Anyone who reads the Sott page regularly will have figured out by now that it was likely the western-backed rebels that were responsible for the attack we see portrayed in the media. But some readers may not be aware that there is also evidence to suggest that chemical weapons weren't even used in the attack.
Of course, none of these facts seem to bother the mainstream media, who remain content to parrot the administration lies calling for a U.S. attack on Syria.
Leaving aside the possible impending approach of World War III, what grinds my gears is the unspoken and accepted supposition that "chemical weapons" are somehow worse or more horrific than regular conventional weapons, or weapons of any kind for that matter.
For it occurred to me that it was the "intent" behind the weapon, the desire to inflict violence against another human being, that is among the true horrors of war, and is at the root of this and any conflict, regardless of the means by which it is carried out.
Is it really preferable to die from the effects of a cluster bomb as opposed to Sarin Gas?
Is it more humane to bleed out after being blown up by a Tomahawk cruise missile or suffer and die by melting flesh with Napalm?
If your only child were sent off to die in another illegal war, would it really matter it they were killed by an IED or white phosphorous?
Only a psychopath or one ponerized by psychopathic thinking could reasonably assert that only some weapons are abhorrent, while others are acceptable ways to maim and annihilate the enemy. What an absurd twist of logic that is!
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word weapon as: "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage."
Notice there are two categories of weapons here; A thing used to inflict harm and a thing designed to inflict harm.
The first category could include not just conventional weapons like guns and bombs, but literally anything imaginable. One could choke someone to death with a strategically placed marshmallow, if so inclined. One's bare hands could be considered a weapon if used in the right way.
So, in this sense, any inanimate object does not become a "weapon" unless accompanied with the intent to inflict harm upon another person and the action to follow it through.
The latter category includes those devices that were solely designed to inflict harm, whose only inherent function is to cause pain and suffering, and that have no other purpose than to kill.
It's hard to imagine any other use for a bayonet, landmine or hydrogen bomb than for the killing of one's perceived enemies.
And this is where the problem lies; with one's perceived enemies. All throughout history we have been hypnotized over and over to perceive those different than us as "the other", less than human, and deservedly expendable.
Whether it be skin colour, political persuasion or religion, through the successful use of repetitive propaganda, the powers-that-be have brainwashed us to do their dirty work for them. We buy into the lies and send our precious sons and daughters off to foreign lands to kill those deemed "enemy" by our psychopathic leaders.
For it is the common person, the average everyday human being on both sides of any conflict, whose only desire is to live a life of relative peace and comfort, who are truly expendable in the eyes of our psychopathic rulers.
You don't see kings and presidents rushing to the front lines to defend the honour and freedom of the homeland. These arbitrary demarcations of race and religion are meaningless to them. We are cannon fodder, replaceable pawns in their games of power and control.
It is humanity itself and consequently the values of compassion and empathy that true humanity brings that is the enemy of the psychopath, and must be extinguished at all costs.
To take the recent situation with Syria as an example, if independent reports are true, there has been a "civil war" going on there for at least a couple of years, with 100,000+ civilians injured and killed.
Putting aside that fact that this civil war was wholly backed by western powers at the behest of Israel, it was only when chemical weapons were "allegedly used" that there was international uproar in the mainstream media for intervention in the region.
My problem is with the sheer hypocrisy of accepting the legitimacy of U.S. drone strikes as humanitarian weapons of war versus the unconscionable taboo of a chemical attack. It is lunacy to accept one form of indiscriminate killing over another.
There is no such thing as a 'war crime'.
War is a crime, period.
It is the most grievous crime against the soul to consciously choose to inflict harm upon another human being, and the means by which this end is achieved will never absolve one from the responsibility of such an act.
post script
We live in a mobile home in the country and once in a while a bear is known to come down from the mountains in search of food. We bought a can of pepper spray that we keep on hand just to be safe. But, if you think about it, pepper spray is a chemical weapon of sorts, and we're hoping that this admission won't prompt the U.S. government to launch a strategic but limited tactical strike upon our home, although I wouldn't put it past them.
Thanks Tim. Well said, and I agree.