All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
39:03
3643 Syria Chemical Attack: Push For Ousting Bashar al-Assad
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today, my friends, it all comes down to today.
Today is the day we decide whether war ends or goes on forever.
Today is the day where we get to decide whether millions live or millions die.
Today is the day we discover whether the West survives or falls.
Today must be the day that we learn to think, that we learn to turn back the tide of propaganda, evaluate rationally things for ourselves, and bring peace to the world through reason and evidence.
It will arrive through no other means.
Today is the day We put a boot through our television sets.
Turn off the mainstream media which is trying to get us all killed.
And think for ourselves.
Today is the day when we challenge the narrative that chemical weapons were used in an attack in Syria ordered by the Assad government that killed at least 72 people in the Idlib province.
This is what we're supposed to believe.
This is the kind of stuff we're supposed to swallow.
Just think about it.
Please, I'm begging you, think about it.
Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Russia, is winning in the civil war in Syria.
He's winning.
He's pushing back.
He's retaking towns.
He's retaking provinces.
He's winning.
Why on earth would he order Russia?
A chemical weapons attack against unarmed civilians, women and children, babies.
Babies not about to pick up an AK-47 or take CIA blood, money and weapons to fight against the side.
Why?
Why would he do this?
No military purpose, no military objective, no military gain whatsoever.
He knows if he did that, it would gain the ire and hostility of Of the entire world, that it would tempt America into continuing to escalate its involvement in the Syrian civil war, which it to some degree provoked, and is certainly armed and trained the enemies of the Assad government.
Why would he do this?
You just have to ask, qui bono?
Who benefits?
Who benefits?
Who gains from this attack?
Not Assad.
Not President Assad.
He's been winning against ISIS and al-Qaeda, particularly over the past four months.
Who benefits?
Well, what has changed right before this supposed attack?
Trump said that he is retiring America's slogan, which is Assad must go.
So Trump is signaling that he no longer wishes to intervene on the part of the crazy, extremist, often jihadist rebels against Assad's government, that he is no longer going to ally with ISIS and other radical groups against Assad.
So they're already losing if the U.S. withdraws its support.
What's going to happen?
They're going to lose even more.
Right after Trump says or indicates that he's thinking of withdrawing support for the anti-Assad groups, ooh, look, there's a chemical attack.
It would be the dumbest conceivable move by Assad.
No military benefit turns the world against him.
Who benefits from this chemical gas attack?
Assad's enemies.
The rebels.
Al-Qaeda.
ISIS. ISIS. For this to have occurred and be actionable, then Assad would have had to voluntarily order to use banned weapons that he says he's already surrendered against civilian targets.
No military value does not help his war effort in any way, shape, or form.
Provokes the entire world against him.
Why would he do this?
His opponents, the rebels, the insurgents, ISIS and so on, they have every incentive to either stage this attack, to claim this attack.
Oh, and do you know who's verified?
Oh yes, you know who's verified that all of this happened?
Turkey!
An opponent of Assad and an ally of the rebels.
Oh yes, Turkey, very objective.
The support for the rebels in Syria goes back a long ways.
This is from Reuters.
This is from August 1st, 2012.
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government.
U.S. sources familiar with the matter said Obama's order approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence quote finding end quote broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
Why?
Why did they want to oust Assad?
Well, you can look it up.
We've got sources below.
It's a combination of wanting a pipeline to run through, which Assad said no to, and Sunni-Shia conflicts that have been going on for hundreds of years in the Muslim world.
But they wanted him out!
This is what drives me nuts about the Democrats.
Now they're screaming and raging and imagining all of these fantasy Russian fingertips swarming through the intertubes and changing the outcome of the US election.
Russia hacked the election because it's really bad, you see, really terrible, to interfere in the internal politics of another country.
Oh, but we'll arm and train crazy jihadi rebels against us.
And this intervention has been going on for many decades.
Has radicalized the Muslim world in many ways.
The Muslim world was far more moderate 50 years ago than currently.
Just look at the old pictures of Iran and Afghanistan.
When you're being attacked by extremists, you turn to extremists.
And this has been catastrophic.
I mean, the Obama administration's military and training interventions in Syria led almost directly to the refugee crisis as well as the rise of ISIS. And they were emboldened.
Of course, America was emboldened.
