I read a report in the UK, Mirror on the G7 meeting which took place in Tuscany, Italy today (April 11, 2017). The report seems to underscore the conflict the new Trump Administration is having bringing its recent campaign rhetoric and the political and international reality into congruence. The G7 is an organization of the major wealthy and advanced nations of the world.They represent opinion of an influential segment of the global population. The members, the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the UK which represent nations which control more than two thirds of the net global wealth (@ $300 trillion dollars). They meet annually to attempt to fine tune the world economy…presumably for their own profit and stability. Our brand new Secretary of State Tillerson was present to represent the USA. The Mirror (on line) reported that Mr Tillerson’s proposal to sanction Russia for their complicity in the recent reputed Khan Shikoun gassing of civilians in Syria was rejected by the member nations. They apparently considered his proposal unhelpful for advancing the stability and profitability off the global economy. The UK, Canada, Germany Italy France Japan are said to have “rebuked Secretary of State Tillerson for proposing sanctions against Russia prior to any investigation of the Khan Shikoun event in Syria”. I suspect that they would have been even less supportive of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Syrian airbase for the same reason. There was no evidence of wrong doing. Mr Trump’s attack on a sovereign nation was an unwarranted act of war. To add insult to injury, it was made prior to any evidence which would have supported such an attack
The is still NO evidence that the Syrian Government used Sarin gas In Khan Shikoun in Idlib in 2017.
The White House is continuing its blame game on Syria, boldly attempting to implicate Russia as well with the culpability for the so called “Sarin gas” attack on civilians. To this date they have not produced any hard evidence of such an attack or of Syrian culpability, no less that of Russia knowing about the attack. A purported radar track of a Syrian plane…supposedly flying over the area is of course meaningless. The US intelligence community’s persistant claim that it “can not release the actual supportive data for their conclusions” because it would compromise their secret methods is a ploy that permits them to manipulate the press and public opinion with no evidence and impunity. History is rife with their untruths. Since there has been no unbiased investigation. There is no evidence. Mr. Trump’s actions are all based on TV film footage and still photographs.
There are many inconsistencies and questions about this story. There is no evidence that the attack or release of gas was in fact Sarin gas—yet the White House and the media continually use that term. Sarin gas is difficult to generate and store. If it was Sarin gas it would be more likely that some established state—not a rebel group—would use it. The evidence for that gas remains lacking, however. Fore example: The number of people affected, (60-100) are too few for an aerial attack which would have affected a wide zone and perhaps thousands of individuals. In addition, the fact that many victims were photographed seeming to suffer only mild breathing difficulty. In several videos these victims are seen to recover and walk off. Fiinally, photographs and video often showed the aid workers treating victims by flushing water over their bodies and then handling them and their clothing with bare hands. They having no ill effects. All this points to some gas other than Sarin.
A possibility is some other gas such as Chlorine, or Bromine gas which might have been easily generated by crude methods in rebel munitions workshops . The case is not closed. The evidence is not clear.
Important too is the timing and motive of the attack. It seems highly unlikely that such an attack would be launched by the Syrian regime, which is in fact winning the war. There was no clear motive for Assad or his supporters to initiate a gas attack. What would they gain? The timing is suspect as well. The event occurred only days before a planned peace conference in Brussels. The rebels and other outside players ( the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the USA) all of whom support the anti Assad forces, would all have had the ability and the motive to use a gas attack to sway world opinion and undermine and weaken the Syrian government bargaining position just before entering into the peace process. As I indicated in an earlier blog the Assad regime simply had no motive to use gas. What is needed is a formal investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Let’s hope that Mr. Trump cools down the rhetoric, gets control of loose cannons (like Niki Haley, UN Ambassador) in his cabinet which seem to be leading him rather than the other way around, and refresh his memory of how and why he was elected over the other GOP hopefuls.
What were those reasons? Mr. Trump’s GOP and (later) Democrat competitors did not call for an “America First” policy. They were all in favor of regime change, nation building and endless global war. The people rejected them. The voters know that these policies fritter away tax dollars, focus national wealth on militarism, waste material and human resources, and shunt national wealth abroad wealth which is desperately needed to “Make America Great Again”. Let’s not forget what the election was about.
No comments:
Post a Comment