It happens at times that young friends get together and
start a project they hope will someday grow and become a big thing, but treat
it as if they don't believe it will. Looking back years later at the start of a
project that made it big, you can tell by the name that was chosen for it,
that's what must have happened to it. We can, therefore, speculate that Yahoo
and Google were started that way.
But like everything else, there can be an exception to the
rule. In fact, when you consider the credentials of the person that founded the
publication called the Daily Beast, you wonder how and why this name was chosen
for it. In any case, the Daily Beast has over the years proven to be a
mainstream publication … including the tendency to act in a beastly manner once
in a while. But it is during those moments – when the name and the activity
coincide – that you wonder if the behavior was not influenced by the name
itself.
This is one of those moments for, the Daily Beast has
published an article on December 14, 2015, under the title: “Egypt : No Bomb
on Russian Jet, Trust Us!” written by Clive Irving. This is a shallow and
beastly kind of article, to say the least. It tells the story of the
investigation on the crash of the Russian passenger plane that fell from the
sky in Egypt 's Sinai Peninsula .
The author lists the known facts about the incident with
meticulous precision and absolute honesty. But he also peppers the article with
opinions that stand at odds with the facts he listed. It is this disconnect
between the facts and the opinions that tells you the logic at play here is so
screwed up, it can only be Jewish.
One of the facts he lists is to the effect that:
“Preliminary reports are delivered within weeks, more often within a few
months.” He goes on: “Without forensic documentation, the Egyptians say they
have no evidence the jet was brought down by a bomb,” which makes sense to you
because if there is no evidence, there can be no documentation. That's what is
said about trying to prove the negative. No, says Clive Irving who forcefully
argues that “this investigation is turning out to be one of the worst cases in
the entire history of air crash investigations in which competing interests
produce different versions of the same event.”
This is what you find puzzling because there has been only
one investigation, and this is its preliminary report. It was, and continues to
be conducted by the Egyptians, the French, the Irish and the Russians. But the
reason why Irving sees competing interests is
that “U.S.
officials say Russian jet that crashed was likely bombed.” He does not say who
the US Officials were or how they reached that “likely” conclusion, but goes on
to assert: “neither the Egyptian report nor any of the assertions that it was a
bomb meet the most basic evidential standards required of an accident
investigation.” And so you scream: What the bleep is he talking about?
He makes an attempt at telling what he's talking about but
muddies the logical waters even more. Look how he proceeds: “This is
frustrating because every piece of the wreckage was visible and accessible to
investigators.” He contrasts this case with a previous one: “an Air India
Boeing was brought down by a suitcase bomb over the Atlantic … The main part of
the plane lay on the seabed at a depth of 6,700 feet … Evidence from the bodies
that were recovered showed that the jet had broken up after an explosion in the
cargo hold.”
Which says basically that if a bomb had brought down the
Russian plane, the evidence would be there for the Egyptians, the French, the
Irish or the Russians to see it and tell the world about it. However, aside
from the fact that the Russians made a halfhearted claim (that was quickly
dismissed) when they failed to provide the evidence, nothing else proved or
even suggested it was a bomb.
What was left, and subject to further investigation, was
this: “Nobody disputes the jet was suddenly torn apart in the sky. That could
have happened only as a result of a catastrophic structural failure or a bomb
placed in the cabin or the cargo hold … One event in the history of the Airbus
could have a bearing on a structural failure.” And he tells the story of the
plane having experienced a tailstrike 14 years earlier.
Finally, Clive Irving says this: “it is the Egyptians who
appear to control how much evidence has – or has not – been gathered and how
much of it is being released.” He now puts on his Jewish hat (or skullcap) and
says the following about the Egyptian chief investigator: “Somewhat
pointlessly, he said that the [multinational] investigation committee had
visited the debris field 15 times, and that key pieces of the wreckage were
being moved to Cairo
for more intensive examination.”
And that's not all because he now accuses the Egyptian of
doubling down “on the claim that there was no evidence of terrorism by telling
a TV interviewer that neither was there evidence that terrorists had
'infiltrated' the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh.”
From the looks of it, this is when the virtual skullcap on
his head might have provided him with the inspiration to add this: “The
Egyptians could be suffering the unhappy fate of all regimes like theirs that
have little credibility; few people believe them even if they are telling the
truth.”
Well, let me tell you something, Clive. Egypt has just
been voted almost unanimously by the United Nations representatives of the 7.5
billion inhabitants of the Earth, to sit on the Security Council. That's a lot
more than 'a few people.'