Who benefits From Yesterday's Terrorist Attack in Lebanon?
You've heard it, haven't you? Iran, Iran, Iran. It almost makes you think the next target of our imperial forces is Iran. But as with anything, when dealing with this administration, if it's being said loud and in the open there is a good chance it's just a smokescreen. After yesterday's terrorist attack in Lebanon it seems the next target will probably be Syria. It appears that no matter what the reality is of who is to blame, once again the quick and repeated is what sticks. As far as our government and the MSM are concerned it was Syria. Even though logic and the facts on the ground show that this is the last thing that Syria would do right now.

It is my understanding that Syria controls Lebanon. A peaceful Lebanon allows Syria to keep it's control over the country. Killing Lebanon's former Prime Minister would cause major problems for Syria. It doesn't look to me like that would be something Syria would want to do. The only thing Syria could possibly gain by this would be a justification to increase its troop levels in Lebanon but putting your country at risk to gain that would be very foolish.

These next two articles are quite enlightening. On is from the New York Times(NYT) , U.S. Seems Sure of the Hand of Syria, Hinting at Penalties and the other is from the Turkish Press(TP), Syria diverts blame onto Israel after 'odious' Hariri killing.


Now just as an exercise in the difference between what our media says and what they are saying in the Middle Eastern media I will try and hit the high points of these two articles, the NYT first:

- The US is "suggesting" Syria is to blame.
- McClellan admits there is no "concrete evidence" of Syrian involvement.
- Syria has denied involvement.
- McClellan in the ironic statement of the week, so far, also said, "a terrible reminder that the Lebanese people must be able to pursue their aspirations and determine their own political future free from violence and intimidation and free from Syrian occupation."
- A State Department official says, "We're going to turn up the heat on Syria, that's for sure,", "...Even though there's no evidence to link it to Syria.."
- Syria has effectively controlled Lebanon since 1976.
- Our diplomatic corps also seem to believe that Syria is a shill for Iran and is and easy mark, "low-hanging fruit".
- Some in the administration have argued for the last two years that Syria's role has not always been destructive.
- And, "..pressure is building in the administration to do something".

Now TP:
- Syria went of the defensive after the bombing mentioning that, "..Hariri, resigned just four months ago in protest at the dominant role of Damascus in his country.
- The official press condemned the murder as an "odious crime," saying Hariri was a "welcome son" for Syria and accused arch-foe Israel of seeking to sabotage Lebanon's achievements since the 1975-1990 war.
- Syria is trying to point the blame as Israel.
- Several Arab analysts stressed that Syria itself was also targeted by Hariri's assassination. "Syria certainly did not need to complicate the situation, just when it is already in the firing line"
- Political scientist Gamal Salama, also in Cairo, ruled out any Syrian link because the killing could not serve the interests of Damascus.
- It could signal "the prelude to action against Syria"
- ..the attack on Hariri "targeted national unity and civil peace in Lebanon".
- Damascus "always welcomed Hariri as one of its sons and as a major Lebanese figure".
- The Syrian Information Minister said, "The anarchy in Lebanon is perhaps due to the withdrawal of the Syrian army and security agents from most regions of Lebanon at a time when the independence of the country is under threat".

What I'm trying to point our here is the contrast between the reporting. The NYT article shows how the administration keeps trying to blame Syria but has no proof. They also try to connect them to Iraqi resistance and Iran and it appears they want to attack Syria because they are an easy mark and the administration has to do something. Now the TP article they start by saying Syria had nothing to so with the bombing. Mention how yes Syria and Hariri had their differences but that wouldn't cause this. But they also mention Israel which is never mentioned in the NYT article. But they go into the specifics of why Syria wouldn't want to do this. In the NYT article it is just assumed that only Syria would benefit from this. I think it is very informative to look at both sides of this.

One last thing. I came across this just before I posted, U.S. Withdraws Ambassador to Syria. Again I just find statements like this so ironic when you consider what we've done in Iraq:

He (State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher) added, "I think the reason that this particular incident is related to the, sort of, step of recalling our ambassador is that the incident is a horrible thing that happened that shows the distortions of Lebanese politics that are created by the Syrian presence. It shows that the excuse, the reason, the rationale that's given for the Syrian presence really doesn't work. It has not provided internal security for Lebanon."

- posted by Mom/Dad @ 11:29 AM