speakingup's blog

"An Inconvenient Outburst" - challenging the dominant narrative in Syria

The following is to be found on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22456106

Syria sarin row - an inconvenient outburst by Mark Urban

"Statements by UN investigator Carla del Ponte that she had, "strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof" that Syrian rebels may have used the nerve gas sarin have produced some interesting responses.

They are reminiscent of some earlier conflicts where those who sought engagement on one side or the other wanted to portray the protagonists in simple good-versus-evil terms.

White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted Ms Del Ponte was wrong, and that the Assad regime was probably guilty of using such weapons, although the US has still not reached a definitive conclusion on the matter.

The US position is a complex one to be sure, since it requires Mr Carney and others to sound dismissive of the idea that the Syrian opposition might have done such a thing, while not stating with complete certainty that the government was guilty, lest such a conclusion be seen to demand action under the "red lines" previously formulated by President Barack Obama.

Some thoughts on Noam Chomsky's 9/11 stance

I’ve read that many believe Noam Chomsky's outright rejection of the 9/11 truth movement is incongruent with his many insightful writings on media and government control by a few elites and the illusions of choice we face. I've been curious about his position for a while and just wanted to share a few thoughts based on an interview I saw recently. (http://rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm) I apologize in advance if the following has been raised previously on this forum:

1. When asked what he thought of a particular 9/11 skeptic’s writings, Chomsky replied:

South tower impact - evidence of aircraft guidance?

Sorry if this has already been posted, but it may be significant.

I find it interesting to consider 9/11 from the perspective of the team who carried out the operation. It seems unlikely that they would have been content with the aircraft striking the towers randomly. If the buildings were to be damaged randomly, they could risk losing control of the ensuing meticulously timed demolition.

If they did select locations for aircraft strike, how would they control the collision? One plausible explanation may be that the target was 'painted' by laser targetting tool, in a similar fashion to how missile strikes can be directed.

The following film suggests that the target was 'painted' by a flying object, with the reflection appearing on an adjacent building.

I wonder if this video is genuine?