The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Duly exposed for the fraud that he is by Aaron Mate Archived Message

    Posted by George Brennan on July 5, 2019, 5:19 pm, in reply to "Duly exposed for the fraud that he is by Aaron Mate"

    Monbiot can think and write freely on Climate because he is not transgressing any editorial line. When it comes to Corbyn and Assad and Assange he also does not transgress the editorial line. This was clear on the case of the Chlorine Bomb last year. The helicoptered chlorine bombs were pretext for an act of War. Simon Tisdall - a gung-ho Guardian columnist in whom George Monbiot placed blind faith when smearing Corbyn as someone who believed ordinary Jews, even if they grew up here, would never be able to appreciate English irony - wrote:


    Calls to wait for yet another UN investigation amount to irresponsible obfuscation. Only the Syrian regime and its Russian backers have the assets and the motivation to launch such merciless attacks on civilian targets. Or did all those writhing children imagine the gas? [Simon Tisdall 7 April.]

    The airstrikes came on April 14, two days after General Mattis admitted he was still short on evidence. Monbiot had persuaded himself that he could, by noisy tweets, endorse the Pretext without any responsibility for the Act. The self-deception is harder if the pretext might be false. So he must tacitly follow Viner by persisting that it as true, if only by vituperative tweets and stony silences. Viner must argue to herself, though not to the world, that the evasive official OPCW report is unquestionable and therefore irrefutable proof that US intelligence had irrefutable proof back when they bombed. ”Irrefutable proof” of atrocity was what Chris Williamson, amid general scorn , had demanded as the necessary (if not sufficient) condition for an act of war

    Viner must also persuade herself, silently, that Prof Ted Postol is an Assad Apologist from whose writings her readers must be spared any discussion..

    Postol latest June 6
    http://accuracy.org/release/postol-on-syrian-attacks-opcw-guilty-of-deception/


    Notice Postol holds fire on the question of Motive. Western “red lines” gave Assad a strong motive not to use chemical weapons in a war he was already winning by cruel and usual methods. By the same token it gave the “rebels” a strong motive to find evidence he had actually done so. Whenever other evidence is quite conclusive, as in the case of the Ruby/Oswald killing, the police need not seek motive to identify the culprit. But motive is usually the first thing they have to look for. The first suspect he who has most to gain.

    It is possible that OPCW are in secret possession of technical arguments which have so conclusively and absolutely refuted Henderson that we need no longer ask whodunnit. As far as I can find the OPCW has maintained silence about this, and Katherine has maintained her silence about their silence. Until public experts see those irrefutable technical arguments we should not let the Guardian evade the question Cui Bono. What exactly was that “motivation” that Tysdall says only the Syrian regime and its Russian Allies would had have for creating those writhing children whose images on the 7th April proved there was chlorine gas attack for which General Mattis was still publicly seeking evidence on the 12th of April?

    gb

    Message Thread: