Kasz216 said:
mai said:
Well, as those of you who follow the events might have know already, there's a lot of talks about bigger US military involvement after recent chemical attack in Syria, which is worth a small update in the thread.
I'm remembering similar events that lead to another war or two. So called Racak massacre, which independent investigation report, that effectively put in doubt official version, cost a lot of diplomatic efforts and political will, but nevertheless misteriously vanished afterwards. Or that WMD dossier that some suggest was the reason behind mysterious death of UN inspector, D.Kelly, even though his involvement was minimal. Even this alone might make regular, far from consipracy people suspicious about whatever J.Kerry is going to reveal. Not so long ago, information about alleged chemical attack provocation surfaced the net. Rumor it is, that should be taken with mountain of salt, but what have made it more believable for me is the mention of certain British PMC, that crossed my radar not for the first time due to it's legally questionable activity in Somali. Nevertheless who did that and why, decide that for yourself, as usual there're many contradictory opinions.
My working hypothesis, they are just trying to solidify their position before Geneva-2 if it ever happens. Full blown invasion is absoluteley out of question here, only viable platzdarm could be Jordan, but I never heard of any worth noting movement from over there, while preparations for such operation might take months (almost a year in case of Iraq). Airstrikes possible but doubtful.
|
I feel like you didn't actually follow the Racak massacre.
Most people take it that Ranta thought it was a massacre, and the other Finnish inspectors disagreed so it was classified.
However interviews of those involved have shown it was the exact opposite.
Ranta was the LEAST sure it was a massacre. Her opinion released being her opinion in general... and the least hawkish.
|
Why are trying to prove that mai is wrong about Helena Ranta, when in fact he didn't even mention her?
And trying to whitewash Helena Ranta seems quite absurd to me. You may be right that she was actually never convinced that it was a massacre, but there is absolutely no doubt that back at the time she consciously provided a very different impression to the public.
Years laters, for example in her biography, she admitted that back at the time she was under heavy pressure by Walker and certain governments to give a certain impression that would place the blame solely on the serbs. But the point here is not that she was actually never really convinced of the massacre - by succumbing to pressure and consciously misleading the public opinion in a certain direction, she consciously played a highly questionable role in the preparation of a war.
In that respect, I think her role and responsibility was quite similar to Colin Powell's infamous UN speech. Colin Powell probably knew very well that he was expected to mislead the public opinion despite knowing better, but for whatever reasons (probably pressure) he did not have the courage to refuse doing so.
