U.S. intervention in Syria may be imminent. That makes me sad.
Behold the magic wand of atrocity propaganda:
August 25th:
There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians…
Talk of Strike on Syria Moves From ‘Will It Happen?’ to ‘When’
In 1990, a Kuwaiti woman
testified before Congress that she “had
seen” Iraqi troops kill babies in Kuwaiti hospitals. Her allegation was later proven to be totally false. She just lied; plain-old
made it up. The truth only came out after the Rubicon was crossed and the war was waged. They say this single liar’s performance before Congress, then-believed, so outraged Americans that it helped push the USA to go to war against Iraq. She said:
I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die. [Crying] It was horrifying.
It turned out this “eyewitness” was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. She had been coached to tell this lie. What a disgrace, although she should’ve gotten an award for theatrics, anyway.
In 2003, I was in high school, and one teacher had us watch live as Colin Powell told lies about Iraq’s fantasy-WMDs. I disbelieved in what he was saying at the time and I was conscious of being a clear minority in that. I discussed this a lot with my friend Paras in early 2003. He said he was against the war, but he believed there may have been WMD. I was insistent there were no WMD. I don’t know why I was so sure. What the heck did I know? But I was right.
One of the most flagrant and shamefaced examples of phony atrocity propaganda that I know of was in WWI. German soldiers were said to have been “bayoneting Belgian babies” by the thousands. Nothing like that ever happened, but it was used to whip-up war frenzy. See this poster:
Atrocity Propaganda in WWI — “The Hun Murders Belgian Babies”
On Syria again, if we look closely at this, the story (as presented) is very suspicious, as summarized neatly here:
Comment from Nornoel Vincent [August 26th, 2013]
Assad would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons in a war he is already winning by ‘conventional’ means; but (2) the Syrian Government’s opposition (inter alia), who are presently losing, not only have the ability to make and deploy these chemical weapons, but would gain by enlisting European and American support with claims that Assad’s government has done this. Finally, (3) the U.N. Inspectors are saying that it may be “difficult” or impossible to pinpoint the culpable party. On the basis of these points alone, any intervention seems premature and foolhardy, at best.
