The Invalid Assumption at the Core of the White House’s “Declassified Intelligence Report” on the Attack on Khan Sheikhoun

by Scott Creighton

IF AL-QAEDA AND ISIS’S WORD IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, IT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

This morning I read the 4-page “declassified” intelligence report released by the White House on the April 4th “chemical weapons attack” in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. It is completely ridiculous. It’s devoid of “intelligence”, based entirely on “pro-opposition” sources and is founded on the unusually hollow precept:

Basically they say they conclude their “regime” change contractors in the area could not have fabricated “all” of the videos and reporting because to do so they would have to have been “highly organized” to pull the wool over the eyes of the mainstream media and human rights organizations.

This is the foundation of their evidence and it is the core of this hastily cobbled together dossier the Trump team spoon fed to the rabid war-mongering media outlets that have proven themselves to be more than willing to overlook logic and reason in the past in favor of the promotion of invasions and “humanitarian interventions” time and time again.

So I guess it wouldn’t be hard to put together something credible enough to deceive them, now would it? After all, how believable was the “Yellow Cake” story or the one about bin Laden’s “multiple cave bunkers”?

Let’s take a second to break down what they call the “opposition” involved in the strike and the subsequent “videos and reporting”

  • Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al Nusra and before that, al Qaeda)
  • “ISIS”
  • the White Helmets (formerly known as the “Islamic State Fire Brigade”)
  • Dr. Islam who helped with the staged kidnapping of John Cantlie and who’s own brother is a member of “ISIS”

al-Sham is al-Qaeda and it is beyond ridiculous for anyone to assume they aren’t “highly organized” as the basis for our declared war on al-Qaeda is 9/11 and the fact that they are considered a “highly organized international threat to America”

“ISIS” has been producing “highly organized” attacks across Iraq and Syria and supposedly across Europe, Turkey, Egypt and even here in the U.S. if you believe the official stories. PLUS… they have a magazine, a PR department (run by a British citizen mind you) and produced dozens of very high end propaganda videos showing them beheading or burning or drowning someone over the past 4 years, right?

The White Helmets are nothing more than a “highly organized” propaganda outlet designed to promote all out war against the elected government of Syria. They’re “highly organized” enough to win an Academy Award for Christ’s sake.

And then we have Dr. Islam who was organized enough to be caught helping torture two citizens, had a trial set for it but got off and was able to not only go back to normal society in Britain… but he found his way back to Idlib so he could sign up with “ISIS” again.. and he even brought his brother along that time.

So you can see, at the core of this unsigned document that’s not even produced on official White House stationary, is a completely invalid assumption.

What’s more, this assumption flies in the face of almost everything we have been told about “ISIS” and al-Qaeda for years.

You can read the report but you will find nothing in terms of actual evidence. Not a shred. Not a satellite photo, not a medical report… nothing. There is nothing in it accept baseless accusations, conspiracy theories surrounding Moscow and tons of unwavering, unconditional, unskeptical acceptance of what their regime change contractors report from the scene.

When that 26-page dossier came out a month or so ago claiming to be proof Donald Trump had ties to Moscow and was in cahoots with them when they “undermined our election” I thought we had reached a new low in what passed for “intelligence’ in this country. I was sadly mistaken. This is even worse.

Yet, not surprisingly, the New York Times ran with the story about this new “declassified” report as if it were some kind of “slam dunk”… kind of like they did when Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council and made an ass of himself lying to them in order to try to win their support for an illegal war of aggression against Iraq… which failed of course because unlike the New York Times, everyone on the Security Council isn’t already in the pockets of the war-mongering masters of the universe.

Ultimately at the core of this … document?… is the unspoken accusation that if you don’t take all of these terrorists and “regime” change actors at their word… then you are a “conspiracy theorist” because you have to believe they engaged in a “highly organized” conspiracy to deceive everyone if you don’t.

And you have to believe that the media organizations, the human rights groups and even the intel agencies are all in on it as well, since they couldn’t possibly be deceived by a cobbled together hack-job of a psyop like this one was.

So at the core of their anonymous and baseless conspiracy theory is the White House’s accusation that you have to be a “conspiracy theorist” if you don’t believe it.

Does that sound familiar to anyone else?

Elizabeth left a comment that I think is entirely appropriate to my conclusion in this article:

“Human epistemology is entirely political. That is, “truth” and “facts” are products of social power. The more wealthy and powerful you are, the more your lies are “true.” The less wealthy and powerful you are, the more your truth is a “conspiracy theory.” A rich person’s lies are “true.” A poor person’s truths are “lies.” This bullshit continues because society pretends that the bullshit does not exist. “

That is absolutely true. The powerful can produce this kind of baseless “intelligence” report and get away with it because those that have access to a voice, to reach with their voice, are diametrically opposed to exposing the Emperor as naked because it doesn’t suit their career objectives and little folk for the most part don’t want to know because knowing implies a responsibility to act.

And action, even for the truth, especially for the truth, has consequences.

So we acquiesce to their sickness our of some internal instinct for self preservation.

Understanding all of this, our regime here in the States has grown every more dependent on this flaw in our national character as their lies twist and turn upon themselves exposing a disjointed web of holes and untruths like a failed salesman’s aging, stained and tattered lucky suit.

