"To war, to war, to war we're going to go..."

In the previous post, we looked at some indicators that the upcoming attack on Syria (which may well lead to a wider war) (see also here) is being ginned up on phoney grounds. Here's a quick rundown of further evidence.

Russia sees no proof. This statement speaks for itself...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that so far, the Western countries have been unable to produce any evidence to back claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, but they are calling for military action.

"They (the West) have not been able to come up with any proof but are saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay," Lavrov added.

He stated that those countries calling for a military action against Syria have assumed the role of "both UN investigators and the UN Security Council" in probing the incident.

It's odd how many otherwise-suspicious Americans see no reason to ask for hard evidence, even after the exposure of the many lies told to justify the Iraq war. And that brings us to...

The dog that didn't bark. The conservative press is a dog that never misses a chance to bark at Obama. On a daily basis, the right-wing media infrastructure offers a paranoid (and usually ridiculous) interpretation of everything he does. The fact that they aren't crying conspiracy in this case may be all the proof we need that our suspicions of skullduggery have a basis in reality.

Take, for example, the National Review's response:

Now, the Obama administration has an amazing opportunity to deliver a one-two punch to Syria’s regime and its Iranian paymasters and supplier of military assistance. The greatest force for global terrorism remains the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and the jingoistic regime he controls in Tehran.

If Obama moves forward with military strikes against Syria, he should exercise total force to obliterate Assad’s air force, runways, airports, and sources of fuel for his fighter jets and helicopters.

This is the voice of Ledeenism: It's always all about Iran. (By the way, it's cute to see a National Review writer accuse someone else of being "jingoistic.")

The important thing is that the Republicans, for once, are not questioning the administration's honesty. Why? Because the right likes this lie.

Double standard: Pepe Escobar raises a good point...

On Sunday, the White House said it had ''very little doubt'' that the Bashar al-Assad government used chemical weapons against its own citizens. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry ramped it up to ''undeniable'' - and accused Assad of ''moral obscenity''.

So when the US bombed Fallujah with white phosphorus in late 2004 it was just taking the moral high ground. And when the US helped Saddam Hussein to gas Iranians in 1988 it was also taking the moral high ground.

Even better is this:

The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors' hotel. If you don't believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.

Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad's offer of access for the inspectors came ''too late''. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed - but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's spokesman.

Here we have a perfect example of the way the subculture of conspiracism actually aids the "deep state." The Alex Jonesians routinely make evidence-free and downright lunatic pronouncements. As a result, a large segment of the public -- the segment composed of normal people -- has become wary of anything that smacks of conspiracy theory. Rather than get in bed with the weirdos, Mr. and Mrs. Normal American find it easier and safer to take the government's statements at face value. Thus, the Obama administration need only imply that all doubters are "conspiracy theorists." And voila! There is no need to make further argument, no need to display actual proof, no need to do what Adlai Stevenson did on that famous day at the UN.

Were we warned? Last January, there was a brouhaha about a document allegedly "liberated" from a British defense firm -- a document which spoke of an upcoming false-flag attack against Syria....

Documents allegedly "hacked" belonging to UK-based defense contractor Britam (official website here) appear to show the company considering an offer from Qatar to use Libyan chemical weapons in Homs, Syria in order to frame both the Syrian and Russian governments. The plan involves using Britam's Ukrainian mercenaries and Soviet-era chemical weapon shells brought in from Libya's large, Al Qaeda-linked, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) controlled arsenals.

The e-mail reads:

Phil

We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards
David

The prediction came true, including (as seen in the preceding Cannonfire post) the bit about an attempt to frame Russia. And let's not gloss over that striking reference to a "video record." Here we have a rare example of an accurate prophecy which was provably on the record before the fact.

Pretty impressive. However...

There's a complex backstory surrounding this questioned report, which you can read about here.  Basically, an article about the alleged Britam document was published in the UK's Daily Mail, and then removed from their archive. The Daily Mail later said:

The reports made reference to an email said to have been from David Goulding, the Business Development Director of Britam Defence, to company founder, Philip Doughty. The email had been published on the internet after Britam’s computer system was illegally hacked in Singapore. It referred to a proposal that Britam would deliver chemical weapons to Syria for enormous financial reward and suggested that the directors were willing to consider the illegal proposal. We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity. We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.

I, for one, would like to know more. This apology stipulates that a genuine act of hacking did occur. That's odd. Why would the creators of a false document go to the trouble of actually hacking into Britam's computer system? Why target Britam? Why target those two gentlemen?

If anyone has any further information about this questioned document, please share!

Another document. This one comes to us via Wikileaks; it appeared last March. The document itself comes from the Pentagon and was written toward the end of 2011. After a frank discussion of what "soldiers of fortune" are doing on the ground to help the rebels, we hear about a possible air war:

There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It isn't clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can't just create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD campaign lasting the duration of the war. They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.

(Emphasis added.) Is this a clarion call for a false flag attack? No. But it's fair to interpret the document as leaning in that direction.