Friday, April 25, 2008

lies, damned lies and White House Intelligence Briefs

In a moment that makes me wonder if I am not a little prescient after my previous post, the White House today broadcast claims that the building in Syria that was bombed by Israel- in a flagrant act of aggression- on September 6th, 2007, was a nuclear reactor.


The possibility that this was, in fact, a nuclear plant, is a little remote. Why would Syria start a nuclear program? The US and Israel clearly have the country infested with agents and have satellite imagery of every inch of its surface. Syria stands to gain nothing from a nuclear program- whatever its purpose. I think this is an outright fabrication by the US to perpetuate ill-feeling towards the Arab states of the Middle East (anyone remember the "Iranian weapons" being supplied to Iraqi militia that were labelled with Roman characters, instead of Persian). Syria offered an olive branch to the US and they flatly refused it. The US has everything to gain from falsifying these allegation and Syria has nothing to gain from them being true.

'Nuff said.


The IAEA has now waded in to the debate, pointing out rightly that the US and Israel should have shared any intel on a nuclear reactor with them first and foremost. Another example of the hell-bent unilateralism of these two states.

Just for a moment here, lets pause and review what enormous and genocide-promoting gaffs US intelligence has provided us with in the past.

  • "Iraq is building nuclear weapons"
  • "Iran """""""""""""""""""""""""""""
  • A refusal to confirm or deny whether Israel has a nuclear weapon
Lets also just stop and consider what has been said by the US here:

  • that the reactor is "good to go"
    • this is clearly such utter bollocks that it should instantly invalidate any further posits from them. The "reactor building" didn't even have a roof when it was bombed!
  • "Syria had built the plant "carefully hidden from view""
    • so 'carefully hidden' that a commercial satellite operator could get images of it? What utter shite!
  • "the reactor was designed to produce a small amount of plutonium, which can be used to build a nuclear bomb"
    • sorry, what? How did they know this? If the North Koreans have spent the last twenty five years running a reactor similar to the alleged one here and haven't built a working warhead I don't think there's much to fear here. Building a nuclear powerplant and building a nuclear bomb are quite, quite different kettles of fish.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.