Credible basis to investigate US involvement in Rafik El-Harriri Assassination

America jumped the gun. اللغة العربية Ref A case could be made for the American involvement.

Further, there are three other factors: Original claims were not supportable [foreign accent]; high tech required to do the job to break through the security barrier; and the target wasn't really a threat to anyone.

Hasty public statements

There's also the problem with the US quickly asserting/suggesting it was Syria -- anyone could easily make "the same accusations against the United States without evidence."

Thus, given the quick outburst, I think there's a case to be made the staffers were "a little too quick" to arrive at the conclusion, suggesting they were primed.

US Credibility problems

Further, there's the track record of the United States of conducting unlawful activity in using Echelon to spy on the UN inside the US; and the baseless claims about WMD in Iraq.

Negroponte's Battalion 316 shows that the US will engage in misconduct.

Interesting there is a chorus discrediting the reasonable questions.

Which advertising agency is subcontracting this PR effort? They like to bring gifts, and they are photographed.

So, it's really not clear why "Syria over the United States" or more credible than "United States over Syria."

Summary

Overall, I think the US was behind it: They had the most to gain by swaying the masses against a convenient target. We saw prior to Iraq invasion and in the wake of 9-11 how quickly the masses will give up their rights and fall in line, even without any facts.

Update

Ref Ref Ref

Sure is insteresting when people accuse the Syrians there's no evidence, just allegations; but anytime someone mentions the US, suddenly the standard of evidence goes sky-high. Why the double standard?

Harriri was much quieter than other critics of Syria, why why go after a bit player?

Also spelled: negraponte negrapante negropante negropante negraponte

Stickers here: