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.

However, she admitted that she was under heavy pressure to give that impression BUT also maintains she didn't cave to that pressure.  Anywhere.

There were no findings to suggest it wasn't a massacre, and that's what she said more or less, refusing to say it definitly was a massacre because there wasn't really any way to prove it definitivly.

Her opinion then, and now, was "Nothing to suggest it wasn't a massacre, but no definitive proof it was.  If I had to guess, it was".

Vs what they wanted which was "This was definitly a massacre."

There wasn't anyone who would of be it wasn't a massacre, based on the lack of any evidence of them fighting back.  Traces of gunpowder not found using superior techniques etc.

It was back in march, shortly after a supposed chemical weapons attack in Aleppo. It was the syrian government themselves who asked the UN for an independant investigation of the incident, so they were obviously completely convinced that it was the rebels who where behind the attack. The syrian goverment wanted independant UN inspectors to prove that the rebels had been using chemical weapons.

Well, that was in march, and in mid-August, UN chemical weapons inspectors finally arrive. But they have a different agenda than what the syrian government originally wanted: Assad of course wanted the independant UN inspectors because he wanted to prove that the rebels had used the chemical weapons. What we have now is quite the contrary: For some bizarre reason, the UN inspectors are forbidden to investigate who is actually behind the attacks - they are only allowed to prove if chemical weapons have been used at all - which of course nobody even doubts.

Several media have reported this morning that the planned military strikes will not even target the chemical weapons, for that could release those chemical weapons in the air and kill much more people. Sounds quite plausible.

They also reported that the planned military strike is also not meant to lead to a regime change, so it's obviously okay that Assad stays in power.

People should really ask themselves: If the real problem is that Assad is an evil dictator using evil chemical weapons - why are neither Assad nor the chemical weapons even targets of the military strike? What on earth are the real military targets of that planned military strike?

And it should indeed baffle you, for it really just doesn't make sense. Why should Assad order using chemical weapons, in a situation where

- Obama claimed exactly this as a "red line", crossing which would force the US to act?

- the rebels are currently rather losing that winning, becoming more and more unpopular even among the population

- UN chemical weapons inspectors had arrived just three days before

It just doesn't make sense, the rebels have much stronges motives to make a false flag chemical weapons attack.

People should also remember why those UN chemical weapons inspectors are in Syria anyway:

It was back in march, shortly after a supposed chemical weapons attack in Aleppo. It was the syrian government themselves who asked the UN for an independant investigation of the incident, so they were obviously completely convinced that it was the rebels who where behind the attack. The syrian goverment wanted independant UN inspectors to prove that the rebels had been using chemical weapons.

Well, that was in march, and in mid-August, UN chemical weapons inspectors finally arrive. But they have a different agenda than what the syrian government originally wanted: Assad of course wanted the independant UN inspectors because he wanted to prove that the rebels had used the chemical weapons. What we have now is quite the contrary: For some bizarre reason, the UN inspectors are forbidden to investigate who is actually behind the attacks - they are only allowed to prove if chemical weapons have been used at all - which of course nobody even doubts.

They were meant to stay for just a couple of weeks - so why, just why on earth should Assad order a chemical weapons attack just when these inspectors had just arrived?

Any source where she clearly says so? That she never gave in to any pressure whatsoever?

On Wikipedia, Ranta is being quoted saying something that translates to something like this:

"I am aware that one could say the whole scene had been arranged. I am aware of that. Because that is indeed a possibility. In fact, that's what our first investigations suggested, just like our later forensic investigations that we conducted in November 1999. And that's also the conclusion that we handed over to Den Haag.  Mr. Walker came to Racak on thursday, and it was his personal decision to talk of a "massacre". I myself systematically avoided using that word."

Whatever she really thought back then, I see at least two possibilities:

1. She believed that it was a massacre. In that case, she was just an extremely bad investigator, for she didn't even check for things like traces of gunpowder on the hands of killed that other investigations checked and realized that the killed were most probably UCK fighters, not civilians.

2. She believed that it wasn't a massacre, but realizing that certain people/governments etc. were only interested in information hinting that it was a massacre by the serbs, she decided to stick to telling half-truths: That she had no beyond any doubt proof that it wasn't a massacre.