Posted on 04/11/2018 12:42:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
In geopolitics, facts take a back seat to policy objectives. When Lockerbie happened the prevailing policy objective was to pressure Gaddafi to capitulate. So the crash was used in furtherance of the policy.
It was an easy call because the facts were awkward. The US would have been required to admit the bomb-carrying suitcase had been substituted for a drug-carrying suitcase which was part of a CIA/DIA operation to import heroin. The Iranians knew about the operation and managed to infiltrate it and perform the switch.
This chlorine poisoning atrocity in Syria is useful for furtherance of the US policy of destabilizing Syria and giving the Russians problems in their corner of the world. The fact that it was probably done by the surrounded “rebels” to forestall or prevent their own deaths, does not serve any US policy objective and therefore doesn’t matter.
If you want to see “truth” win out in the end, watch Perry Mason reruns. You won’t see it in the real world until Apocalypse becomes policy.
In his zeal to support the Iran/Russia/Syria/North Korea axis, the author offered no evidence to support his conclusion as stated in the headline. His piece is beside the point anyway. Assad and his allies trying to establish military facilities in Syria must go.
Assad didn’t use chems now. There was zero need for him to use them when he is winning, has already won most of the territory back and has the Turks letting him stay.
And who will replace him?
Some say it can't be Assad because it would "make no sense" and I say that the flip side is that Assad already makes no sense and could have seen the comments about us getting out as a perfect alibi - why would he do this if we were getting out.....IOW - the intel agencies are the only ones with half a clue right now.
Were chemical weapons even used?
If they were used, who used them?
That is why I said I agree with the moral of the story: Look before you shoot, but the author does not make the case that his article headline emphatically states. One has to accept the premise that Assad is indeed a logical person, however, dictators have shown the world too many times that rarely are they logical. Sadly the same can be stated for elected leaders as well. 8>)
What are you talking about? Assad is currently the legitimate head of the internationally recognized government in Syria. It is ISIS that is or was trying to 'establish military facilities' in Syria. Oh, and Turkey, which has illegally invaded Syria, and the Kurds trying to create Greater Kurdistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.