(audio/text) Joel Skousen: Falsifying the Case for War

Audio From:

Dr. Stanley Monteith’s Radio Liberty Audio Archives

Date: 09-05-13
Hour: 1
3:00:
Standard Player	Save
Hour: 2
4:00: Joel Skousen – World Affairs Brief
Standard Player	Save
Hour: 3
8:00:
Standard Player	Save
Hour: 4
9:00: Cheryl Hancock
Standard Player	Save
Date: 09-04-13

* * *

World Affairs Brief, September 6, 2013 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)

This Week’s Analysis

Falsifying the Case for War

Rebuttal of Evidence that Syria Used Gas

Anniversary of Sept. 11 used to denigrate 9/11 Truth Movement

NSA is Working Hard Against Internet Encryption – And Succeeding 

FALSIFYING THE CASE FOR WAR

As the Obama Administration works to sell Congress and the American Public on their plans to attack Syria—a failing proposition—the evidence is proving to be laughably thin. The case against Syria is composed mostly of simply repeating their “high confidence” of Syria’s guilt so many times a day in public hearings that people can’t help but assume it must be true. Secretary of State Kerry’s talking points are full of these brazen assumptions of guilt: “a judgment … already clear to the world,” he said, but that’s not true at all. The US hints they have some secret evidence up their sleeve, but their reluctance to show it adds to the suspicion it is suspect or falsified. Congressional feeling in the House is running 2 to 1 against going to war, and public opinion is also decidedly against intervention. Obama will strike Syria even if the Congress fails to approve and the Pentagon is already expanding the list of targets—so don’t expect a limited strike.

All of the predictable Republican neocon leaders and warmongers are on board and so are the Democrats that support Obama out of party loyalty. However, unless they twist a lot more arms, the House doesn’t look like it will approve the attacks.

The Syrian war, like all of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings is not a true civil war. The opposition fundamentalists have only come to power because of the backing of western intelligence and black operations. The West funded radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood initially with MI6 and CIA funds, and more recently through less-obvious Middle Eastern lackeys in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In Syria the West has imported and armed radical Muslim fighters, bribed factions of the Syrian military to defect and, in short, created a mess that is eventually going to lead to a bloodbath and the blame is to be laid at America’s door.

The US clearly has a globalist long term agenda going on in these continued attempts to destabilize the Middle East. On the Charlie Rose Show last night, globalist Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution used many derivations of “world order” or “disorder” in his responses to questions and at one point said “the world order is at stake.” He also admitted that CIA trained rebels will be entering Syria for the first time this week.

For years I have predicted that the long term strategic reason for all of this intervention in the Middle East was to solidify the US reputation as the “bully of the world,” which would hand Russia and China the eventual rationale to attack the West. Slowly, even my critics have been forced to see it. It’s happening right now. This war, which the globalists hope will expand into a justification to take down Iran will certify our reputation as a bully and aggressor.

No nation, excepting the highly manipulated American public, is buying the claims of the Obama administration for this war. Just the opposite: they are outraged by US arrogance and manipulation of the facts, desperately trying to cast the blame on the Syrian government. The evidence once again points to the rebels, who could only have pulled this off with the assistance of Western intelligence.

Reporters are already comparing Kerry’s weakly-supported details with those of Collin Powell’s WMD accusations leading up to the Iraq War. One of the points the US keeps pushing is the superficial notion that this chemical attack could only be the work of the Syrian government because no one else has these kinds of chemical weapons. That’s not true at all. The US has them. Israel has them. Even the Saudis have them (for purposes of distribution to terrorists). None of these players are averse to providing the binary type of sarin gas to the rebels in order to imitate what Assad has in his stockpiles and blame him for what others did.

As I said last week, Assad is no fool. He would never use chemical weapons in an urban fight or otherwise to kill a few hundred civilians (which the US has inflated to 1400) knowing that such an attack is exactly what the US has been waiting for to justify intervention. What’s the military advantage of throwing in some chemical weapons versus more artillery shells? None, especially considering that only one weapon type has the effect of justifying US intervention—chemical weapons. So which one would you choose if you were Assad?

The Israelis are claiming they have an intercepted communications with Syrian officials admitting the use of chemical weapons. Der Spiegel in Germany claims something similar:

“Schindler also presented an additional clue, one that has not thus far been made public. He said that the BND listened in on a conversation between a high-ranking member of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which supports Assad and provides his regime with military assistance, and the Iranian Embassy. The Hezbollah functionary, Schindler reported, seems to have admitted that poison gas was used. He said that Assad lost his nerves and made a big mistake by ordering the chemical weapons attack.”

Prove it, I say. Submit the recordings to independent translation and analysis. But that will never happen. These conversations, which don’t identify the speakers, can be easily faked—set up by black operations to imitate Syrian authorities. Short of sophisticated voice print analysis tied to specific people, it’s almost impossible to determine if they are real or faked. And they are in Arabic, so that makes it even more difficult for American Congressmen to decipher a fraud.

Remember that the CIA created several false videos of Osama bin Laden supposedly claiming responsibility for 9/11. These were done with look-a-likes, and not very good ones at that. If they would do it to cover for 9/11, they would certainly do it to justify war with Syria.

At least the Russians have finally produced their 100 page report detailing evidence that the Syrian rebels were responsible for the gas attack: McClatchy news was the only one reporting:

The statement’s summary of the report said that neither the munitions nor the poison gas in the Khan al Asal attack appeared to fit what is possessed by the Syrian government. The report said the shell “was not regular Syrian army ammunition but was an artisan-type similar to unguided rocket projectiles produced in the north of Syria by the so-called gang ‘Bashair An-Nasr.’

In addition, Russian investigators determined that the burst charge was RDX, which is “not used in military chemical munitions. The Russian analysis found soil and shell samples contained a sarin gas “not synthesized in an industrial environment,” the statement said. The report said the chemical mix did not appear to be a modern version of the deadly agent but was closer to those “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”

Russia’s president Vladamir Putin did come out at the G20 summit and charge that, “The alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the rebels to attract a foreign-led strike.”

REBUTTAL OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST SYRIA’S USE OF GAS

[…]