If I were you then, I wouldn't be nearly so concerned with the "international community" as I would with truthfulness and integrity of my own government. Perhaps you should think about that.
Anybody could make up that report at the end of the article. Ridiculously it concludes with no explanation that rebels couldn't get those chemical weapons and if they did they wouldn't be able to deploy them. Huh? Couldn't deploy them, what, they are too stupid to deploy a chemical weapon? Look at all the other stuff they deploy: tanks, cannons, IED's, grenade launchers, shoulder fired missles... but they just wouldn't be able to work those chemical weapons for some strange reason, oh my, don't we all have our little foibles! I believe this investigative reporter more than that report. Syria covert op: They had to dump Hillary and bring in Kerry by Jon Rappoport September 7, 2013 www.nomorefakenews.com Pushed and prodded by John Kerry-Heinz, the zombie from the Black Lagoon, the European Union has agreed to look carefully at the upcoming UN inspectors' report on chemical weapons. The report will determine whether those weapons were deployed in Syria but NOT BY WHOM. Perfect. The EU will learn nothing. Kerry-Heinz said the EU has made a "strong statement." Good boy, John, you can come home now. Don't want to miss the Skull&Bones alumni meeting at Yale. In his early days as Secretary of State, John is certainly proving himself to be an "activist" Secretary. He's doing all he can to elevate Obama to the status of "wartime President," which carries much more prestige than just a guy occupying the White House who can't create a job for Americans. You see, since war/destabilization/chaos in Syria has been on the drawing board for some time, and since the relevant players knew this episode was coming, they wanted to get rid of Hillary. She was embroiled in Benghazi. Not the best track record for urging war in Syria. CIA operatives, some of whom were apparently operating under State Department cover, were busy transferring weapons in Libya to terrorists who were fighting against Assad in Syria. Hmm. Better to avoid that connection. And Hillary subsequently confirmed her handlers' doubts about her. She showed her uncontrolled rage during Benghazi testimony before Congress: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" she exclaimed, referring to the question of who killed Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. Imagine this sort of press coverage: "Today, Secretary of State Hillary what-difference-does-it-make Clinton said, 'Of course we have to attack Syria. Launch the missiles now.' Is she saying, one more time, 'what difference does it make who used chemical weapons?'" So they dumped Hillary and dug Kerry-Heinz out of mothballs, dusted him off, propped him up, wound his clock, and sent him into the diplomatic fray. It's a close call to decide whether people are more fed up with Kerry now or when he ran for President. He keeps pushing the line: OF COURSE Assad used chemical weapons. But where is the evidence? It's classified. The war, however, won't be. It'll be out in the open...unless the attacks on Syria turn out to be much more extensive than we've been led to believe. The quick strike in and out, the token message of punishment, might be a ruse. So Kerry is Obama's wartime consigliere. Obama is now acting in a conciliatory manner. Kerry is carrying the water for a missile attack. He's the hardliner. Speaking of water, and in case you don't think things are insane enough, ex-State Department advisor, William Polk, claims that global warming is a major cause of civil war in Syria. Drought, farmers, conflict. Therefore, our failure to act on the false science of manmade warming makes it our fault that we're on the brink of war today. With 50,000 employees and an annual budget of $50 billion, the State Department could possibly trim its activities and budget to, let's see, ZERO. How about that? No more dinners and cocktail parties. No more squab and champagne. No more CIA agents and Globalist operatives working under that false cover. Kerry could go home, take care of his recovering wife, and worry about moving his boat from dock to dock to avoid taxes. Jon Rappoport The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Exactly. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used, but simply stating that they came from Assad's government is not suficient. What is the hard evidence. If it is classified, then unclassify it so we can decide if it could have been faked. Is it credible? It is not enough to say chemical weapons are terrible now. The U.S. condoned their use by Iraq against the Iranians, and said nothing when Sadam gassed the Kurds. If we are outraged now, why weren't we outraged then? Shouldn't the U.S. be expected to explain why the shift in sentiment. But, of course, we already know why. Even if it is incontrovertible that the Assad regime was reponsible for the gas attack, that is not sufficient to justify sending missiles into Syria. What we want to know now is what is to be gained by that. We haven't heard a word on that. Saving face is not a sufficient reason, neither is "sending a message'. There are plenty of other ways to send messages. Suppose the attack "degrades" Assad's offensive military capability, as the proponents claim will happen. What then? Degrade is a nebulous goal. This is the opportunity for the Congress to take back the power granted to it by the constitution, and send a shot across the White House bow. A golden opportunity to let the executive branch know that from now on Congress, not the President, will decide when the U.S. goes to war. And yes, Mr. President, attacking another nation with missiles is an act of war. Restoring Congress' authority would be far and away more in the interest of the American people than sending a shot across Mr. Assad's bow.
Were any of those killed American citizens? Assad launch any attack against us directly? No. Then it isn't our fight. Show me some dead Americans and then Obama has my full support to launch everything we have at Assad, including nukes, and we level the entire country. Until then, we're spectators. Lot's of bad people in the world doing bad things. We ain't the world cop. Worthless fucks don't appreciate it anyway when we do save their sorry asses.
Wow. Is this the same piezoe who was intoxicated by Propublica propaganda? All I can add to your post is amen.