NYT Logic

We talked the other day about how the establishment tries to avoid reasonable questions like who benefits from any certain event...

Like we said, the NYT tried to answer this question about the chemical attack in Syria.

This article was interesting for several reasons. First the alleged answer given to this question:

"Yet, rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians."

First, this "analysts say" sounds too much to the "some people say" of the Fox News.

Second, amb most important, it just doesn't answer the question seriously. Even if this alleged "calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians" was real, it doesn't answer the question "WHY NOW?". Let's be serious here, if Assad wanted to do this, he could just perfectly wait until his position was safe.


The only interesting thing in this article is this sentence:

"In 2015, a mix of Qaeda-linked and other rebels, some supported by the United States and its allies, drove government forces from Idlib, the capital of Idlib Province."


PS: I find this absolutely remarkable:

"Correction: April 7, 2017

An earlier version of this article rendered incorrectly a quotation from Dr. Monzer Khalil, the health director of Idlib Province in Syria. He said, "But in Idlib we have 2.2 million people, and how many Qaeda fighters? You cannot kill the two million for their sake." He did not say 3.3 million people and three million fighters."


Makes you wonder how they write the articles, doesn't it?