Discussion:
So those of us who bet on an unknown rather than a sure thing in HRC could be wrong. But it was a necessary step to take to defeat Hillary Re: Who is happy about the Trump violence toward Syria and who is not ...
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-04-08 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It seems, finally, Trump has fallen into the McCain-Graham-Schumer axis
of neoconservative warmongerism.
"Finally"? How many days has he been president? This is exactly what I
and others warned you of but you were too ignorant to listen. You just
filled post after post with glowing commentary about Trump, your hero.
Yes, finally. And guess what? If you think you are so prophetic,
you're right and maybe come October, you will be awarded the next
Nobel Prize of something. But in the mean time, I am not the only
person to use the word finally. And I am not the only persons who
have believed that we should take a chance on Trump - instead of
taking someone who would have bombed Syria and faced off with Russia.

So you and bmoore are giddy? Given where at least the latter's well
known behavior in these newsgroups, I already knew that. So enjoy
your gloat for as long as it may last!

lo yeeOn

--------

Regarding the feeling of "Finally ..."

Exhibit A:

Elites Are Giddy Over Trump's Airstrike in Syria, and That's
Terrifying

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/07/elites_are_giddy_over_trump_s_airstrike_in_syria_and_that_s_terrifying.html

Finally, after months of fear and anguish and deep depression,
liberals have been feeling good again.

---------

Exhibit B:

Politico
Trump's Troll Army Isn't Ready for War in Syria
The alt-right crowd breaks with the president.
By Ben Schreckinger April 07, 2017

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-right-syria-war-214998

The fractured elements of what was once called the alt-right were
unified once more on Thursday night in condemning Donald Trump's
airstrike in Syria as a mistake. Or as Milo Yiannopoulos put it, "FAKE
and GAY".

This loose confederation of Web-savvy, anti-establishment
right-wingers formed an important vanguard of Trump's online support
in last year's election, and its unified opposition to the airstrike
forewarns a political downside to intervention in Syria. While
foreign wars tend to boost presidents' popularity in the short term,
Trump risks losing the segments of his base that flocked to his
isolationist, "America First" message.

In addition to its nationalist, anti-interventionist and
anti-"globalist" views, the alt-right and its fellow travelers have
also displayed a marked affinity for Syria's ally Russia, whose
government has returned the love by tweeting images of the alt-right's
mascot, Pepe the Frog, from official accounts. In reacting to the
airstrikes, leaders of the movement placed those ideological reflexes
over their personal loyalty to Trump.

Most noteworthy were the herculean efforts of blogger Mike Cernovich,
who took to the livestreaming application Periscope to rally
opposition to the strike in a marathon session that went on for
several hours.

Just days after Donald Trump Jr. suggested he be given a Pulitzer
Prize, Cernovich tweeted, "Sources telling me U.S. attack in Syria
planned for tonight, we must stop! #NoMoreWar", at 7:40 pm Eastern
time, an hour and a half before NBC News broke the news of the
airstrike.

During the course of the livestream Cernovich - at times holding his
infant daughter Cyra in his arms - blamed a variety of actors for
fomenting theconflict. "They want war. Deep state, all these people
want it, man," he said. Of the media, he aid, "They're trying to con
Trump into believing the people want war."

Cernovich also expressed his belief that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad
had been framed for the chemical attack, though he had not decided by
whom. "It was probably ISIS did it to themselves," he said on the
livestream, while also tweeting, "Did McCain give `moderate rebels'
(ISIS) in Syria poison gas and Hollywood style film equipment?"

Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, founder of pro- Trump "Western
chauvinist fraternal organization" the Proud Boys, joined Cernovich as
a guest via Skype, and shared his skepticism. To illustrate a parallel
from his own life, McInnes recounted a story in which he said a female
friend accused a man of rape and McInnes violently confronted the man,
only to be convinced by the man's incredulous response that he was not
guilty of rape. (In a text message, McInnes, who left Vice a decade
ago, maintained his skepticism about the source of the chemical
weapons attack but signaled support for Trump's response).

