Looks like we are much more likely to find al-Khidr before we find any truth in the Washington Post about Syria.
Okay, let’s look at the latest Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post (JEWNYPT) article on Syria and chemical weapons. It is a lesson in propaganda techniques.
The headline is:
“Kerry: Obama determined to hold Syria accountable for using chemical weapons
The article then goes on to provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. In fact the article warns its readers that the UN team on the ground won’t be able to find a “smoking gun” but who gives a shit. It’s time to launch a 48 hours cruise missile attack on Syria anyway.
Deputy Israeli Secretary of State for American Affairs John F. Kerry (that name kind of has a ring similar to John F. Kennedy, no doubt not a coincidence) is quoted at the very start of the article saying that Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “undeniable” and “this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.”
Excuse me for a minute. This past week or ten days or so the Egyptian government killed about 1000 people. This behavior is somehow better than the (unproven) allegation that Syria killed one third that many with some sort of chemical weapon? How is that? But I digress.
But then Kerry goes on to provide no evidence whatsoever that Syria did anything. Kerry claims that Syria made “a cynical attempt to cover up” this attack by shelling the area of the attack continuously – this would of course also be easily explained by Syria’s wanting to get rid of the al-Qa’ida assholes who probably were the perps.
Since there is no evidence, an unnamed European diplomat is then quoted saying that hell, it’s been six days, there won’t be much evidence left. “We have to be realistic about how compelling [the UN] evidence will be.” Bullshit. What he means is that we don’t give a shit what the UN says, we want to attack Syria and we are going to.
Kerry is then quoted yet again about what an outrage this is and how the “the civilized world” decreed long ago that these weapons should never be used at all. Great. But he yet again missed a chance to offer evidence.
He then says he re-watched the youtube videos so many have seen which proof nothing since they are from the “aftermath” of whatever happened.
JEWNYPT, after failing to get once piece of evidence from Kerry then turns to two absolute Zionist shills, both Mooooselims of course, Adam Schiff (Likud, CA) and Eliott Engel (Shas, NY) who both support military action, Engel strongly so, Schiff kind of feelilng dragged along.
But it gets better. Sen. Bob Corker (Fucking Crazy, TN) then tells us how cool it would be to have a “surgical” strike.
You know it’s over when they talk about surgical strikes. That’s code for all out mass murder.
As an aside, enjoy this letter Corker wrote to the Israeli Vice President for American Affairs (IVPFAA) telling him to “stop bullying Israel.” What a joke this guy is. (Update: Misread the “to” lines on the letter. It was to Corker and Obama and someone else by a reader of the paper. For Corker’s pro-israel positions you can go here to his website.)
Then the article picks up on a theme it starts fairly early on in which it outlines US cruise missile attacks as virtually a fait accompli – sounds like the article is just telling us what the upcoming plan is.
At the very end we get the omnipresent Anthony Cordesman who plays down the effectiveness of cruise attacks.
So here’s JEWNYTP featuring its lead article with war mongering statements from Kerry, from three Zionists in congress, and an unnamed European diplomat. It offers zero evidence to support the claims made or implied by these creatures, gives away what it has clearly been told by government sources about the kind of attack they’d like to start off with and then shows how fair and balanced it is by quoting Cordesman and his ilk to the effect that cruise missiles aren’t a sufficient response.
Let me reiterate: You lead with a declaration stated as fact that Syria used chemical weapons. You quote 4 other people who support that declaration and you outline a US military response. Most readers are now convinced that the declaration is true even though no evidence is offered. You then quote someone who has very mild opposition to the tone and content of the first 90% of the article but who seems to agree with the original declaration which has no basis in fact.
This is what passes for news analysis in the US.