After 9-11 and in particular previously in the first Gulf War between Iraq and Kuwait because they went in there and they bombed and they armed and they invaded.
And they said, wow, Russia's not even pushing back.
We can keep doing this forever.
They tried it in Syria, but then Russia and China drew a line in the sand.
And Russia, see, Russia, people don't understand, right?
Outside of Israel itself, Russia has the biggest exposure to the Islamic world.
Longest borders, biggest exposure to risks from the Islamic world.
And Russia got a little goddamn sick and tired of America continually destabilizing and radicalizing and bombing...
Muslim countries in its immediate proximity and said, no, no, no, you're not doing it again with Syria.
They did it with Libya, remember?
Psycho Clinton, we came, we saw he died, ha, ha, ha.
Why?
Why target Libya?
Gaddafi said, if you target me, I'm the barrier.
Between massively overpopulated Africa and Europe, Mediterranean's not that big.
I'm the barrier.
You take me out, you get swarms of migrants.
Too bad.
He was dragged through the streets and anally raped to death with a bayonet.
Because that's what they call foreign policy.
Why?
Why Libya?
Huh.
Not that complicated.
Libya has the largest oil reserves in all of Africa.
And Gaddafi, unlike certain Saudi princes, actually redistributed a fair amount of the oil money to the people, right?
Subsidizing and giving them free education, free healthcare, other benefits, and so on, right?
Under Gaddafi, Libya is doing pretty well.
Highest human development index, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality in all of Africa.
Why take him out?
Well, you see, Gaddafi had talked about breaking out of the Western orbit and domination of oil companies.
He talked about bringing in Chinese, maybe even Russian oil companies into Libya.
He had a dream.
He had a dream of a gold-based currency.
He called it the gold dinar.
Wow.
So then, if there was a gold-based currency...
How would Western vote-bribing fiat currency arse-white toilet paper counterfeiting bullshit money fare against the real gold-backed currency?
Well, it would allow Libyan bank reserves to move away from the petrodollar might threaten The only illusory value left of the U.S. dollar, given the amount of debt and deficits and unfunded liabilities close to $200 trillion, many, many times the entire economic size of America.
How would the U.S. dollar fare against the gold-backed currency?
How would it fare?
Well, it would probably cease to be the international reserve currency, would lose massive amounts of value, could threaten the entire crapitalism, crony capitalism, Post-freedom model that pretends to mask itself as an economy in the West.
Might expose central banking.
Might expose government control of currency.
Sorry, Gaddafi.
You gotta go.
And go he did.
The fiat currencies were safe once more.
Now, you may remember, of course, back in August 2013, there was an attack in Gota.
Barack Obama said, ah, you see, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people.
And so the U.S., bang, bang, bang, attacked government targets, aiding the jihadist rebels in Syria.
Oh, slight bummer for reality, virtue, and the potential future of the human race.
It turned out that this supposed chemical attack Ordered by Basad against his own people!
Oh dear.
So it turns out, not so funny story, chemical weapons were provided to the jihadi rebels by Saudi Arabia.
And they mishandled those chemical weapons, causing an accident which, well, you understand.
You understand.
Famous reporter Seymour Hersh I was talking back in the day about how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a key to the approval of the transportation of chemical weapons stockpiles from Libya to be handed over to the jihadist rebels in Syria.
How do they know the jihadist rebels have chemical weapons?
They have the receipts.
And this is so important.
The intervention in Syria on behalf of the rebels led to the refugee crisis currently threatening Europe, the rise of ISIS. And it's a direct outcome of this Obamacare-American policy, arming anti-Assad Syrian rebels.
This has been going on for years.
This is not hidden.
Put all the sources below.
This is open information, not hard to find.
And God help the Middle East, giant, balding, angel of death, McCain, has just returned from the region, and wherever he bungees in, massive graves follow him out.
Lying, lying, lying.
Back in the day, there was a lie provoking a war.
This is back in the first Gulf War.
I don't know if you remember if you're old enough.
This was the story.
The Iraqi troops went in to the Kuwaiti hospitals and there were incubators with premature babies and they ripped the babies and threw them on the floor and took all of the incubators back to Iraq.
People were horrified.
There was this woman who claimed to have seen it crying on television.
It's all fabricated.
It's all a lie.
This woman turned out to be the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S. The entire story was made up.
Made up.
There's no lie like a bloody lie.
So what's happened?
Well, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton, all pretty pro supporting these jihadist rebels against Assad.
Now, the continuity was supposed to happen When Hillary Clinton got into power, but Obama's out of office, Hillary Clinton is not in office, and President Trump does not seem to be, or did not seem to be in the past, we'll get to that in a moment, seemed to be that keen on massive foreign policy interventions, regime changes, manipulation, control, funding this, selling weaponry to that.
God knows where it ends up.
Actually, God may not even know, but the devil certainly does.
No more regime change, no more massive interference in foreign affairs, no more replacing stable if despotic governments with unstable psychopathic jihadists.
Trump's Secretary of State, Tillerson, just a few days ago, right before this chemical attack by Assad, Tillerson said that, and I quote,"...Syrians will determine the future of Syria." Big ally may be pulling out.
What are the rebels supposed to do?
Well, then you get this chemical attack.
Supposedly from the Syrian government.
Ah!
Slight challenge about that.
The Syrian government actually gave up all of its chemical weapons in 2013.
And there's not one single shred of proof that they've acquired any since then.
And they're bombing the crap out of these guys anyway.
Oh, and there are pictures of these children supposedly dead.
You know, people are just handling them without wearing gloves.
Supposed to be victims of chemical attacks, but who knows?
Who knows?
But, you know, if they were, chemicals could seep through.
The handler's skin killed them as well.
And the mainstream media...
Bloodthirsty zombie cheerleaders cheering on the army of death that marches into our very homes.
Not for the first time.
The British Broadcasting Corporation took a slight break from protecting serial rapists and pedophiles in its midst.
And in 2013, remember there was supposed to be these chemical attacks by Assad?
The BBC was caught staging a fake story at a hospital.
Madness.
And there's this doctor in Idlib.
Oh, he's been tweeting non-stop about the gas attack.
Jumping in for interviews on major TV networks.
Oh, he's the guy on the ground.
He knows what's going on.
Very sympathetic interviewers.
Does it take a long time to figure out who he is?
Well, he's a radical jihadist doctor from the UK. Who actually lost his medical license?
Why?
Well, he was charged with terrorist kidnapping of journalists in Syria.
But treated as perfectly objective and credible by the mainstream media, who apparently has a side hobby of just disassembling vast swaths of the human race.
So, chemical weapons.
Assad has given them up.
No evidence he got anymore.
Oh, you know who does have chemical weapons in the region?
Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Easy access.
They've used chemical weapons dozens of times.
You can look in the New York Times.
New York Times says ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq over 50 times.
Over 50 times.
They have the motive.
They have the means.
They have the opportunity.
And they sure as hell have the weaponry.
But we're just going to say it's Assad because Turkey, Assad of course, and its government has denied it.
And when they tried to pin it, in 2013 they tried to pin this chemical attack and it turned out to be so farcical, so unbelievable, the UK Parliament actually refused to authorize a war and the US Congress also decided not to go to war.
And that's when Putin said, okay, face-saving, we're going to do this thing.
Syria will just give up all of its chemical weapons.
And they did.
This was verified and tweeted about and crowed about by the West.
So when the American government is arming and training ISIS, it's a little hard for anybody with half a brain cell to To really believe that ISIS is a problem just about to be solved.
You don't generally fund the enemies that you claim you want to get rid of.
But, you know, after the Cold War, which allowed for a truly cancerous expansion of the military-industrial complex, kind of ran out of enemies for a while.
Bullets were being sold.
Wholesale, not retail.
Running out of justifications, so...
Oh, I know.
Maybe you can arm a whole bunch of jihadists, including Osama bin Laden, to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
And then those jihadists can then turn against you because you've stationed a whole bunch of troops in Saudi Arabia.
And then you can intervene in a war between Kuwait and Iraq.
And then you get 9-11.
And then you can go and invade Iraq again.
And Afghanistan.
And then you can have a president, the only president in American history, at war every single day of his presidency, one Barack Hussein Obama, dropping 100,000 bombs on mostly Muslim countries.
And look, now there's blowback.
And then maybe you can invite a whole bunch of refugees from the wars that you've started and the people that you're bombing.
Invite them into your country.
Pay them to stay.
Oh look, we need a massive expansion of surveillance.
Isn't that interesting?