Earlier in the day, alt-right online philosopher Stefan Molyneux also
joined Cernovich to condemn the action and question whether Assad was
really responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

Other callers offered even more disturbing theories. One man expressed
his concern that the "deep state" had approached Trump and threatened
to kill him and his family if he did not get in line and voiced his
suspicion that "the whole thing" could be traced back to Barack
Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice. "Yeah, could be,"
responded Cernovich.

Others ...

Yannopoulos - who has kept a low profile since losing a CPAC speaking
gig and a six-figure book deal over revelations that he once spoke
favorably of pederasty - declined to elaborate on a text message
describing the airstrike as "FAKE and GAY".

White nationalist Richard Spencer, whose embrace of hard-core racism
has led Yiannopoulos and others to distance themselves from the
"alt-right" label, displayed no such reticence, calling the strike "a
sad, shocking and deeply frustrating moment".

"I condemn the strikes,"I'm going to wait and see. Perhaps Trump is
slapping Assad across the nose and won't go further. Perhaps Russia
was informed of the attacks. Worst-case scenario: We're replaying the
2000s: A conservative comes to office on a populist message and
becomes a globalist and neocon shill. Again, I'll wait and see but I'm
prepared to denounce Trump.

Spencer was not alone in vacillating between condemnations of the
strike and expressing hope that Trump will not take further action
against Assad. The anonymous alt-right Twitter troll Ricky Vaughn
tweeted, "THERE IS NO ENDGAME IN SYRIA if we remove Assad. No leader
that can hold together that country." He also tweeted "Hoping this is
88D chess giving Trump political space and an excuse for meeting with
and negotiating with Putin."

Over on The_Donald subreddit, a central hangout for Trump's alt-right
fans, debate raged all night. One poster attempted to douse the
discontent by writing, "Calm the fuck down all you concern trolls.
This isnt WWW3 - its trump putting America first. We need to stop
Assad from killing his people. They flee and guess where they are
going?" The /pol/ section of the message board site 4Chan, another
hotbed of online Trump support, was similarly torn asunder by the
news, with one poster /pol/ writing, "hates Trump now. What happened?"

Meanwhile, internet troll Charles Johnson was not prepared to accept
that the U.S. really had struck at Assad, saying that a source at
CENTCOM told him the strike had actually targeted the Islamic State".
I'm very skeptical of any claims made in the media on military
matters," he said. "Especially since the Iraq War."

-------

Exhibit C:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/thiel-thinks-hillary-clinton-is-much-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump.html

With his fiery presence and inflammatory rhetoric, Donald Trump has
had to fight off charges that he lacks the temperament to be
president.

However, tech mogul Peter Thiel, who recently announced $1.25 million
in donations to groups supporting the Republican, believes it's
Democrat Hillary Clinton who poses the real threat.

"The kind place where I worry about the most on a policy level is, do
we get into more wars or not?" Thiel said Monday during a speech at
the National Press Club. "I'm not sure if that's more of a temperament
or more a matter of world view, but certainly I would worry much more
in that with Hillary getting us into wars."

Thiel actually believes Trump has mellowed some over the years and
would be unlikely to make the kinds of comments today that he did a
decade ago - such as the video where he made lewd remarks about women.

Trump has run into numerous other issues as well, with his critics
accusing him of inciting political violence and mocking a disabled
reporter.

"There are a lot of things that are beyond the pale," Thiel
said. "There are things that Trump said a decade ago that even he
would absolutely no longer say today."

He said he doesn't think Clinton would necessarily get the U.S. into a
nuclear war with Russia, but her more aggressive approach to foreign
policy still worries him.

"If you actually look at the specific - where might something happen,
where might something go wrong - I would think that in some ways
Hillary is much more dangerous than Trump," Thiel said.

-------

Exhibit C part b):

Peter Thiel's courageous and thoughtful speech that lays bare the
problems, the abnormalities, and the hypocrisies of this country's
elites. These rulers, largely drawn from two political dynasties,
have continuously controlled our society since 1992 and this helps
explain why there are so many Trump supporters.

Very unusual for a presidential candidate, he has questioned the
core concept of American exceptionalism.

He doesn't think the force of optimism alone can change reality
without hard work.

Just as much as it is about making America great, Trump's agenda is
about making America a normal country.

A normal country does not have a half trillion dollar trade deficit.

