This article Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying is quite an article and made me react with a mix of anger and desperation and raised a lot of questions and revolt in my mind – questions many of you has too, I am sure.
First of all, Syrian government says they never used those chemical bombs (true or not? Should we believe them?). If not, is it the rebels who attacked their own friends, families and compatriots… if so… who gave them the weapons? So, IF it is not one of them and IF it is not a huge ugly farce and IF those 1,300 poor kids and adults had been really killed, then the question is… who did it? If it is not Syria then, it is somebody else not far away and who has those weapons in stock nearby? Or… maybe it is a third faction, inside Syria, armed by another country, who sent these gas bombs to cause trouble and international finger pointing on Assad. Er… Just a question that drifted through my mind.
Then, the author of the article – David Swanson – wrote of his reaction about a Los Angeles Times headline “U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria” (why retaliation, by the way?) … so he wrote – and I quote – “that Syria has not attacked U.S. or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces…” OOOOk! I almost choke on that sentence. Are we supposed to be in demoncracy or are we still in barbarian time where Genghis-Khan-and-Conquistador-style invaders were spreading their deadly claws over the rest of the world? Did I read well? “Occupied territories and imperial forces”? Wow! That’s a mouthful. Scary!
Then he goes on talking about the U.N. Charter and the illegality of using threat or force against another country. Well! I laughed at that one! They don’t even respect their own Charter so why do you want them to respect the international one?
This part gives shivers too:
“Obama also called British Prime Minister David Cameron,” says the LA Times, “to talk over the developments in Syria. The two are ‘united’ in their opposition to the use of chemical weapons, the White House said in a statement issued after the call.”
Well, except for white phosphorus and napalm. Those are good chemical weapons, and the United States government is against bad chemical weapons, so really your newspaper isn’t lying to you at all
What a farce when Obama and Cameron said they were “united” in their opposition to the use of chemical weapon. If so, why is the U.S. would have given Saddam Hussein the famous chemical weapons to fight – under cover – against some supposed U.S. enemies and then run after him because he used it… on maybe not the good target? And why do they continue to fabricate and give deadly weapons to Israel, weapons of mass destruction like white phosphorus, toxic DU ammunitions (irradiation war in disguise), cluster bombs, Monsanto wonderful napalm and other chemicals and horrific sh…tuff of the same style?
Why are countries – whatever their name and “power” – be allowed to fabricate such weapons and have such an arsenal (and we don’t talk about the nuclear sh…tuff here)? And why did they give weapons to Syria? Arming bloodthirsty, invaders, warmongers, power trippers and genocidal beasts is far from to be a good idea. Why fomenting more trouble by giving all of them weapon of mass destruction?
Can’t U.S. be able to use these billions and trillions of dollars for its own poor people, to feed them properly, to give them a roof over their head and medical, to help them to get a good education and to take their country back to the legendary land of the free without a police state and without spreading unrealistic fears to allow them to have a bigger grasp on their population? Could they use this money to give them proper nutrition instead of promulgating this gmo toxic waste that will destroy our civilization and environment? Could they use that money to do good around them instead of feeding mad scientist who think they are better than God and want to correct His Creation with their own twisted mind?
So, to come back to this article (sorry I digressed), if I believe what Obama said, there is good chemical weapons and bad ones… somebody can tell me what difference it makes to the victims? A “cleaner” death? What difference does it makes to be gassed by deadly vapors, or to have skin, eyes and lungs burnt by white phosphorus, or to be shredded to pieces by cluster bombs, or to be condemned to slow death by DU irradiation?
Speaking of which… true or not? But remember few weeks ago, there was big talks about some leaked emails divulging that the White House would have given the OK to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on the Assad’s regime and allowed – by this way – “foreign” and international military intervention. Strange coincidence, no?
This kind of thinking is criminal. A weapon is a weapon and there is no good in something that kills children, elders and innocent people of whatever countries. It is a crime. Just the thought, the research and the act of building such miserable devices should be punished by Law… but… is there any more real Justice in our world? It is freakingly crazy!
Now, Chris Cuomo who supposedly said: “There’s strong proof they used them already, though, in the past.” We have seen this pattern before, aren’t we? Will U.S. go after Syria’s president like they run after Hussein? And when David Swanson said:
Cuomo, his thirst for dead Syrian flesh perhaps getting a bit frustrated, reached for the standard John McCainism. Senator McCain, Cuomo said, thinks U.S. “credibility” is lost if Syria is not attacked.
Who is that Cuomo anyway? And McCain… what a stupid, violent, narrow minded, parochial mentality for somebody who was (is still?) running for presidency! Gosh! It is frightening!
Poor Syria! They will be another Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tormented countries, blood baths, a place where genocide, death, disease, fear and horror root themselves under the montruous demoncracy black umbrella… and they will become another “occupied territory” under the coup of the American warlords. Or… maybe… a sudden attack in American territory with the “bad” chemical weapon will start another insane war on innocents as this attack will be like the 9-11, an inside job… frightening to have such crazy, twisted and insane people with governing power, with this kind of control and domination in their hand, and who consider death of people (even the one of their own) as collateral damage in their quest toward total control.
And I would like to understand why in the heck U.S. would lose credibility if Syria were not attacked? Somebody can explain that one to me? Is there credibility in going in foreign country and attack and drop bombs and kill innocent population in their own town and houses? Is a warmonger reputation worth the death of so many innocent and the destruction of a country? Is that something they boast and laugh about around a whiskey in their meetings?
Swanson said also that International Laws forbids attacking and overturning other nations governments… well seems that nobody told the Bush guys when they went and attacked Iraq… twice… and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and then… to please Israel… Iran next.
Who is implementing these laws anyway and who would slap the hands of the one who go against these laws and what would be the penalty and who will carry through with the penalties? Nobody, isn’t it? Those International Laws are just smoke screen, an illusion to make people believe they have some kind of protection.
These stupid attitudes are bringing our world on the verge of an ugly war that could destroy our civilizations for what, finally? Just for the profit of a tiny-microscopic minority with inflated ego and who think that they are masters of the world and better than everybody else because of their chubby and money-plumped pockets. And they want us to shut up and let them treat us like slaves and push our faces in mud? I don’t think so.
Hope people will wake up in masses and stop this insanity before they plunge our world in a hideous, dreadful, appalling bloodbath and reduce our cities into vitrified ashes.
Xplore 