And if the result of our militarily securing the museum had been to severely damage it, or to destroy it in whole or in part, what would you be saying then?I wouldn't be happy about that either! But if that were the dilemma, why aren't they saying that? It would go a long way toward explaining why the museum wasn't secured. But they are not even saying it was part of their plan to secure it.
I can't believe how naive some people are about this museum scam. The good stuff was already gone. The 'looting' was a coverup. What is so complex about that?