CUI PRODEST (2): The Skripal case

On April 2017 (almost one year ago) I wrote a post about the Latin phrase "Cui Prodest" (Cui Bono). Today that post is more necessary than ever. I will copy it and I will add an update, regarding the last events in the UK, at the end.

"Cui prodest" (or "Cui bono") is a latin phrase meaning "whom does it profit?". It points out that "the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain" [Wikipedia].

Cicero attributed this expression "a very honest and wise judge". And it seems indeed that this reasoning, "who profits of something?", should be the first question when looking for a culprit (this does not mean that it has to be the only question).

But as we know that common sense is the less common of all senses, it is often just ignored by the media and the population who benefits from a certain action, and it is often that the person or people blamed by the media do not only not benefit from that act, but the contrary.

I will now put a perfect example of this: the "famous" chemical attack in Syria, that all Western media attributed to Assad even before knowing about the attack. But the thing is, why would Assad do it?! What does he achieve with that?

This question, this doubt, is so obvious that even the New York Times tried to explain it to its readers:

"The diplomatic situation had been looking bright for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. With the help of Russia, he had consolidated his power, the rebels were on their heels and the United States had just declared that ousting him was not a priority.

So why would Mr. Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus?"

I absolutely recommend you this article from NYT because you will see how they completely FAIL to give a reasonable answer.

It is funny how the allies of Russia (and therefore, enemies of NATO) have a curious attraction for commiting the most stupid acts in the most unconvenient moments. Why would Assad use chemical weapons against innocent population when even his enemies had come to the conclussion that the lesser evil for Syria was the Assad regime?

Or by the way, why would the rebels in Donbass shot down an airplane full of civilians? What woule be the goal? They could never expect to get anymore support than what they got. They could never expect to get the support of the EU, even if Kiev would commit the worst crimes. So what reason would they have? On the contrary, Kiev could use the alleged attack to the Malaysian plane to push their Western allies to get more involved...

And now comes the Skripal case... Why would Putin order such an attack just before the elections in Russia? Even if he really wanted to have Skripal killed, why not wait after the elections? And why use a different system than that so effective in the Litvinenko case? Why use a substance that can be tracked to the Soviet Union? A gas that, by the way, according the New York Times, the US also has... 

"What British Muslims Really Think"

"Of those questioned, 88% said Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78% said they would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws.

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.

In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.

Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population." [The Guardian]


"52 per cent of Britain’s three million Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal; 39 per cent think a woman should always obey her husband; 18 per cent sympathise with people who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; 4 per cent — that equates to about 100,000 Muslims — have ‘sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice’.

‘Our findings will shock many people,’ promised Trevor Phillips at the beginning of 'What British Muslims Really Think' (Channel 4, Wednesday).

As former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips was very much part of that elite. He commissioned the 1997 Runnymede report that popularised the word ‘Islamophobia’. The fact that so impeccably liberal a figure is now issuing a mea culpa like this speaks volumes about how dire the situation has grown. ‘Everyone who has pinned their hopes on the rise of reforming and liberal British Muslim voices are in for a disappointment,’ said Phillips." [The Spectator]