Lying About Bombing
On Monday, February 14, a very powerful bomb in Beirut killed former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri and 13 other people. No evidence has been produced as to who might have placed the bomb. That did not stop the major American news media from pointing the finger of suspicion at the government of Bashar Assad of Syria, even as they were reporting the news of the tragedy, and the United States government has withdrawn its ambassador from Syria in “retaliation,” as if Bush and company were certain that Syria was to blame.
On Wednesday, February 16, the “liberal opposition” newspaper, The Washington Post, surged to the front of the pack of hounds baying for strong measures against Syria with a lead editorial entitled, “Murder in Beirut.”
“The despicable murder of Mr. Hariri benefits no one outside the rogue regime in Damascus—and the world should respond accordingly,” it said. “If the assassination of Mr. Hariri—the most plausible leader of a truly independent Lebanon—looks like the panicked act of a cornered tyrant, the shoe snugly fits Mr. Assad.”
But should we really take on faith what we are told by American government leaders and the likes of The Washington Post when it comes to shadowy political bombings? An Associated Press article on the effects of the Beirut bomb published in that same issue of The Washington Post, on page A14 suggests very strongly that we should not. Notice the damage that was done to the building that faces the street where the bomb exploded, leaving a massive crater. The entire faćade of the building is stripped away, but all the support columns remain standing. The same thing occurred when the Khobar Towers building, housing U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, was bombed.
Recall now that the United States government and the American news media want us to believe that a similar bomb out in the street in front of the building caused all the damage to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. But as we look at that damage, we see that a large section of the Murrah Building was gouged out, caused by the collapse of not just front row support columns, but by others farther back in the building. The collapsing columns, as we can see from the photograph, were also considerably farther from the street blast than were several others.
In 1995, retired Air Force weapons expert, General Benton Partin, told us that the damage to the support columns of the Murrah Building could not possibly have resulted from a bomb in the street of the size of the one that blew up the Ryder truck. Air, he pointed out, is a great absorber of energy, and by the time the blast wave reached the columns it would exert only a tiny fraction of the force needed to cause any of them to fall. His argument made sense at the time, but The Washington Post was among those who made sure that not many people heard it. The picture they have now published of the fateful bomb in Beirut virtually proves that General Partin was right. The Post and the government lied to us about what happened in Oklahoma City. Should we trust them over what happened in Beirut?
February 21, 2005