A normal country does not fight five simultaneous undeclared wars.

In a normal country, the government actually does its job.

. . .

If you don't conform, you don't count as diverse.

[Hillary's and George's hypocrisies: You go to war to save lives.
If you are not with us; you are against us. America is already
great. If you question the government's narrative, you're a
truther, unpatriotic, or worse.]

Peter Thiel FULL Speech Supporting Trump at National Press Club -
October 31, 2016


. . .

It's not a lack of judgment that leads Americans to vote for Trump.
We're voting for Trump because we judge the leadership of our country
to have failed.

This judgment has been hard to accept for some of the country's most
fortunate, socially prominent people. It's certainly been hard for
Silicon Valley where many people have learned to keep quiet if they
dissent from the coastal bubble.

Louder voices have sent the message that they do not intend to
tolerate the views of one half of the country. This intolerance has
taken on some bizarre forms. ...

The lie behind the buzzword of "diversity" could not be made more
clear. If you don't conform, you don't count as diverse, no matter
what your personal background.

Faced with such contempt, why do voters still support Donald Trump?

Even if they think the situation is serious, why would they think that
Trump, of all the people, could make it any better?

I think it's the big things that Trump gets right.

For example, free trade has not worked out well for all of America.

It helps Trump that the other side just doesn't get it.

All of our elites preach free trade.

The highly educated people who make public policy explain that cheap
imports make everybody a winner, according to economic theory.

But in actual practice, we lost tens of thousands of factories and
millions of jobs to foreign trade.

The heartland has been devastated. The sheer size of the US trade
deficit shows that something has gone badly wrong.

The most developed country in the world should be exporting capital to
less developed countries.

Instead, The US is importing more than 5 hundred billion dollars every
year.

That money flows into financial assets. It distorts our economy in
favor of more banking and more financialization and it gives the
well-connected people who benefit a reason to defend the status quo.

But not everyone benefits and the Trump voters know it.

Trump voters are also tired of war.

We've been at war for 15 years and we've spent more than 4.6 trillion
dollars.

More than 2 millions of people have lost their lives and more than 5
thousand American soldiers have been killed. But we haven't won.

The Bush administration promised that 50 billion dollars could bring
democracy to Iraq. Instead we've squandered 40 times as much - to
bring about chaos.

Yet even after these bipartisan failures, the Democratic Party is more
hawkish today than at any time since it began the war in Vietnam.

Harking back to the no-fly zone that Bill Clinton enforced over Iraq
before Bush's failed war, now Hillary Clinton has called for a no-fly
zone over Syria.

Incredibly, that would be a mistake even more reckless than invading
Iraq, since most of the planes flying over Syria are Russian planes.
Clinton's propose course of action would do worse than involve us in a
messy civil war. It would risk a direct nuclear conflict.

What explains this eagerness to escalate a dangerous situation? How
can Hillary Clinton be so wildly over-optimistic about the outcome of
war?

I would suggest that comes from a lot of practice. For a long time
our elites have been in the habit of denying difficult realities -
that's how bubbles form.

Whenever there is a hard problem but people want to believe in an
easy solution, they will be tempted to deny reality and inflate a
bubble.

Something about the experience of the baby boomers whose lives have
been so much easier than their parents' or their children's has led
them to buy into bubbles again and again.

The trade bubble says everyone is a winner and the war bubble says
victory is just around corner.

But these over-optimistic stories simply havn't been true. And voters
are tired of being lied to.

It was both insane, and somehow inevitable that D.C. insiders expected
this election to be a rerun between the two political dynasties who
led us through the two most gigantic financial bubbles of our time.

President George W Bush presided over the inflation of a housing
bubble so big that its collapse is still causing economic stagnation
today.

But what's strangely forgotten is that last decade's housing bubble
was just an attempt to make up for the gains that have been lost in
the decade before that.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton presided over an enormous stock
market bubble and a devasting crash in 2000 just as his second term
was coming to an end.

That's how long the same people have been pursuing the same disastrous
policies.

Now that someone different is in the running, someone who rejects the
false reassurance stories that tell us everything is fine. His
larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention.

Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is a humble man. But the big
things he is right about amount to a much-needed dose of humility in
our politics.

