US Sticking to Flimsy Narrative to Push Syria War

Whole Case Hinges on Circumstantial Evidence

The US narrative justifying their planned attack on Syria hinges on an array of circumstantial evidence. In essence, they argue that since Syria has chemical weapons and there was exposure to some sort of chemicals, it must’ve been a chemical weapon attack.

There’s no proof in there, if one studies the Obama Administration’s case, and the desperation with which they’ve fought against UN inspections suggests they are fully aware, despite the pretense of their case being indisputable, that it could fall apart quickly.

As Secretary of State John Kerry sees his arguments being rejected, he keeps adding new pieces to the story, a bad liar who doesn’t know when to give up. He’s now equated Assad to Hitler multiple times, claiming the US knew three days in advance about the attack, and put the death toll at exactly 1,429.

Each of those claims is another red flag about this story, raising questions on why the US, which “knew” about the putative attack in advance, did nothing to warn anyone, and why the US death toll is many-fold larger than any presented by human rights groups, and even those of other nations looking to sell the war.

The Hitler analogy is perhaps the laziest attempt at warmongering, an attempt at replacing evidence they just flat out don’t have with hysterical rhetoric. Though it’s liable to make the war’s advocates (who by and large advocate any war on any pretext) all the more shrill, it’s hard to see how it will convince anyone of the merits of their case. urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria. Click here for contract information.

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is senior editor of