Convenient Assassinations and Chemical Attacks

The jury is still out on this latest case of Russian intrigue in the UK. Whitehall is accusing Russia of using nerve agent to assassinate a GRU defector whose value has to be questioned. Why would Moscow assassinate him now? 

Boris Johnson insists that the evidence points to Russian manufacture and thus the dark deed was either done under Putin's orders or Moscow must account for why some of their product has gone missing.

Russian foreign minister Lavrov has insisted that Russia is afforded the opportunity to examine the evidence and yet thus far the May government has refused. Why?

Actually I'm sure Russia would happily acquiesce to a neutral scientific panel having a look at the evidence but I highly doubt the UK would agree. There have been hints of utilising outside investigators but so far there's still no conclusive proof coming from any source unrelated to the UK government.

I'm not saying Russia didn't assassinate this former agent. Far be it from me to argue that Putin is above such things. And yet of course whenever someone is assassinated and it's blamed on the US or the UK.... that's conspiracy theory. That point is at least something to keep in mind.

The timing is quite suspicious. The target was not exactly high value or pressing. There's no reason, at least none put forward thus far, to target Skripal. If they really wanted him dead they could have taken care of him when he was arrested back in 2004. Why would they release him in a spy swap in 2010 and then seek to kill him eight years later? If they wanted him dead, they already had him.

Putin is under immense pressure right now. The West is accusing him of everything. From the US presidential election, Brexit, the German elections, Syria, the Balkans etc... Putin is being painted as the great force for evil in the world.

Would he deliberately antagonise the West in assassinating Skripal? Why would he? The West is already beating the drums of war. I don't believe Putin wants a war to break out. All morality aside it seems an awfully stupid and reckless thing to do. This wouldn't be the time to do it even if they believed it ought to be done.

Of course it's rather convenient for the May government. They're able to take a hard-line, ratchet-up tensions and argue for increases in military spending. They now have an excuse to go after Russian expatriates, seize funds and even beat up on the hated Jeremy Corbyn. The Blair wing of the Labour Party even jumped into the fray. And there are whispers in the wind of an attempt to sabotage the Russian hosted World Cup this summer. You can be sure they will discredit the Russian elections.

I'm not saying Putin didn't do it but I am very suspicious. Both London and Washington have a long track record of deceit and outright lying, especially when it comes to foreign policy, WMD and war. There's even more to the story, elements the mainstream media is leaving out. That too makes me suspicious.

Like not a few others I am also suspicious even dubious when I hear of the Assad government launching chemical attacks on its citizens. The Establishment media has no one on the ground and instead relies on government communiqués, and compromised intelligence agency and rebel/terrorist affiliated outlets like the SOHR and the White Helmets.

And yet there are people on the ground and they tell a very different story. There are reporters providing context and unmasking some of the blatant lies being perpetrated by the West. There are attacks reported that didn't happen, hospitals destroyed that are still standing and there are many crimes and attacks conducted by the rebels on civilians that are not reported.

I had to chuckle the other day listening to a Syrian nun being interviewed on the BBC. She thought Western coverage wasn't balanced and was obviously frustrated and embittered by the relentless attacks they were being subjected to. Who's attacking them? The so-called rebels, the militias backed by the US and the West. Who are they really? They're Salafists and many of them are directly linked to al Qaeda.

She was quickly cut off and then an 'academic' came on who tried discredited her testimony and yet even he admitted that many of the rebels are in fact Al Qaeda affiliates. To the host's probable dismay he spoke the truth and revealed just how complicated the war is and yet (I'm guessing) he was allowed to continue because despite the dubious Western narrative he took a hard anti-Assad line.

But you see the truth can't be reported because then the Syrian War as well as the larger War on Terror will be exposed. People will know they're frauds and that they've been lied to.

There are chemical attacks taking place but the evidence largely points to the rebels. Even the famous Syrian boy in the ambulance has been exposed as a propaganda tool. His father insists the attack was not from warplanes (and thus the Russians) but from the ground. It was the rebels who bloodied his son and then briefly kidnapped him for the photo-op.

The lies are beyond comprehension.

Even if Assad did not eliminate his stockpiles would he really use chemical weapons? Why would he? The war is almost won. The victory is at hand and has been for some time. He has the momentum. Using chemical weapons all but invites Western intervention. He knows NATO is just looking for an excuse to intervene and if it wasn't for Moscow, Syria would have gone the way of Libya in 2011. Gaddafi's fate would Assad's.

Why would he use them when they don't provide a tactical edge?

Some will argue these things are happening because the US is so weak. That lie worked under Obama but how does it work under Trump? He already fell for one propaganda episode and lauded by the media, he launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles. We already know he's reckless and governed by his emotions. In other words he's easily manipulated.

Or is it open secret in some circles? What secret? That Assad isn't launching the chemical attacks.

I know, it's just conspiracy theory.

No doubt Graham Greene was a conspiracy theorist too. The Quiet American tells of an Edward Lansdale-type figure fomenting war in Vietnam and through proxies launching terrorist attacks in order to provoke conflict. It's an old tactic and one oft used by the West. Greene was in Vietnam during the 1950's, the time of tension as the French were on their way out, the country was being divided and the conflict was being handed over to the Americans.

We tend to think of the public as being dubious about Vietnam. There were protestors to be sure and yet most of the public went along with it. Opinions began to sour but disapproval (it could be argued) stemmed more from the course of the war as opposed to it (the war) as an ideal.

The magnitude of state manipulation, the multitude of lies and disinformation cannot be overstated and yet even as there have been repeated episodes of inquiry revealing the levels of deceit in government and media... people still seem to trust the official line. To suggest that America uses lies and even false flag terror attacks to justify war means you're a conspiracy theorist. These things only happen in 'other' countries. If you talk about American intelligence agencies dealing drugs, you're a conspiracist but if it's Russian diplomats or anyone else, it's a plausible story.

The US has troops in Syria but I would say most of the public has not yet realised this. Is it the next Vietnam? Probably not and yet every war is filled with lies... lies about why the soldiers are there, the causes of the war and certainly the deeds of the enemy.

Is Assad a saint? Of course not, but he's not stupid. Launching chemical attacks at this stage...at any stage would be foolish and inviting disaster.

"He thinks he can do these things with impunity," someone might say.

I don't think so. He's not out of the woods yet but when fleeing lions you don't turn back and taunt them.

"Trump won't antagonise Putin," someone else will argue.

If you think that, then you haven't been following things too closely. The Pentagon under Trump has taken a decidedly Anti-Russian turn and has escalated the stakes, prompting Putin's belligerent state of the union speech. With Tillerson gone and Pompeo in, Trump has signalled he intends to put the United States on a war footing. It's a sober signal to North Korea, Iran, Moscow and China. If the criminal and fascistic John Bolton takes over as National Security Advisor as has been rumoured, then the signal becomes a clarion call for war.

I continue to watch the unfolding disaster and I am somewhat in awe as I witness the media's campaign to malign Russia and push for intervention in Syria. Are they nihilists or megalomaniacs? Have they somehow combined the two? The ghost of Curtis LeMay hovers over Washington. He cries 'War!" but what I hear is 'woe'.

The Establishment has always lied and yet the world definitely took a strange turn in September 2001. We've entered an age of fantasy. Sadly those suffering, those caught in the middle of this barbarism are not able to escape.