"Fumigation against mosquitoes and not 'sonic attacks' may have caused the mysterious illness which afflicted some 40 US and Canadian diplomats in Cuba, according to a new study commissioned by the Canadian government.
The incidents took place from late 2016 into 2018, causing the administration of Donald Trump to charge that diplomats had been attacked by some sort of secret weapon. Canada has refrained from such charges.
The United States in 2017 reduced its embassy staff to a minimum and Canada followed more recently, citing the incidents and the danger posed to staff from what has become known as the 'Havana syndrome'."
-->After giving pages and pages of coverage to the supposed "Havana syndrome" attack on the US Embassy in Cuba, the NYT can't bring itself to print one sentence on the gigantic hoax the story has turned out to be. Pentagon propaganda at it's best.
"Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono told reporters Wednesday that he has not seen any intelligence indicating Iran was behind the attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities over the weekend, contradicting Saudi and Trump administration claims about the incident.
'We are not aware of any information that points to Iran,' Kono said during a press briefing. 'We believe the Houthis carried out the attack based on the statement claiming responsibility.'
The only evidence the Trump administration has released to substantiate its claim of Iranian responsibility are satellite photos that experts said are not clear enough to assign blame."
-->A clear head on the charges that Iran bombed Saudi Arabia. Like the Pentagon, our newspaper of record has pretty much decided to blame Iran. Why print any doubts now? The NYT did not carry this story.
The New York Times:
When it comes down to it, most liberals believe that the newspaper they love advocates for peaceful solutions in international affairs. However, the opposite has been true for decades, and recent stories show the same proclivity.
"American Commitment to Defend Gulf Kingdoms Is Put to the Test" screams a recent headline. The story advocates a military strike on Iran to restore US credibility in the Middle East. Another headline warns that "Hesitation to Act May Embolden Tehran," as if Saudi charges against Iran needed no further proof.
Or how about the headline: "American Vow To Defend Gulf Is Facing a Test"? The article claims that bombing Iran without the slightest proof is the only way to "defend" the Middle East. This is Bolton talk, full of false assumptions and misleading comparisons. At the very least such warmongering opinions should be put on the editorial page, and not presented as news. But the NYT, as usual, puts the interests of US weapons makers' above the people's right to know.