Ein durchaus interessante Theorie

 von LePenseur


... stellt "The Saker" auf "The Unz Review" bezüglich der jüngsten Geschehnisse in Syrien auf:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

1. a classical US-executed false flag
2. a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don’t. Unless,
3. the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

(Hier weiterlesen)

Bevor jetzt wieder die ganze Transatlantiker-Riege ausrückt: nein, das heißt nicht, daß es so gewesen sein muß und so werden wird, aber daß diese Darstellung ein hohes Maß an Plausibilität für sich hat. 

Leider.

---------------------------------------------

P.S.: der Artikel ist ebenso interessant wie lang. Das ist in Zeiten von Twitter & Co. natürlich eine gewisse Herausforderung. Und wenngleich ich (wenigstens derzeit noch) nicht den tiefen Pessimismus des Autors bezüglich der weiteren Präsidentschaft Trumps teile, kann ich nach Trumps letzten Aktinoen meine Besorgnis nicht verhehlen. Wenn The Saker schreibt:

Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

1. The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
2. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.

The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

... so ist das für mich ein worst-case-scenario, von dem ich uns allen wünsche, daß es nicht eintreten möge. Doch wenn ich gerade die Meldung lese:

Nachdem US- Präsident Donald Trump zuletzt mit einem Alleingang gegen Nordkorea gedroht hatte , wenn China im Konflikt um das nordkoreanische Atomprogramm nicht den Druck auf das Regime von Diktator Kim Jong Un erhöht, hat die chinesische Führung nun offenbar 150.000 Soldaten an die Grenze zu Nordkorea verlegt. Das berichtet die südkoreanische Tageszeitung "Chosun" auf ihrer Website.
(Hier weiterlesen)

... dann fällt mir gerade ein berühmtes Zitat aus dem Film "All about Eve" ein:

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!

P.P.S.: Filmpuristen mögen verzeihen, daß ich die gängige Falschzitation "ride" (statt "night") verwendete. Sie trifft sie Sache allerdings besser ...