Such a shame you can't have your freedom anymore, but it turns out all the people we funded and trained and invited in, the old invade everyone, invite everyone mechanics, turns out to have destabilized not just foreign countries, but your own country.
Sorry for your freedoms into the wood chipper they go.
This is how the beast replicates.
Ran out of communism, now we get jihadists.
And then you get to spend six trillion dollars just on Afghanistan and Iraq invading those countries alone.
You know, addicts will do anything for their drug.
Junkies will kick you in the face for fifty dollars.
What do power addicts do for six trillion dollars?
Well, they murder foreigners and the Constitution.
Five days before the supposed attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, quote, the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.
Ooh.
That means the U.S. is no longer interested in regime change in Syria, which means Assad gets to stay because he's winning, which means the rebels get to lose because they're losing and lose their key ally.
Next thing you know, well, looky-la, there's a chemical attack.
Makes no sense at all.
Assad would have to be politically suicidal, even practically suicidal.
And mainstream media.
See, here's how you know when there is an unholy pentagram-style summoning of the dogs of war.
The moment you see dead children on television, you know that there is a massive call for war.
There is a drive for war.
Mainstream media doesn't care about dead children.
You know, they have policies a lot of times saying when there's a terrorist attack in the West, don't show the bodies.
Don't show the bodies.
Maybe you can show the doll in a zipped-up little European girl's body bag, but you can't show the bodies.
Now, suddenly you see their bodies all in your face, bodies all in your face, designed to trigger your case-selected amygdala response to protect the children.
And that's how they drag you into another massive endless war in the Middle East, driving more people into Europe.
Now, here's another critical thinking question.
It's a war zone.
It's been a war zone for seven years.
More than well over a million people have fled Syria.
And yet, in this place, where there was this chaotic bombings and attacks and war raging back and forth and chemical weapons, they've got on-the-ground reporting, they've got Wi-Fi, and don't you know, there were ambulances that drove the victims of this chemical attack straight over to Turkey, where they were examined, and Turkey said, oh yeah, it's a chemical attack.
Isn't that amazing?
Ambulances right there, clear passage through.
There are people on the ground, they've got The capacity to be interviewed in a war zone.
And no one else has access to this region.
The Russians are somewhat skeptical, knowing as they do, that Turkey supports the rebels and therefore would support any narrative which kept foreign hostility against Assad at a high peak.
And Thursday, Wall Street Journal reported that the autopsy results of three victims of this attack are definitely linked to chemical weapons.
Now, this is according to Turkey's oxymoronically named Justice Minister.
Remember Turkey, where President Erdogan last year threw 40,000 people in jail over a supposed coup and regularly jails reporters?
Turkey, right?
Turkey.
Nothing but solid information ever coming out of Turkey's mouth.
Just mad.
Absolutely mad.
So, let's try and put all of this together.
Right?
Turkey joined an immediate international emergency response.
Ambulances straight into Turkish medical facilities, right next to the Syrian border.
Incredible, incredible coincidences.
And Turkey has a clear conflict of interest.
In the Syria conflict, right?
Turkey has repeatedly said, we want to remove Assad from power.
But they're the ones telling the objective facts about all of this.
And here come the bodies of the children.
Back in 2001, I think it was, Madeleine Albright, then Secretary of State, when questioned about the effects of the U.S.-led embargo and no-fly zones over Iraq, said that the embargo against Iraq had resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
500,000 Iraqi children, the equivalent of millions and millions of children proportionately in America.
Did you ever see those bodies?
No, really didn't.
Really didn't.
Because hiding those bodies helped pull you into war.
Now showing you these bodies is helping pull you into war.
The mainstream media is beckoning with its bony claw to draw you into the fiery chasm of infinite death.
And they're speaking about all of this stuff like it's proven.
And nobody has any proof.
Innocent until proven guilty, to some degree, recognition of conflict of interest, recognition of motive, means, opportunity, thinking, if you even pretended to, in the mainstream media, would lead you not to say, well, this is all true, it's Assad.
Nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
And this is the media that constantly lectures you, don't jump to conclusions.
Ooh, has there been a terrorist attack in Europe?
Don't jump to conclusions.
It could just be a crazy white guy.
Could be one of those Amish, you never know.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Don't talk about race.
Don't talk about religion.
Reserve judgment.
Don't give out the facts.