Logic and reason cry out for this thread-bare tapestry of deception to fall away and yet, remarkably, it continues to cling to the shameful skeleton beneath it. It’s almost a violation of the laws of physics at this point and yes that is a 9/11 reference if you must know.

As we send troops to fight for al-Qaeda against a democratically elected president and we hope against all hope that we can decimate Syria like we did Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan and countless other nations, I wonder just how damaged we as a people have become from the long term effects of this infection?

We know they’re crazy. The question is.. are we?

Advertisements

19 Responses

  1. We are and they know we are better than we know they are

  2. We know they’re crazy. The question is.. are we?

    Yes, probably. Everyone is a bit in the crazy world we live in. Pointing out the constant lies presented to the public is an important and difficult task and you appear to be doing a great job at it. Readers would benefit from taking that information and trying to figure out a constructive use for knowing a little more about all sides of each story than the mainstream would prefer, rather than as a lazy affirmation that everything is a lie, a few ultra-powerful people have magical knowledge and infinite evil that they use to control everyone and everything (impractical and impossible) and that all the advances of science are fake and only a deceptive means to poison the world. I’d expect the reaction to an idiotic comment like this to be “where did that come from? What a troll!”, possibly even a confident assignment of who I am (which of course would be wrong). More likely based on the last, “doesn’t deserve a thought or consideration”. However, a little self-reflection would probably not hurt anybody either.

    • His question addresses self-reflection

    • You talk about a constructive attitude, yet you purposely caricatured the views many of us have to mock us:
      *”Everything is a lie”- No one ever said that here. The dominant stories taught to a society are often those that serve the powerful. Sometimes they are true, sometimes they aren’t.
      *”a few ultra-powerful people have magical knowledge and infinite evil that they use to control everyone and everything (impractical and impossible)”- No one is omnipotent, but that doesn’t change the fact that presidents and CEOs are very damn powerful. What they want is more likely to become the law of the land than what you or I want, regardless of its merits. They can profit from treating the world in a destructive manner, and do most of the time.
      *”that all the advances of science are fake and only a deceptive means to poison the world”- Again, this is a blog maintained by an atheist with a skeptical mindset, and as far as I know, us commenters aren’t converts to a New-Age religion. I support the scientific and R&D in science and technology to help improve quality of life. I support atomic energy, and Scott didn’t panic over the radiation spillout at Fukushima, but some other commenters disagree with us, and that’s perfectly fine.
      If you are angrily dismissed or called a “troll”, it’s because you were unnecessarily provocative.

  3. “Human epistemology is entirely political. That is, “truth” and “facts” are products of social power. The more wealthy and powerful you are, the more your lies are “true.” The less wealthy and powerful you are, the more your truth is a “conspiracy theory.” A rich person’s lies are “true.” A poor person’s truths are “lies.” This bullshit continues because society pretends that the bullshit does not exist. “
    Just an aside: Literary critic Harold Bloom believes that “to read in the service of an ideology is not to read at all”, yet some of his most esteemed writers are or were highly political. I hope he meant that we shouldn’t project our views on everything, rather than his preference for a completely apolitical ideal of the arts. That would be very naive.
    I think the single biggest obstacle to improving the world is the inability to distinguish true from false. A well-intentioned person can produce disastrous outcomes with the wrong information.

    • extremely accurate:

      “A well-intentioned person can produce disastrous outcomes with the wrong information.”

      and is the foundation of our “intel” industry. Should be on a sign hanging over the front door of the CIA.

      The way I have always looked at it is that to read and write in service of an ideology is to do neither. Unless that ideology is the pursuit of the truth. That is my ideology.

    • I think the failure to distinguish truth from falsehood is more often a choice than an inability. It is more often a failure of character than of intellect.

      Therefore if a troll makes idiotic comments, we may think him stupid, when in fact he is simply an a**hole. (I’m looking at YOU “mrturdguy” or whatever your name was.)

    • “A well-intentioned person can produce disastrous outcomes with the wrong information.”

      Indeed. For example, if we adopt the Empire’s buzzwords (e.g. “intervention”) and if we start by conceding the Empire’s lies (“Yes Assad gassed babies, but…”) then we serve the Empire, no matter how well intentioned we claim to be.

      To take a broader view, mass control means control of our various means of human exchange — e.g. control of our vocabulary, our money, our means of transport, and (most importantly) our discourse, since communication control permits thought control.

  4. It has been said “There is no absolute truth.”
    So many different perceptions of an idea, situation, object, or a person.

  5. “We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos about chemical attacks. We have confidence, since the videos were fabricated by us. Our moderate head-choppers are so stupid that they can barely pick their own noses without help.”

    By the way, there’s a mini-mart two blocks from where I live. I knew the owners well, but they suddenly sold the store to some guy from Syria. The new owner (the Syrian) speaks little English. How do we know he was not a moderate” head-chopper brought here by the Empire? How did he get the money to buy the store? Such questions can never be answered, but let’s not be surprised if we see a lot of small businesses suddenly opened (or purchased) by “Syrians” across the USA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: