Three days before the attack, a group of UN inspectors had just arrived. This brings into question the timing of the attack if the Assad regime was responsible, it seems rather stupid to launch such an attack. This was the initial assessment of the senior inspector of the team.
Before even any investigation was begun at all, the US declared that it was the Assad government who carried out the attack. How they determined this is unknown. If we recall, there was a chemical attack earlier in Syria in which the US declared the Assad regime committed and after an actual investigation into the incident it was determined that it was rebel fighters who used the gas-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 04920.html
This is important to remember for what's next.
After this most recent incident, the US demanded that Syria open up to full inspections to avoid the US response (bombing). Syria has now complied-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Europenews
The Assad government has given the immediate access to the site of the attack and allowing a full, independent investigation of what happened and who launched said attack.
The US' response to Syria now that Syria has complied with the US' demands?
Richard Engel twitter feed wrote:Sr US official: At this juncture, any belated decision by the regime to grant access to UN team would be too late to be credible
So, the Administration headed by the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, said it's too late for peace. It seems Syria has called the Administration's bluff and an actual investigation into the incident is the last thing the Administration wants, because it may come out that it was the rebels who launched the attack in order to draw the US into actual fighting against the Assad regime instead of simply supplying arms and training to the rebels.
Why make the condition of inspections to avoid further escalation if we were just going to say "That's not enough" if they did comply?
Why have we "drawn a line in the sand" against Assad, but when the rebels cross that line themselves we turn a blind eye?
100,000's of people have already been killed in the Syrian civil war, what does it matter if they were gassed to death as opposed to being bombed, shot, executed on the side of the road, or killed in some other fashion as has been perpetrated by both sides in the conflict?
Why is Syria so important at this particular time when the US fiscal year is about to come to an end, the debt limit has been reached and US deficit spending is dropping?
What does US deficit spending have to do with it? Central Banks rely on the need of nations to stay in debt and keep adding debt. A war in Syria means more borrowed money for the defense industry as a very troubling trend has been happening lately as illustrated by this chart-
Have we been fully appraised of the possible consequences of our direct involvement (read:bombing/invasion)in Syria?
Why does it seem that we must invade to confirm WMD's in Syria?
And finally, here is our Nobel laureate standing proudly with his prize when all evidence points to his continued involvement and expansion of the military industrial complex that relies on war, death, chaos and fear to keep the debt building, the money flowing and the bodies piling-
and once again we are being propelled into a conflict using the same lies that worked so well for launching the Iraq war and brought such blessings as democracy and death to the Iraqi people. Same story, different place.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on we.