Ooh, except now we know all the facts from a war zone with highly conflicted motives, highly conflicted benefits.
Now we're going to listen.
To Turkey like Turkey never told a lie.
They've learned nothing or maybe they've learned everything after one of the most shameful, shameful events and sequences and processes in the history of the West.
All of the false information that fueled and fired up the war against Iraq.
One of the greatest disasters in U.S. foreign policy and war ever.
And you'd think the goddamn mainstream media would have learned just a little bit of humility, just a little bit of reservation, just a little bit of skepticism.
But no, here they are again, with their blood-soaked banners and their horns of giantish hell, calling us to war again.
Don't you care about the dead children?
Kind of do.
So why weren't you guys talking about Obama and Kerry and Hillary Clinton arming and funding the rebels that slaughtered countless people?
They don't care about the bodies.
What do they care about?
I'll tell you in a moment.
It's darker than you think.
And even if it was Assad, even if Assad ordered this for no benefit whatsoever, he's just crazy, politically suicidal, maybe even militarily suicidal, he ordered this.
Okay, how is that America's problem?
How is that Canada's problem?
How is that England's problem?
You're so outraged holding up these pictures of the dead children?
Fine.
Are you going to go?
Blondie, sitting there behind your desk with your peroxide and your hairspray and your makeup, are you going to go strap on a combat vest, honey?
Holding up these pictures, are you gone?
Are you going to get your arm blown off?
Are you going to come back with no legs?
Are you going to come back mentally shattered?
Are you going to come back unable to sleep, unable to hold down a job, getting divorced, children don't recognize you anymore?
You've been hollered out and replaced with the demonic shadow of endless war within your heart?
Are you going?
I didn't think so.
Trump!
Trump, Trump, Trump.
Trump said, Right.
States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this horrific attack and all other horrific attacks for that matter.
Right.
And President Trump, where are you getting your information from, my friend?
You're getting your information from the intelligence agencies, the alphabet super people who say you're a Russian puppet, who surveilled you potentially illegally during a presidential campaign.
Now, Back in the day, this is back before he became president, 2013, right?
So this is when Bashar al-Assad was supposed to have launched this sarin gas attack against civilians.
And President Obama said that doing this would cross a red line.
So at that time, back in 2013, Trump tweeted the following, quote, Again, to our very foolish leaders, do not attack Syria.
If you do, many very bad things will happen, and from that fight the U.S. gets nothing.
Huh.
You know, 2017 Trump might be time to place a phone call to 2013 Trump and listen to what he has to say.
And you see, apparently, military operations, even if we assume it was done by Assad, military operations that kill women and children are unbelievably heinous and affront to everything civilized and democratic and virtuous and shiny and unicorn based on the planet.
I wonder if any attacks authorized by President Trump killed any women and children.
I wonder.
But...
There's no way that Trump...
Can actually think of attacking Assad, of escalating the war in Syria, of escalating America's war in Syria?
I mean, it's not possible.
I mean, Trump explicitly ran on America first.
No more foreign regime changes.
No more foreign wars.
No more America is the world's policeman.
I mean, he would be playing right into the hands of the globalists.
I mean, he's doing some strategy.
He's doing something.
There's just no way.
There's no way that he would commit that kind of political suicide by escalating a war for which America has no particular benefit or interest.
And, by the way, by the way, what's needed to save America.
Europe from being swamped by migrants is stability in the Middle East, you understand?
Masha al-Assad, he met with the Pope, he's met with a fairly sophisticated guy, he's met with Jimmy Carter, he's met with a whole bunch of people, and see, once Syria is stabilized, you know what can happen?
Interesting, interesting here.
Once Syria is stabilized, you understand, then the migrants who fled...
Syria, the refugees who poured into Europe and poured into other countries, they can go back home.
That's the way refugees work.
You're there in a country that you're supposed to stay in the first country you land, but people rarely do.
So everyone who is or claims to have come from Syria, once Syria is stabilized and the civil war is resolved and peace is restored, they can go back home.
You see?
As long as you keep fighting in Syria, more and more people are going to pour into Europe.
Europe can't afford them.
Cultural incompatibilities could potentially rear their ugly heads.
People might die.
Why does the left not want Syria at peace?
I thought they were the anti-war group.
And if you get involved, Mr.
