LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog


"--takin' the BS outa' the BlogoSphere (and MSM) one shovel-full at a time "




--  Middle East  --

Obama’s Syrian red-line: indicative of either a clueless idiot or very smart psychopath 

YT provided by Syrian insurgents, uploaded Aug21.2013

On Aug20.2012 Obama made a surprise visit to the daily WH press conference and made what appeared to be a rather glib, off-the-cuff statement that virtually guaranteed that a number of Syrian civilians would soon die a horrible death by chemical agents.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.  Link

This was nothing short of an invitation for the Syrian insurgents to start gassing Syrian civilians and then blame Assad in order to get Obama to enter the fray. 

And just as sure as smoke blows south when the wind is from the north, seven months later the WH was blaming Assad of using CW in Khan al-Assal, outside of Aleppo.  

A month later, Mar19.13 there was another CW attack near Aleppo, in Shaykh Maqsud, and Susan Rice was blaming Assad.  She complained of two other attacks, one at Qasr Abu Samrah on May 14 and one on Adra on May 23. From Jerusalem Obama all but blamed Assad and threw down another red-line warning – to Assad, not to the insurgents. 

But these attacks were not what one would call "massive" and -- thanks to Russia -- from the beginning there was strong evidence available to the world that the perp was not Assad but the insurgents. 

Shortly after these attacks, the US failed to step in and the insurgents got their butts kicked badly in Aleppo. They were getting desperate to get the West to back them up, or, better, to take the lead in taking out Assad the way Gaddafi was taken out. The way Saddam was taken out. The way Mubarak was taken out. What the insurgents needed in order to pull the US into the conflict was a CW attack that was lot more brutal, either that or a false flag attack that looked a lot more brutal.

Then came the alleged attack on East Ghouta near Dasmascus on Aug21. How convenient.

Any fool could see that once Obama laid down a red-line on CW, the insurgents and Israel both would be the benefactors of a CW attack that could be pinned on Assad. Add the Saudis to that list, for they want Syria and Iran to fall as badly as the Israelis do. The Middle East is full of psychopaths who would happily see a thousand Syrians gassed in order to bring the US into the fight. Any fool could see that Obama’s bravado was going to get innocent Syrians killed, just as Bush’s "bring em’ on" was part and parcel of the program that led to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis. Idiot presidents flap their tongues and people die.

But there is a dark, dark alternative hypothesis to the one that says Obama was just too stupid to appreciate the consequences of his red-line. And that alternative is that Obama knew that by throwing down the red-line those players backing the insurgents – particularly Israel and Saudi – would make sure the CW attack happened. In other words, Obama wanted an excuse to take out Assad as badly as Israel and Saudi wanted to give him one, and what’s a thousand dead Syrians when the ultimate goal is going after Iran once Syria is dispensed with?

It concerns me – although it’s just a theory – but this president may be either dumber or more psychopathic than his predecessor. That really concerns me.

But maybe it’s all a hoax, a false flag. Not many are suggesting that at this point, but I hope it’s true. At this point I would be delirious with joy if what Obama is engaged in is a gruesome staging of children being gassed rather than actually being a party to children being gassed. 

It's pretty far out, and I don’t think so, but I have this one pharmacological reason to think Ghouta may have been staged.

My PhD is in pharmacology; my expertise when I was in science was neuropharmacology. I know that the organophosphates, which is what sarin is, produce their primary molecular effect by blocking an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase. This enzyme normally inactivates the neruotransmitter acetylcholine or Ach. When our muscles contract, it is because the nerves release Ach onto them. If the acetylcholinesterase has been blocked, then there is nothing to stop the Ach from acting and the muscles keep contracting – both skeletal muscles and smooth muscles. Prolonged contraction of the skeletal muscles causes a rigid paralysis. Prolonged contractions of the smooth muscles cause, among other things, uncontrollable defecation, urination, and vomiting.

The significance of this to Ghouta is that because of these unavoidable effects of sarin, if one looks at dozens of photos and videos of people in situ – lying in place – dead because of a sarin attack, one damn well ought to be seeing a lot of them messed up with feces, urine, and vomitus. 

And so I have done that:  I have looked at dozens of online photos and videos kindly provided by the insurgents – photos and videos of people purported to be dead and dying victims of Assad’s sarin attack on Ghouta. Photos of the victims laid out in make-shift morgues.  Or being placed neatly in mass graves. Photos of victims in situ, still lying where they were gassed and where they died.

I have yet to see a single victim that has defecated, urinated, or puked. From my pharamological background, I am not able to understand why that is, unless the photos have been faked, or unless the victims died by some gas other than an organophosphate.

But Kerry has said over and over, and he said it to the Senate Foreign Relations committee yesterday: he has evidence that the victims have tested positive for a "sarin signature." He is careful not to say they tested positive for sarin, but for a sarin "signature." Kerry doesn’t say what that means, and no one – not even the outspoken physician Paul Rand – asks him what the hell "signature" means and whether anyone has actually found sarin itself. Presumably what Kerry means is that they found a chemical that could be a metabolite of sarin, but not sarin.

Moon Over Alabama has made this point about the sarin signature, and I am just passing on their insightful reporting.  The fact that Kerry keeps referring to "sarin signature" and not sarin itself almost certainly tells you that sarin was not found on the bodies. I don’t believe there is any metabolite of sarin that could not be from another source. Together with the obvious lack of defecation, urination, and vomiting, the sarin story is just not holding up.

Maybe this Ghouta attack really was staged. Or maybe it happened. I don’t know. But I do know that if it did happen it was either the unintended consequence of Obama’s stupidity or the intended consequence of his psychopathology.


Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.