Giving ISIS a big boost “for the children”
by Don Hank
Trump said recently:
“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies! — little babies,” … “that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line, many, many lines.”
Let’s see. Was Trump condemning the attacks by terrorists in Syria, as described here?
Or was he talking about the US bombing raids in Mosul, described here?
Did he perhaps read this headline?
‘The house literally collapsed on us’: Mosul airstrikes [by US forces] that killed hundreds of civilians condemned
He must have because there had to be numerous precious little children among those hundreds of civilians killed by those American weapons of mass destruction known as aerial bombs, right?
Or was he referring to this report?
Mosul’s children were shouting beneath the rubble. Nobody came
Coalition [US coalition] bombs buried more than a hundred people in the ruins of three houses and raised fresh questions about US rules of engagement
Or was it this headline?
UNDER TRUMP, U.S. MILITARY HAS ALLEGEDLY KILLED OVER 1,000 CIVILIANS IN IRAQ, SYRIA IN MARCH
QUOTE: U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria may have already killed 1,484 civilians in just Iraq and Syria this month alone, more than three times the number killed in President Barack Obama’s final full month in office
No? He wasn’t saddened and angered by those reports?
Oh, wait. It was an unconfirmed allegation of a chemical attack supposedly committed by Syrian President Bashar Assad, even though Assad had no motivation whatsoever for such an attack and there was no evidence to indict Assad. Indeed, following the bombing of a terrorist nest in the area in question, a Russian team discovered a lab in which terrorists had been preparing chemical weapons.
This ties in with a report that chemical weapons were used in Mosul, where the US was bombing. Oddly, that report got little press and no one in the world accused the US or its allies of facilitating the chemical attacks.
Despite the Russian report of this evidence of terrorist involvement in the chemical attack in Syria, no media outlet in the West was interested in the report. Almost in unison, the Western press condemned Assad, thereby clearing the path for Trump’s attack using WMDs known as Tomahawk missiles, which took the lives of heroic ISIS-fighting Syrian pilots, leaving precious children fatherless.
It is important to note that world leaders had called for an investigation into the allegations against Assad, as reported here.
Now a call for an investigation indicates that there is no unanimity as to the cause and perpetrators. Right? And a retaliatory action for something that is clearly not sufficiently investigated is rash and uncalled for, at least if we are to consider ourselves civilized.
Just think. Suppose a witness in court claimed he heard someone say a defendant killed someone. And the judge, before cross examination of the witnesses, before hearing the defendant and his lawyer, before hearing the forensic expert, immediately sentences the defendant to death for murder, even though the suspect had no motive for the murder and there was credible testimony to the effect that someone else who had a motive committed the crime. And this judge, when asked by reporters after the trial why he had not allowed the defendant to defend himself, replied: “I was afraid he’d get away with it. What would that have done to my reputation?”
This absurdity is essentially what his Honor judge Donald J. Trump did on Thursday April 6, 2017, sending 59 weapons of mass destruction to attack an air base in Syria from which heroic pilots and Russian advisors had been flying sorties against terrorists for over a year, risking their lives for the Syrian people and to rid the world of the scourges of civilization called ISIS, and Al-Qaeda and its metamorphoses – groups that Trump himself claimed to oppose. Because Judge Trump, based on no evidence but the opinion of US intel agencies that had falsely condemned him no less, based on false allegations, of being a Russian spy. Now tell me, Folks, did he really believe this intel or was this attack on the sovereign Syrian people something that he had planned perhaps during his campaign, even as he promised us he would not intervene in the Middle East?
Just how intelligent is our intel? Well, some years ago, someone “disappeared” trillions of dollars at the Pentagon, and our brilliant sleuths have not yet identified this person or group and no one can find the money. Yet, a few minutes after learning of a chemical attack in a region in which terrorists are known to use chemical weapons, these same leaders know who committed the attack and it was not the terrorists.
It smells of GW Bush, and back on December 1 of last year, I warned you here of what I suspected was about to come.
Here’s the thing: Trump is a gambling man (after all, he used to build casinos). He gambled on you wanting an anti-Obama. But emails from my readers indicate that this is not quite all you wanted and that many of you will now wake up and stop the cheering.
You see, I remember many of my readers endorsing Trump because they figured Hillary was a warmonger but Trump, who had said he could get along with Putin, would bring about peace on earth, and in fact this image of Trump induced a lot of voters to switch affiliations, some because they feared a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
But Trump may have fatally misjudged his voters. After all, what is anti-Obama to some is not anti-Obama to others. Like the stopped clock that tells the correct time twice a day, Obama did not always do the wrong thing. No one does. Now Obama had returned money that belonged to Iran and had been held in escrow in the US. To some, being anti-Obama would be getting tough on Iran. But softness on Iran was not Obama’s big sin. His big sin was failing to lift a pinky to stop ISIS back when that group was invading Syria and Iraq in broad daylight and its long rows of white machine gun-equipped Toyota pickups presented a perfect target. This inaction allowed the terrorists to infiltrate villages and mingle with civilians, enabling the terrorists to hold them hostage in deadly situations. Many voters were hoping Trump would brook no nonsense from ISIS but would cooperate with Russia to take down these terrorists.
But his choice of a Neocon cabinet did not fit this narrative and it cast doubt on his sincerity to fight the Establishment that had done nothing to stop terror.
In fact, Trump as president kept bad mouthing Iran even though Iran was doing a commendable job of fighting ISIS in Syria. He also told AIPAC that he would stand by Israel. Which is fine if all he meant was that he defended Israel’s right to exist and live in peace. But coinciding with this US attack, Israel is now asking for a buffer zone in Syria. Which is odd. Israel already occupies the Syrian Golan Heights. Many keen observers think they are just grabbing more elbow room, which is their MO.
Now if Americans just simply acquiesce to this illegal and irrational action on the part of the man they elected, he will, like Dubya after the Iraq war, most likely simply stay the course, believing that you support him. The most important mission of every American today is to show you do not support this attack, which provides assistance to ISIS. These terrorists are already feeling their oats and taking full advantage of the cover kindly provided by the administration, as described here.
SYRIA: SOMETHING IS NOT ADDING UP IN IDLIB CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK
White Helmets [this group has already been identified as a fake, as detailed here and here] are handling the corpses of people without sufficient safety gear, most particularly with the masks…as well as no gloves… a doctor in a hospital full of victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls.
SYRIA: IT’S WMD ALL OVER AGAIN. WHY DON’T YOU SEE IT?
Two points occur. One, the western power, by consorting with such people, demonstrate that their exaggerated disgust at the Assad government is selective and unreal. Two, they demonstrate that our continuing desire to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia lies beneath our whole foreign policy in this region. And which state loathes President Assad more than anyone? Why, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which despises Assad for his Alawite heresy, and hates him for his alliance with Shia Iran.
A friend alerted me to a NYT op-ed that is out of keeping with that outlet’s general viewpoint and correctly identifies the source of the problem.
QUOTE: What hardly any Israelis will consider, though, and virtually no influential voices in the West will publicly suggest, is that Israel — not Hezbollah in Lebanon, nor Hamas in Gaza, nor the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria — is provoking the next war. Counterintuitive though it may be to Israeli and most Western minds, Israel, not its militant Islamist or brutal Syrian enemies, is the aggressor in these border wars.