Very unusal for a presidential candidate, he has questioned the core
concept of American exceptionalism.

He doesn't think the force of optimism alone can change reality
without hard work.

Just as much as it is about making America great, Trump's agenda is
about making America a normal country.

A normal country does not have a half trillion dollar trade deficit.

A normal country does not fight five simultaneous undeclared wars.

In a normal country, the government actually does its job.

Today, it is important to recognize the government has a job to do.
Voters are tired of hearing conservative politicians saying government
never works.

They know government was not always this broken. The Manhattan
Project, the Interstate Highway System, the Apollo program, whatever
you think of these ventures, you cannot doubt the competence of the
government that got them done, but we have fallen very far from that
standard.

We cannot let free-market ideology serve as an excuse for decline.

No matter what happens in this election, what Trump represents is not
crazy and it's not going away.

He points toward a new Republican party beyond the dogmas of Reaganism.

He points beyond the remaking of one party to a new American politics
that overcomes denial, rejects bubble thinking and reckons with
reality.

When the distracting spectacles of this election season are over and
the history of our time is written, the only important question will
be whether or not that new politics came too late.

Thank you.

----------

Youtube Comments

malbowz 1253 hours ago
5:39 "If you don't conform, then you don't count as diverse."

This is the truth. The left's 'gospel of diversity' is one big dichotomy.

Philip Chen7 hours ago

It takes guts as a tech businessman to stand out and support Trump -
he risks being marginalised by his peers. This act of courage in my
opinion is no less than Trump's

Also
(w/ long intro + Q/As)

-----

"What Trump Represents Is Not Crazy ... And Is Not Going Away" - Peter
Thiel Full Transcript by Tyler Durden Oct 31, 2016
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/what-trump-represents-not-crazy-and-not-going-away-peter-thiel-full-transcript

Silicon Valley billionaire (and now pariah) Peter Thiel defended his
support for Donald Trump in a speech this morning. The excellent
oration wondered from the ignorance of the elites and the bankruptcy
of the nation, to the endless and pointless wars and America's
slumping quality of life...

A lot of successful people are too proud to admit it since it seems to
put their success in question. but the truth is, no matter how crazy
this election seems, it is less crazy than the condition of our
country. just look at the generation that supplies most of our
leaders. the baby boomers. they are entering retirement in a state of
actuarial bankruptcy. 54% of those over the age of 55 have less than
one years worth of savings to their name.

That is a problem, especially when this is the only country where you
have to pay up to 10 times as much for simple medicines as you would
pay anywhere else. america's overpriced health care system might help
subsidize the rest of the world, but that does not help americans who
cannot afford it and they have started to notice.

Our youngest citizens may not have medical bills, but their college
tuition keeps on increasing faster than the rate of inflation, adding
more every year to our $1.3 trillion mountain of student debt. america
has become the only country where students take on loans they can
never escape, not even by declaring bankruptcy.

Stuck in this broken system, millennials are the first generation that
expect their own lives to be worse than the lives of their parents.
while american family expenses have been increasing relentlessly,
their incomes have been stagnant. in real dollars, immediate household
makes less money today that made 17 years ago. nearly half of
americans would not be able to come up with $400 if they needed it for
an emergency.

Yet, while households struggled to keep up with the challenges of
everyday life, the government is wasting trillions of dollars on
taxpayer money on faraway wars. right now, we're fighting five of
them. in iraq, syria, libya, yemen, and somalia.

In the wealthy suburbs of washington dc, people are doing just fine.
where i work in silicon valley, people are doing just great. But most
americans don't live by the beltway or the san francisco bay. Most
americans have not been part of that perspective. it shouldn't be
surprising to see people voting for bernie sanders or donald trump,
who is the only outsider (very few people who vote for president have
ever thought of doing something so extreme as running for president.
The people who run are often polarizing).

This election year, both major candidates are imperfect people to say
the least. i don't agree with everything donald trump has said and
done, and i don't think the millions of other people voting for him do
either. nobody thinks his comments about women were acceptable. i
agree, they were clearly offensive and inappropriate. but i don't
think the voters pull the lever to endorse a candidate's flaws.

