Cui bono – "who benefits" – is the first question an experienced detective asks when investigating a crime. (...)
The civilian population in a rebel-held town called Idlib was hit with poison gas. Dozens of civilians, including children, died a miserable death. Who could do such a thing? The answer was obvious: that terrible dictator, Bashar al-Assad. Who else?
And so, within a few minutes (literally) the New York Times and a host of excellent newspapers throughout the West proclaimed without hesitation: Assad did it!
No need for proof. No investigation. It was just self-evident. Of course Assad. Within minutes, everybody knew it.
The Syria ‘Chemical Attack’: Cui Bono? by Uri Avnery, April 15, 2017
I wonder since years that chemical weapons are considered so important or so inhumane and so on. I thnk this has only social-cultural reasons but no real true reason in reality. The mass-torturing of thousands and tenthousands of humans (often literaly torturing them to death) and many many other extreme violence in syria are much more worse than the use of chemical weapons (which are in comparison with the other attrocities relativly harmless and human).
ReplyDeleteAll groups in syria use therefore our cultural traits in this context (chemical weapons) for their political reasons, of cause. But to ask then who realy has use this weapons leads to wrong conclusions, for example that the assad regime is not the worst group there because it did not used this weoapons and so on.
In comparison chemical weapons are more human than many other things that happen daily in syria. And the Assad Regime did incredible evil things to thousands of humans every day, absolut indiscutable things. It should be destroyed for them, and assad should be killed or get a death sentence if captured.