“So this case is building and this case will build,”
via ToI
It seems the US of A is bent on waging a war against Syria to remove Assad. First the civil war, which was a war by proxy. Many thought that what happened in Libya could also happen in Syria. But Assad proved more formidable than Gaddafi. And after months of civil war, there seems to be no end to Assad’s rule. This must have upset the US much, after all a proxy war also costs money. And if you do not get any returns, we you make more investment to get the returns. This is what US seems to be doing in this conflict. Of course, they could have politely asked Mr. Assad that he should step down voluntarily, but many doubt that if this would have worked. In case of Syria, Russia is backing them, so there seems to be some hope for them.
And it is almost laughable, when US president or his ADCs say the word “evidence”. They are crying wolf again. Maybe one should ask US president, where are the WMDs in Iraq? This was the presumed reason for their invasion of Iraq, though some believe that actually it was the oil of the American companies that the Iraqis were living on hostage, which actually led to the war. But, even after so many years, they have yet to find any evidence for WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps, they supplied them to Syria, which is using them against their own citizens. So this is not a new war, but a continuation of the Iraq War. This is also reflected in comparison of Assad to Saddam and Hitler. And what about Hitler? Since the comparison has been made, this attack might be a continuation of the World War 2, in which holocaust happened, and now due to which innocent people in Syria will be killed with “precision strikes”. That explains the Israel part well in the column.
And morality it seems has changed its meaning in Amerika. Perhaps one should not forget that US of A has done war crimes
Can a government that supported the use of chemical weapons in one conflict claim any moral, political or legal authority militarily to attack another country for using the same weapons, particularly when the attack is not authorised by the UN Security Council?
Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.
As Dahr Jamail’s reporting for Al Jazeera has shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases – causing a “large-scale public health disaster” and the “highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied” – suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces.
Thus what we have now is a situation in which a government (the United States) that has both supported and committed large-scale and systematic war crimes in one country (Iraq) is leading the international effort to stop Iraq’s neighbour Syria from continuing to use chemical weapons against its own people.
via Al-Jazeera
He invoked the crimes of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and the potential threat to Israel from Syria and Iran… (op cit.)
This perhaps tells us one more thing. This actually might be a continuation of World War 2 and Saddam and Assad are seen as heirs of Hitler. And they have to punished because there was a holocaust, see how logically the problem of Israel emerges in all this chaos!
Of course the next target seems to be Iran, but for now, it seems they would be happy to get Syria as well.
Although Obama has asked for congressional approval for the attack, this approval is not mandatory for the attack. It seems this is just a strategy to make it look legitimate. And after UK has bowed out of the possible attack, it seems that Obama will have to use the later option. And all the (un)evidence, is used to case building the case against Syria.
And finally this entire episode can be seen as actualization of the statement:
If you don’t come to democracy, democracy will come to you.