It is not a lack of judgment that leads americans to vote for trump,
we are voting for trump because we judge the leadership of our country
to have failed.

This judgment has been hard to accept for some of the countries most
fortunate, socially prominent people. it certainly has been hard to
accept for silicon valley, where many people have learned to keep
quiet if they dissent from the coastal bubble. louder voices have sent
a message that they do not intend to tolerate the views of one half of
the country.

This intolerance has taken on some bizarre forms. the advocate, a
magazine which once praised me as a gay innovator, even published an
article saying that as of now i am, and i quote "not a gay man"
because i don't agree with their politics. the lie in the buzzword of
diversity could not be made more clear. if you don't conform, then you
don't count as diverse, no matter what your personal background.

Faced with such contempt, why do voters still support donald trump?
even if they think the american situation is serious, why do they
think trump of all people can make it better?

I think it is because of the big things that trump gets right. for
example, free trade has not worked out well for all of america. it
helps trump that the other side just does not get it. all of our
elites treat free trade and explain that cheap imports make everyone a
winner according to economic theory. but in actual practice, we've
lost tens of thousands of factories and millions of dollars to foreign
trade. heartland has been devastated. maybe elites really believe no
one loses or maybe they don't worry about it too much because they
think they are among the winners.

The sheer size of the u.s. trade deficit shows something has gone
badly wrong. the most developed country in the world should be
exporting capital to less developed countries. instead, the united
states is importing more than $500 billion every year. that money
flows into financial assets, distorts our economy in favor of more
banking and more financial's asian and gives well-connected people who
benefit a reason to defend the status quo. but not everyone benefits,
and the trump voters know it.

Trump voters are also tired of war. we have been at war for 15 years
and we have spent more than $4.6 trillion. more than 2 million people
have lost their lives and more than 5000 american soldiers have been
killed. but we have not one. the bush administration promised $50
billion could bring democracy to iraq. instead, we squandered 40 times
as much to bring about chaos. even after these bipartisan failures,
the democratic party is more hawkish today than at any time since it
began the war in vietnam. harking back to the no-fly zone bill clinton
enforced over iraq before bush costs failed war, now hillary clinton
has called for a no-fly zone over syria. incredibly, that would be a
mistake even more reckless than invading iraq. since most of the
planes flying over syria are russian planes, clinton's proposed course
of action would involve us in a messy civil war -- it would risk a
direct nuclear conflict.

What explains this eagerness to escalate a dangerous situation? How
could hillary clinton be so wildly overoptimistic about the outcome of
work?

. . .

Now that someone different is in the running, someone who rejects the
stories that tell us everything is fine, his larger-than-life persona
attracts a lot of attention.

Nobody would suggest donald trump is a humble man. But on the big
things, he is right about an amount to a much-needed dose of
humility. He has questioned the poor -- the core concept of american
exceptionalism.

He doesn't think the force of optimism alone can change reality
without hard work. just as much as is is about making america great,
trump's agenda is about making america a normal country, a normal
country does not have a half trillion dollar trade deficit. a normal
country does not fight five simultaneous undeclared wars.

In a normal country, the government actually does its job. today, it
is important to recognize the government has a job to do. voters are
tired of hearing conservative politicians saying government never
works. they know government was not always this broken. the manhattan
project, the interstate highway system, the apollo program, whatever
you think of these ventures, you cannot doubt the competence of the
government that got them done, but we have fallen very far from that
standard. we cannot let free-market ideology serve as an excuse for
decline.

