Isis funded by UK & US - the fog of war

Tue May 21 01:53:40 CDT 2019

Questions that arise: 

a) is there a way to elicit elucidation without evocation of execration of the questioner - I mean, obviously one could research on one’s own, but is it wrong to think that, on a Pynchon list, someone who already did that would be willing to cobble together a P’s-eye-ish view of the situation with telling details, a measure of compassion, fitting it into larger Mideast and global perspective, and some of the other narrative qualities we all admire? Which would be volunteer work, and a honking big ask, come to think of it. But no harm in asking, eh wot? 

b) whoever did the original massacre —-

 (and is there any indication who - if not the Syrian government- that might be? There’s that Graham Greene novel about CIA doing a car bomb or something in Saigon to justify more military action that springs to mind, and it’s not like the US doesn’t have the world’s largest stockpiles of CW, which hipsters understand to mean not only Country and Western music, but also chemical weapons)

—- how does bombing redress it? The people bombed are almost certainly not the perpetrators or decision makers, are they? So, not even a good revenge, let alone recompense, assistance or efficacious expression of concern for the relatives of the victims.
And some functionary (“aware that they are plotting death” ) gets a 5 percent raise and another GS rating for picking the target. Dirty deeds and they’re done dirt cheap! 

c) how does personal animus add to the discussion? Am I amiss in not likening it to the Chums’ fundament-grabbing in the chow line and relishing the humor in it - although I guess since that did occur to me, perhaps my disapprobation is less than completely non-disingenuous 🤔 

What would Lindsey Noseworth do?

Pynchonian view: war as a celebration of markets? Cui Bono? Some folks make a beaucoup of money off bombing. (May they realize the error of their ways and repent!)
  Military-industrial propensity for deception, thousands of examples? 
Mr Pynchon’s willingness to engage with conspiracy theories yet maintain rationality, neither embracing nor rejecting out of hand, seeking facts and new viewpoints, and, through it all, earliest posited as a stance, keep cool but care?
 Also the focus on “each poor preterite soul” identifying less with the commanders of bombs and more with the bombed? 

My takeaway: after hundreds of years interfering with the Mideast, western nations again interfere violently. IMHO western nations should withdraw all forces and commence paying reparations. Cheerfully.

The pretext for this action might not be fact-based according to whistle-blowers within a group entrusted with investigating it. 
IMHO a bombing “justified” by chemical attack is a non sequitur, and hypocrisy from white phosphorus users.

Whistleblowers- 
Cool that they were brave.
Hope they remain safe.

Jerky doubts their veracity. Not sure why.
People have been known to lie. But what would be their motive? 

Desired granularity of facts difficult to obtain. Heat v. Light ratio close to prohibitive.

Barring a calm response one can sink one’s lit-crit teeth into without unsavory hostilities, I’m back to looking for typos in Marguerite Young’s Debs biography, a-and maybe her other books after that. (Big smile- dear sweet holy God, she is a heckuva writer.)

Yours truly and hoping for the next Pynchon novel, or even a blurb or essay to tide one over,

Hooper

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
Cc: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Subject: Re: Isis funded by UK & US
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 15:13:46 +0200

On April 7, 2018, allegedly a chemical weapons attack took place in the 
Syrian city of Douma. France, the UK and the US (as well as Germany) 
claimed that the Syrian government was responsible and on April 14 the 
"retaliated" with a missile strike on Syria. Russia had warned against 
this strike at the UN and threatened that if Russian servicemen were 
targeted, Russia would not only destroy the missiles but also the 
vessels from which they were fired. Thankfully, no Russians were harmed.

The OPCW published an interim report on the incident in July 2018, and 
its final report in March 2019.

OPCW staff members have now leaked a report on an investigation that was 
undertaken by an engineering sub-team of the Fact-Finding Mission, 
"beginning with on-site inspections in April-May 2018, followed by a 
detailed engineering analysis including collaboration on computer 
modelling studies with two European universities. The report of this 
investigation was excluded from the published Final Report of the 
Fact-Finding Mission, which referred only to assessments sought from 
unidentified 'engineering experts' commissioned in October 2018 and 
obtained in December 2018."

http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018

(It was the first time that OPCW inspectors were able to conduct an 
investigation of an alleged CW incident on site; with regard to the 
incident in Khan Sheikoun, the OPCW had already been critizised for 
violating its own guidelines by failing to establish chain of custody.)

The investigation of the engineering sub-team related to the two gas 
cylinders observed at the site. The report may be found here:

http://syriapropagandamedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1.pdf

The OPCW has confirmed that the report is genuine.

The engineering report states:

"The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders, and 
the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what 
would have been expected in the case of either cylinder being delivered 
from an aircraft. In each case the alternative hypothesis produced the 
only plausible explanation for observations at the scene."

The Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media comments:

"The conclusion of the Engineering Assessment is unequivocal: the 
alternative hypothesis that the cylinders were manually placed in 
position is 'the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene'."

And puts the leaked document in context:

"Our last Briefing Note listed two other key findings:

It is no longer seriously disputed that the hospital scene was staged: 
there are multiple eyewitness reports supported by video evidence.
The case fatality rate of 100%, with no attempt by the victims to 
escape, is unlike any recorded chlorine attack.

Taken together, these findings establish beyond reasonable doubt that 
the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 was staged."

It seems that the OPCW has suppressed the findings of their own 
Fact-Finding Mission because these findings would have contradicted its 
public conclusions and undermined the narrative propagated by the 
Governments of the United States, United Kingdom and France, as well as 
the entirety of the Western mainstream media.

Am 17.05.2019 18:38, schrieb Joseph Tracy:
> This is an opinion piece in the Guardian but entirely based on documentary evidence and ongoing legal actions in the so called war on terror.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?fbclid=IwAR26fC470VexPo17OiCnr0I13Oaq2uV5H7SVVnUeaI054LiC3QIu3Vf5ZDI
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>

--
Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l

____________________________________________________________
1 Weird Trick That "Forces" Your Eye To 20/20 Vision -Try It
Igenics
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5ce3a09be6bf1209b6fe0st03vuc