President Trump, In an escalating conflict in Syria, given that Russia backs President al-Assad, you're going to run smack dab into a confrontation with Russia.
You see, Russia desperately needs a peaceful Syria, because America and other countries have been in there destabilizing all of these countries, which causes huge problems for Russia.
So, Russia is committed to a peaceful Syria.
The only way to achieve that at the moment, as we can see from the deposing Hussein in Iraq, the only way you get a peaceful Syria is President Assad being restored to power and authority in Syria.
If you destroy the government, what do you get?
Well, you get what you got out of taking Hussein out of Iraq.
You get warring tribes.
You get ever-escalating psychopathy.
You get something even worse than ISIS. If that can be imagined.
Because that's been the pattern.
Go in there, try to bring peace and democracy.
Destroy the existing system.
Things get worse.
You get an even worse enemy.
Like it's the Hydra.
You cut off one head, you get two.
The only chance for a peaceful Syria is al-Assad in power.
Then all the refugees, millions and millions, can go on.
So this is important.
You go in there and try and meddle and destroy and overthrow.
Look at Libya.
Look at Iraq.
Look at Syria.
This is the effect of what happened.
And there's no magic wand to make it happen differently next time.
You understand?
So I'll tell you what I think.
I don't have proof for all of this.
Be critical of me, just as I am of others.
but this is what I think.
Either the attack, this chemical attack, did not happen, but it was portrayed as if it did, or there were dead bodies either created or found that were covered in the chemical weapons that the rebels, the jihadi rebels have access to, and it's propaganda.
Terrorist propaganda.
Now, this potential terrorist propaganda is uncritically broadcast and amplified by the Western mainstream media.
As a friend of mine says, let that sink in.
Potentially, the left-wing mainstream media in the West is amplifying what could be terrorist propaganda.
Because the left used to be anti-war.
It's been a while, really.
All vanished when Obama got into power.
The left used to be anti-war.
But you see, that really came out of the 1960s, the Vietnam War.
And that's back when leftists could be drafted and face significant risk.
Now, we all know the composition of the American military.
It comes from the South.
It comes from Republicans.
It comes from Christians.
And now, the Republicans and Christians and Southerners risk getting killed.
The anti-war fervor of the left seems to have mysteriously evaporated, my friends.
And now, the mainstream media which is in the left seems to be quite keen on provoking wars that get a lot of Republicans killed, disabled, mentally unstable, or crippled so much that they're dependent on the state and therefore unlikely to vote for small government ever again.
You understand how this works?
It's a political move.
Also, another point, the left is very keen on getting migrants and refugees from the Middle East into Western countries.
Why?
Because they reliably vote for the left.
Now, of course, they can't vote necessarily right away, but over time.
Over time, they are pretty guaranteed voters for the left.
And this is what the left has been doing since 1965, since they lost the intellectual argument for socialism and communism and collectivism and central planning.
They've been importing voters that vote for them, so they don't have to actually change any minds, you see.
They just get people in to vote for them.
Now, if Syria is pacified, if the civil war ends and the refugees go home, that's a huge potential voting base that the left loses.
You say, well, that's the left.
They wouldn't possibly risk people's lives just to gain votes.
Bullshit.
They do it all the time.
Not everyone on the left.
Extreme elements within the left.
They do it all the time.
Illegal immigrants?
They don't even want illegal immigrants in America who've committed violent crimes to be deported.
Putting massive people at risk, they let them go all the time.
Knowing people are going to die.
Why?
Because it gets them votes.
They're addicts.
There is no line many of them will not cross to get the ring of power.
They step over blood.
They step over children.
They step over bodies.
They step on the decaying bones of a dying civilization.
They don't care.
They want the ring.
They want the power.
If al-Assad wins, Syria is stabilized, the refugees can go back, and the left loses a critical voting base, now or in the future.
So, I know it sounds like a lot of bad news.
and And it is.
But there's a tiny bit of good news as well.
If these chemical attacks occurred, then they were, of course, a war crime and a terrible affront to any reasonably civilized standards that can be imagined.
Also war crimes invading other countries, arming rebels with chemical weapons, supplying them with weaponry, selling arms to dictatorships could be considered somewhat war criminality, in my opinion.
So, yeah.
The bad news is there's no shortage of war crimes to go around.
But here's the good news.
There are a lot of war crimes going around.
▲
Export Selection