No matter what happens in this election, what trump represents is not
crazy and it's not going away. he points toward a new republican party
be on the dogmas of reaganism. he points beyond the remaking of one
party to a new american politics that overcomes nile, rejects bubble
thinking and reckons with reality. when the distracting spectacles of
this election season are over and the history of our time is written,
the only important question will be whether or not that new politics
came too late. thank you.
lo yeeOn
2017-04-08 02:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It seems, finally, Trump has fallen into the McCain-Graham-Schumer
axis of neoconservative warmongerism.
Sad, for him, for his legacy, for the Syrians, and for the American
people.
Yes, some analysts would suggest that Trump is doing it in front of Xi
and that it is a message directed at the Chinese president. He is
telling Xi that he will do the same to North Korea if Xi continues to
protect North Korea. So, in addition to giving Xi a stomach ache at
dinner time tonight and making his Florida visit totally miserable, Xi
will have to go back to China trying to figure out what to do.
But no matter what Trump will rain down N Korea, I don't believe it
will change China;s policy toward North Korea.
As I have observed before, N Korea is a strategic partner of China
because NK is survival pertains to China's own in face of US hegemony.
If Trump's hawkishness continues, China and the US are expected to
enter into an adversarial relationship and the dream of making America
great again won't have a chance, given China's economic relationship
with the US today.
lo yeeOn
Strike on Syria gets mixed reaction from lawmakers
By TARA FOWLER Apr 6, 2017, 10:44 PM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/International/strike-syria-mixed-reaction-lawmakers/story?id=46639533
Reaction from both sides of the aisle was swift following news that
the United States had launched a military strike on an airbase in
Syria.
In a statement, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Lindsey Graham,
R-South Carolina, praised President Donald Trump for taking
action. "Unlike the previous administration, President Trump
confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action. For that, he
deserves the support of the American people," they said in part.
House Speaker Paul Ryan called the action "appropriate and just."
. . .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "Making sure
Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will
pay a price is the right thing to do."
He added: "It is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with
a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it. I salute
the professionalism and skill of our Armed Forces who took action
today."
Some criticized Trump's response.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, tweeted, "While we all condemn the
atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked."
He continued: "The President needs Congressional authorization for
military action as required by the Constitution."
Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, said, "This was done with no debate in
Congress & no explanation to the American people," he wrote on
Twitter. "Assad is still in power. What was purpose of strike? How
much did this cost? Was Assad a threat to US homeland? How does this
achieve peace?"
Lieu added that Trump "campaigned to get US out of foreign wars. His
actions in Syria, Iraq & Yemen show he is acting like a warmonger."
We have to fight pigs like Assad, lo yeeOn, Saddam, Milosevic with all
resources available.
Max
Sehr geehrte Herr, Maximilliano, bitte. Por Favor. Es tut mir leid.
Lo siento. Bitte, please. The pigs are in Washington and they are
taking people's money to chase what they choose to call "monsters".

Who gave them the right to take our money so they can use it to
destroy lives on earth as if there is no tomorrow?

Who gave them the right to kill "with all resources available" when
those resources actually belong to the people?

They have hijacked the people's resources for their selfish gain.

Who is to decide that Milosevic was a "pig"?

Who is to decide whether Assad should or should not be president of
Syria except for the Syrian people themselves?

But because of the neocons like John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Chuck
Schumer, and the majority of the US Senate, who decided that Saddam,
the Taliban and Qaddafi, are our enemies, they went ahead and killed
or maimed hundreds of thousands.

And as they finish off one, their method is to start a song and dance
about the next "monster", or "pig", as you called them.

The list keeps growing.

Now it is Assad.

They reckon if we get rid of Assad, we can move against the Iranian
leadership. We heard the pre-echo against the Iranians during George
W Bush's glorious months of going to war against the axis of evils.

But of course, every campaign against a monster, no matter how small,
is an endless commitment - a quagmire.

Even against the terribly weak Taliban, we are still there. Not
because the Taliban fighters are pigs, but because the Washington
elites have insatiable appetite on the one hand - so they occupy
Bagram as if this was an eschatological time - and partly because
after we killed a lot of innocent people, we inevitably made many,
many people angry.

But the greed of the Washington elite, aka neocons, is vast. Despite
a lack of success, they want to hold on to all those little countries
they have destroyed, tightly. And they want to methodically move on
to their next target.

Now they are working on Syria and waving some false flags about their
leaders. It's so predictable. They have to demonize their target
country's leadership in order to justify the regime change.

Likewise, they are preparing to move closer to China and Russia by
calling N Korea's leadership madmen, pig, monsters, you-name-it.

North Korea's Kim (and further down the line, Vladimir Putin, the CCP,
on and on) are our enemies and then we will justify killing or maiming
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent defenseless people
and causing many more to be homeless.

We have seen too many of these false-flag operations calling the
leadership of a target country a "pig" or "monster" and then bombing or
invading their countries.

