and opportunity,' modus operandi (= m.o.) plus 'cui bono?' = who benefits? One examines what facts if any available, suspects lies at every turn (recalling recent m.o.), then drawing conclusions based on the balance of probabilities.

Musing: All indicators point one way = war -> chaotic ruin; 2001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya, this week Syria then soon Iran. Who benefits? Certainly not the people of war-ravaged countries; 'democratisation by war' is a wicked, criminal cruelty - and (adding massive insult to mass-mortal injuries) doesn't work.

Fazit: The AusBC, if not smarter than I am, should at least be better informed (international correspondents network) - and doubly so for Carr&Co (spooks network; ASIO, CIA, etc..) Here, another "You work it out."


^ Update, 11:11; PS Offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis:

Atrocities Made to Order
How Wall Street & London Manufacture Tragedy to Sell War & Regime Change.
By Tony Cartalucci
May 29, 2012
  «Houla appears to simply be on a much larger scale, involving militants most likely not affiliated with local FSA fighters or the Syrian government, but foreign elements just as the Syrian government has claimed. Just as in Bangkok where protesters were taken as much by surprise as Thai troops at the arrival of Thaksin's militants, FSA fighters, Houla residents, and Syrian troops all seem baffled as to who exactly committed the atrocities.
And amongst all the finger pointing, it is the politically-motivated haste by the US, UK, France, Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood to condemn the massacre, baselessly blame the Syrian government, and cry in unison for military intervention that is by far the most incriminating evidence yet as to who was really behind the bloodbath. Cui Bono? To whose benefit? NATO and its Middle Eastern proxies have made it abundantly clear it was to their benefit.
Clearly there is the distinct possibility that a third party took advantage of a prolonged engagement between the FSA and government troops in Houla, to manufacture a very real atrocity. With so few facts in hand, it would be the height of irresponsibility to lay blame on anyone so squarely that punitive actions are leveled. So while the Globe and Mail berates Russia for suggesting that "the blame must be determined objectively," it is by far, without debate, the most sensible course of action to take. If the West laments the distrust it now suffers, it has only itself, and its long history of running death squads in exactly this manner, to blame.
Tony Cartalucci at Land Destroyer»

Comment: There's far too much at stake to allow liars to range loose.


No comments:

Post a Comment