RICHARD CHICHAKLI STORY

Cannot help getting amused every time I hear statements made by the so-called experts on “Arms Trafficking”, particularly in connection with the case of Viktor Bout. I cannot help wondering whether these self-appointed experts are genuinely dumb, or they are just a sub-class of human whom are willing to do whatever in order to getting the pay associated with being a paid propaganda parlor.

Anytime and every time the story of Viktor Bout is being recited, it usually comes packaged with two additional names. The first is of an accountant named Richard Chichakli, and the second is of a former journalist named Douglas Farah. Chichakli is by all counts the only person in this world who questioned the merit of the allegations against Bout; while Farah is, also by all counts, the only source in this world for all the media allegations against Viktor Bout. One may say that the original source is Johan Peleman the UN contractor; and to that I reply: when listening to Peleman and Farah, you will easily conclude that one of them is repeating the other. Same phrases, same stories, same references, even the same words, it is just a different person. The few public video clips posted on Youtube.com of Farah and Peleman provide enough ground to conclude that the two persons are one when it comes to Viktor Bout.

Both Douglas Farah and Johan Peleman are “Self-proclaimed Experts” in Arms trafficking. Peleman did all the United Nations writing about Viktor Bout, while Farah did all the testimony that ever given before the US Congress about Viktor, and all of the anti Bout NGO-financed books and the internet writings; and that bring me to the point where I see the “funny stuff” related to the anatomy of an arms deal.

Farah and Peleman claimed that in order for an arms deal to materialize a document called “End User Certificate – EUC” must be produced to the seller of the arms in order to confirm that the buyer is a legitimate government, etc. etc., and they both also claimed that Viktor Bout was forged EUC in order traffic arms. The case they said to have discovered revealed that Bout allegedly purchased arms under an EUC issued by Togo; however, he diverted the merchandises to Angola. Well, they also claimed that he did that so massively so the amount of arms purchased for the Togo exceeded the population of that country. The entire so-called “discovery” was focused on the End User Certificate which in their words provided the ultimate evidence.

The thing that bother me in that story, and frankly in every story I hear about Viktor Bout is the fact that I only hear the name of Bout and no one else! I wonder why nobody else is bothered by that, no one has even asked about the role of the seller of the arms? I mean how come we never hear Peleman and talking about the source of the Arms?

We all agree that if Viktor Bout have trafficked arms he had to buy it from somebody. Why we do not question those sellers, better, why the mighty US government go after the source as they claimed to be doing in their war against drugs for example. Then, are we suppose to believe that because Bout allegedly provided a fake End User Certificate in order to acquire arms, the seller did not notice that the amount is massively larger than what a country like the Togo could use – and these are the exact words of Douglas Farah. So why don’t we hold the seller of such dangerous goods accountable, don’t they have to do due diligence? It is not very complicated, if I enter a store and ask to purchase 1000 hunting rifle for my personal use, that would very likely sounds “hard to believe”, if not straight out suspicious. So how come when Viktor allegedly provided the fake EUC to the seller in justification of buying huge some of arms for a country with no army, the seller found the request “reasonable” and gave Viktor all the arms he needed to become the largest trafficker in the history of man as the US government alleged, and Douglas Farah propagated? Why don’t we question this? To me, Viktor Bout resembles nothing more than a scapegoat for what the government-sponsored traffickers are doing, just a name to use in covering their tracks.

Isn’t strange that we want to hold Bout accountable but not those who sold arms to him?
Isn’t hard to believe that we say Bout faked EUCs but we do not mention or question those who accepted the alleged fake document
Isn’t difficult to understand how we run our moths about the arms traffickers but we just hush-up and fear to talk about the arms sellers

The list goes on and on, and the hypocrisy is too thick and to disgusting to go through. The standard of double stands is a cancer to this world, a cancer that causes wars and misery, and it is a disease that is promoted by the US and its propaganda parlors.

The double standard is to hear about Viktor Bout but shut-up about Neil Bush and his involvement with the US sponsored, U –residing Russian arms trafficker and financer of the Terrorism in Chechnya.
The double standard is to suppress information about the US and UK businesses involved in selling arms out of Eastern Europe and Gibraltar while propagating that a swimming pools cleaning company is involved in arms trafficking
The double standard is to call a person like Richard Chichakli a “naturalized-Syrian American” but not a disabled United States Armey American Veteran.

The anatomy of an arms deal involves a buyer, a seller, a financer, and a transporter. Viktor Bout if he was the person the double standard propaganda projected to us he will be nothing but 25 percent of the deal… Well, the American double standard seems to suggest that we should not talk about the other 75 percent because of national interest.