So who are the real pigs in these New American Century Projects that
designate foreign leaders as pigs and give defenseless people no place
to hide when our bombs are lobbed into their countries?

Saddam might have killed hundreds of Kurds and if he was a pig, but
then what does that make George W Bush, Tony Blair, Hillary/Obama and
Francois Hollande who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

They have to be rather real swine, no?

They call the killing of innocent people collateral damage, or victims
of "friendly fire". They, however, don't put themselves in those
victims' place.

And then, there is so much lying and so much fixing the data, i.e., the
intelligence, to fit their foreign policy agenda, how can we accept
that your definition of pigs is better than those who disagree with
you?

Es tut mir leid, es tut mir leid, Max... People's resources are not
meant to be spent on making wars to kill your kind of "pigs".

lo yeeOn

Jimmy Dore's show: Evidence Suggests S-Y-R-I-A G-A-S ATTACK Is False
Flag


Media Lens tweeted:

Front page BBC news" `Government helicopters "drop chlorine" on
Aleppo'. But `could not be independently verified'.

Charles Shoebridge tweeted"
"Assad chlorine attack" dominates West's headlines, conveniently
just as as his opponents meet West's govts in London.

AMN
Jumping to conclusions; something is not adding up in Idlib chemical
weapons attack

At least 58 people were killed in a horrific gas attack in the Idlib
Governorate this morning. However, even before investigations could
be conducted and for evidence to emerge, Federica Mogherini, the
Italian politician High Representative of the European Union (EU) for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned the Syrian government
stating that the "Assad regime bears responsibility for `awful' Syria
`chemical' attack."

However, even before investigation could be conducted ... evidence to
emerge, Mogherini is already pointing finger at Assad. She already
knew, eh? Doesn't it sound like propaganda? (And Trump, of course,
is doing exactly the same thing, before any investigation could be
conducted and evidence to emerge.

Israeli President, Benjamin Netanyahu, joined in on the condemnation,
as did Amnesty Internationa.

Merely hours after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan
Sheikhun, supposedly by the Syrian government, holes are beginning to
emerge from opposition sources, discrediting the Al-Qaeda affiliated
White Helmets claims. (Al Qaeda has done it before in Syria.)

It also raises the question why a "doctor' in a hospital full of
victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls. This
will probably be dismissed and forgotten however.

Dr. Shajul Islam @DrShajulIslam
OUR HOSPITAL GETTING FULL FROM THE SARIN ATTACK TODAY ANYONE THAT
WANTS EVIDENCE, I WILL VIDEO CALL YOU.
7:24AM 04 Apr 17

REALLY? IN THE MIDDLE OF TREATING VICTIMS OF SARIN GAS ATTACK?

[Apparently, many "gas attack" victims are al Qaeda kidnapped victims]

It is known that about 250 people from Majdal and Khattab were
kidnapped by Al-Qaeda terrorists last week. Local sources have
claimed that many of those dead from the chemical weapons were those
from Majdal and Khattab.

. . .

Therefore, it is completely unsurprising that Orient TV has already
prepared a "media campaign" to cover the Russian and Syrian airstrkes
in Hama c ontryside against terrorists forces, with the allegations
that the airforces have been using chemical weapons.

And this of course begs the question. With the Syrian Army and its
allies in a comfortable position in Syria, making advances across the
country, and recovering lost points in rural Hama, why would they now
resort to using chemical weapons?

IT SCREAMS FALSE FLAG

It is a very simple question with no clear answer. It defies any
logic that on the eve of a Syria conference in Brussels and a week
before peace negotiations are to resume, that t he Syrian government
would blatantly use chemical weapons.

All evidence suggests this is another false chemical attack allegation
amde against the government as seen in the Khan-al-Assad 2013 attack
where the terrorists groups hoped that former President Obama's
"red-line" would be crossed leading to US-intervention in Syria
against the government.

[Cui Bono? It benefits the Saudis, the Qataris, Bibi of Israel, ...]

Trump: They killed innocent people, children, little babies,
gesturing with his hands.

Jimmy Dore: We don't kill babies in Yemen, in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
in Syria? We use Christian bombs which dodge babies:)

Loading...