Cui bono is a Latin phrase that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be. It can be a useful adage in a modern world where governments and their compliant corporate media seek to control how we think, by spinning the news we read and hear.
International politics, we know, is awash with hypocrisy and double standards; politicians choose which atrocities to condemn and which to ignore, which dictators to demonise, and which to quietly support. Take Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton as a case in point; both condemned Saddam Hussein as a ‘monster’, yet count as a personal friend Hosni Mubarak, who tortured and killed fellow Egyptians over a 30 year despotic dictatorship, while plundering an impoverished country to line his own pockets to an estimated $74 billion. Dwell on that number for a second. How can a man born into poverty, whose only work has been as a government employee, amass a fortune that King Midas himself could only dream about? And how could that question never occur to Blair or to Clinton as they frolicked with Mubarak on private holidays as his guest at one of his many palaces?
We are, it seems, about to attack Syria, to deliver death and destruction on people in a far off country who have done us no harm. A country which, to all intents and purposes, is defenceless against Western airpower. Whoever it is doing the killing, and certainly those ordering it, will be doing it while at no risk to their own life and limb. What can possibly justify this naked aggression? Oh yes, I forgot, the use of chemical weapons. Syria has crossed a ‘red line’ and the West ‘has a responsibility’ to act.
Napalm attack on Trang Pang village, 1972
Putting aside that the USA is the only country in the history of the world to have used both nuclear and chemical weapons against civilian populations, what is really going on here? Cui Bono can perhaps help us understand.
The Syrian government is winning, or certainly not losing, a war against an enemy financed, trained, armed and directed by the USA and its allies. The “Free Syrian Army’ is nothing less than a US proxy, part of a long term US strategic goal of ‘regime change’ in Syria. Obama had made it clear that he would intervene militarily if the Syrian government crosses the chemical ‘red line’. And hey presto, just when Assad has the enemy on the run, what does he do? He drops chemical bombs. But not on the rebels, on unarmed civilians that are no threat to him. Well, I ask you, who in their right mind would believe that Assad, formerly an eye-surgeon in St Mary’s hospital London, would do something so irrational, something that served not his own interests, but those of his enemies? And therein is our surest guide to who was responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria – Cui Bono !
if you liked this post check out more at www.tombarrywrites.com, and help yourself to a free romantic suspense novel:)