the u.s. is worried about syrian chemical weapons .... now, just where in the hell did they come from ....

chemical weapons.

if that doesn't ring a bell for you, how about "weapons of mass destruction."

this article, dateline august 23, 2012 from the national journal entitled "u.s. could send elite weapons to seize syrian chemical weapons stockpiles" relates that the obama administration is considering sending u.s. troops into syria to seize chemical weapons stockpiled there.

no mention of significant production capacity, nor any analysis of a "military/industrial" base capable of manufacturing such weapons in quantity.  there "... are said ..." to be a limited number of plants, though no analysis of how long they may have been in production, or how much has been produced in them.  it is a bit skimpy, this "analysis," to say the least.  http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/ .

no conjecture about where they may have come from.

well, the answer is just obvious.

you don't have to be a particle physicist to reach the reasonable conclusion based upon inference from historical fact that these are the weapons that sadaam hussein had manufactured when he ruled iraq, and that he scooted out of iraq and into syria before and during the u.s. led invasion of his country that toppled him from rule.

there is one other conclusion that is inescapable.

the media is capable of seeing chemical weapons when it fits its agenda, and is totally blind to them and decries anyone who does seem them, when that posture fits its agenda.  in other words, the media has a totally cynical view about fact and truth, views it as a malleable commodity, and is willing to subsume truth to its own convenience.

let's put it another way.  when it is convenient for the media's leftist agenda and to promote its opposition to a given foreign policy, say as advanced by a conservative president like george bush, then it does not see "chemical weapons," or "weapons of mass destruction."   but, when it is convenient for the media's leftist agenda to promote its support for the "foreign policy" of a leftist radical socialist/communist president, say like barack "the one and true hussein" obama, then it sees chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction with the clarity of an eagle in flight scanning the ground for field mice.

read the article.

you will find no mention of of sadaam hussein, the war in iraq, or the fact that syria and iraq under sadaam were both ruled by the baathist party.  that syria remains ruled by the baathist party.

you will find no mention of the fact that it is not documented that syria really ever had the industrial capacity to manufacture a lot of chemical weapons.  make that read "weapons of mass destruction."  the article mentions only that four plants "...  are said ..." to be located in syria, and in the towns that the syrian rebellion seems to be most active.  there is no discussion whether these "plants" had the capacity to manufacture the weapons which are discussed, by type.  but, not by quantity.

yet, here the leftist journalists are worried about it.

the russians are worried about it.  "russia said on thursday that it was collaborating with the syria government to deal with any potential threats to the chemical arsenal, the associated press reported."  http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/

you figure it out.  give it a thought, for a second or two, and see what you conclude.  i just re-read the article in its entirety, and not one mention of sadaam hussein and iraq.  not one mention of the trucks that streamed for weeks from out of iraq into syria.  not one mention that the four plants that "... are said ..." to be in syria had anything to do with, or had the capacity to create, the chemical weapons stockpiles that the soviet russians wish to "protect."

interesting word, that word "protect," is it not?  the article did not discuss that word, "protect," or to what end and for whom they would "protect" it.

that is not part of the media agenda.  dig?

 

john jay @ 08.24.2012

Comments

[ali3nation]

I hate to tell you, I made that connection, including the Baathist connection over a year ago. But thank you for giving it the space it needs. How blind and dumb/numb can our people and the world be to not see the writing so clearly written on the wall. The MSM tells you what you think you know.

[john jay]

ali3nation:

i have written on this topic many times, to include the matters discussed in the post that is being written just now.

the whole thing has been clear for a long time.

i am very glad that you have posted this comment, and i appreciate the read and the comment.

i don't care who was first, though i have been on this for a long long time.

i am just glad that you are getting the news out.

john jay