Editorial Balance (re: Syria and the use of W.M.Ds)

 If (as John Keats would have us believe), '"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," "(and)" - that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' Which is more repugnant, the hand-ringing posturing of the British Government over the (alleged), use of chemical agents and incendiary weapons by the Syrian regime on its own population, or the deformed children born to the victims of N.A.T.O since the inception of the war of aggression that The West has been perpetrating against the "dissenting" Arab states for more than two decades? Surely it is human behaviour itself which truly defines the nature of that which is ugly (the foetus is utterly defenceless against such; "reckless hate")? I sense my transatlantic colleagues sigh indulgently whenever I draw attention to their status as an urban-legend of (for instance), "The Pentagon Papers", it is clear however that ignorance of such leads inevitably to violent crime in the very heart of the urban centres which created them (that then goes on to infect the rest of the planet), should we allow the use of depleted uranium as a weapon of war to fall in to the same category we will be guilty of creating a pathogen capable of the same. It is vital therefore that every effort be made to repair the damage that the recidivist politics of the late twentieth and early twenty first century have done to the reputation and influence of The United Nations. The notion that the N.A.T.O countries occupy the moral high-ground with regard to the use of weapons of mass destruction would be laughable if it wasn't so repellent so why does our mainstream media so consistently fail to draw the obvious parallels between that which our governments condemn and that which they perpetrate themselves? Perhaps having viewed the following one may come to understand (but not condone), their behaviour........

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/gulf_war_syndrome/uranium_infanticide.html

 http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m58926&hd=&size=1&l=e

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria 
?

"Syrian conflict: Key sarin ingredients sold by UK firms" Go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28212724

"Depleted Uranium "The Progressive Review"" Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/depleted-uranium-progressive-review.html

"Caught in the Act?" (re: Pt. Manning)

Manufacturing consent. Is that what Jon Snow was doing on Channel4 News the other night? Are we meant simply to accept that Private First Class Bradley Manning's fate is sealed and that his is a noble but necessary sacrifice to the corn deities which preside over our errant climate? Abrogation of responsibility is of-course far from uncommon (infact many at "MediaLens" -for instance-, would claim that such was de rigueur), in mainstream journalism, but such blatant collusion appears only to occur when certain stories become iconic and there is a presumed consensus within the mainstream media organisations. Interestingly some stories seem to qualify for this treatment not because of lack of sympathy (or at least that is what the "journos" themselves would have us believe), but because of a (feigned), acquiescence to a perceived zeitgeist . We are often being told as a nation what we think however the practice of using polls and public opinion surveys is only valid if the framing of the questions asked is an open and democratic process. The sectarian restriction of source material (such as that which lead to the BBC's complicity in the death of Dr.Kelly -whereby one individual is scapegoated because theirs is considered the only valid opinion-), that occurs in these organisations (as has been said many times), is often simply an indication of the presumed self-interest of the journalists concerned, therefore "media influence" need not require direct political manipulation of the actual source.

Private Manning's Counsel: "How are you today?"

Pt Manning: "Fine, but I think someone's scratched my arm."

Pt. Manning's Counsel: "Ah."

Pt. Manning: "What do you mean "aaaahhhh"!"

Pt. Manning's Counsel: "I think it was a sample."

Pt. Manning: ""A sample"?!"

Pt. Manning's Counsel: "Yes, you see (unfortunately), in your case the U.S administration believes that "Justice" should be seen to be done." (perhaps an even more subversive notion now that "Chelsea" has only been sentenced to 35 years!)