The ‘war’ in Syria – an exercise in doublespeak

In case you have been under a rock, there has been a insane media blitz the last week to get us into a fight with Syria.  Before we progress: ask yourself the following two questions:

‘Did Syria undoubtedly use chemical weapons on its own people?’

‘Did Iraq have WMDs?’

The answer to both of these is “No”.  Now if you were to watch the main stream media you would be confused and be thinking I am wrong.  I am not.  UN inspectors themselves admit there is doubt as to who exactly or if there even was a chemical attack.

In fact not only is there doubt, they said evidence suggests it was the ‘rebels’ who used it.


Our society is deeply fucked, our economic system is primed for a cataclysmic collapse, our culture is gutter garbage, no one gives a shit, there are no jobs, but to distract us from these problems we have things like miley cyrus’s softcore porn performance. (As a disclaimer I had no idea who she was until the endless news of ‘how vile’ her performance was as the economy marches to hell)  Also as long as there are ‘enemies’ out there people are distracted away from their own problems.  We have always been at war with Eastasia.

So back to Syria, a chemical attack MAY have happened against someone, but what do we do?  We take this narrative and decide it was Syria’s president Assad and he was gassing his own people. ‘Syria must pay…for the women and children!’ becomes a rallying cry of sorts.  After all, we have to save the women and children right?  Wait a minute…how do we even know who did what?  You are basing a military intervention on hearsay that is unsubstaintated?  Eerie echoes of Iraq thunder in the distance.


Now, with that being said…lets see what our government has to say with anyone questioning the narrative.

“Suggestions that there’s any doubt about who’s responsible for this are as preposterous as a suggestion that the attack did not occur” – Jay Caney, Obama spokesman

I really hope most of my readers have read the book 1984, it seems like that book ended up being a playbook for the world.  We have our government officials telling us that to doubt their assertions are ‘preposterous’ when THEY WERE NEVER SUBSTANTIATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

UN inspectors say they need 4 more days to conclude…my prediction?  We will move in before that.  ‘Something’ will happen, or the ‘women and children have to be saved’ and in we go.  When it might come out later about the truth of gas attacks, oh well, we made a mistake.  We will laugh it off just like the Iraq war.  Oh it was just that silly texan.  This time it will just be that silly black man and we wait for the next big distraction, no one realizing there are forces beyond the president in control here.  This conflict has a very real likelihood of spilling into a HUGE regional conflict, dragging us into potentially a WW3 depending on how bad things get.

Real people are going to die in Syria, Obama will probably kill more ‘women and children’ than any gas and no one gives a shit, and false pretenses will be enough to let the killing begin.


17 thoughts on “The ‘war’ in Syria – an exercise in doublespeak

  1. I agree, generally, with what you’re saying. We should definitely not be getting involved in the mess in Syria, even if we didn’t have so many of our own problems. We can’t be the sheriff of Earth. But, a couple things:

    The US is a sovereign body, and we don’t answer to the UN. The UN is a corrupt joke of a political body sucking our blood and trying to interfere in our internal politics via “international law”. Their actions and resolutions carry practically no weight unless the US is on board doing 90% of the work and paying the bills. IMO we should resign our membership and kick them out of the country. So, I truly couldn’t care less what the UN has to say about anything.

    With respect to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, well, we know for a fact that they massacred a Kurdish village with chemical weapons in 1988. Also, I guarded what I was told was a cache of chemical weapons in northern Iraq in 2007. A friend of mine in a different unit who was in the same region in 2005, who I didn’t even meet until 2009, also guarded the same cache and mentioned the outpost by name before I did when I mentioned the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq during the war. Conclusive proof? No. But the simplest explanation for that coincidence is there actually were chemical weapons in that outpost. So, I personally believe that there were chemical weapons in Iraq at the time of the invasion and afterward.

    Anyway, in my opinion there’s not much we can do to make the Syria situation better. There are only two ways to get someone to do what you want: persuasion and force. I doubt we can persuade them of anything, and no level of force will get the result we want (assuming what we want is the killing to stop). Anything we do will result in more death.

    Sometimes, often even, the best thing is to do nothing. Hopefully our dimwitted government will stumble on that option and take it.

  2. US is a war machine. It is a self appointed Sheriff of the world, a title predominately used by warmongers.

    In 1988 Kurdish attack occurred when Saddam was America’s “bastard”. No one bitched about it then but over a decade later for the USA to find its heart. What a joke. I guess the fact that the USA used chemical weapons and DU in Iraq that has destroyed the nation does not count. If you have a heart look at the mess in Libya but that’s so yesterday. What about Iraq.. wait again that operation success. Complete destruction of a nation for the sake of Israel. Saddam came into power thanks to the CIA. He was armed with chemical weapons thanks to the “civilised” (neo-colonist) countries.

    The whole War On(of) Terror is a joke. No one spends trillions to kill people with box cutters; assuming of course you believe in 911 official (her)story. NATO is are arming itself to the teeth to face off Russia and China. Russia being the main threat thanks to its large arsenal of ready nukes.

    America is bankrupt again, first time being in the 1971 when it did a high way bank robbery by telling rest of the world, f* you, you ain’t getting your gold. It also did the same for Asia, Latin and African countries during the WWII who stored their gold inside the FED. When it came to reclaim the gold back the FED said the certificates were fake. And before that Roosevelt’s stole Gold from the America people.

    Recently Germany wanted its Gold back from the FED. Initially it refused then it gave a poor excuse that it will take them to 2020 to process the request. Back to business as usual.

    See a pattern here? It is a nation run by liars and thieves, and having the world most gullible and arrogant people on earth. Feminist are gynocentric while most Americans are egocentric.

    Nation of Sheep, run by crooks. Always an enemy outside, just never look within.

    America is bankrupt and what’s keeping it afloat are two things: military and petro-dollar. Lose one and the whole thing collapses.

    Here in UK we are following the same greed filled ideology of the USA. Our economy is screwed, our banking system is crooked and “our” Government spends more time colluding with the corporations and the USA then it does listening to its own people.

    NATO has already made a mess of North Africa but that won’t stop them from wanting to attack Syria. Fact is a mess is what they want, it allows wholesale theft to occur.

    American Civil war or Global war is what we are heading towards. The only good thing about this is that during these times women find they don’t like being equal. Oddly enough I don’t find that much of consolidation. Life is a bitch.

    • ‘America is bankrupt and what’s keeping it afloat are two things: military and petro-dollar. Lose one and the whole thing collapses.’

      basically the summary of events. We are too distracted to notice or care, and meanwhile our machine rolls on.

      Yeah once it gets ‘real’ women will drop their false entitlements very fast.

  3. If we really go through with a military attack on Syria, I believe that might be the worst thing that has ever happened to this nation. The bar is set so low for legal precedent (the House soundly REJECTED the resolution to authorize military intervention in the Balkans, Clinton continued anyway) legal arguments are pretty much meaningless at this point.

    It’s simply, fundamentally, absolutely asinine by every measure. DPRK troops are in Syria (“consultation only” capacity, according to them), Russian troops are in Syria (they have a base there for godsake…the only Russian military base in the ME), Iranian troops are in Syria (speculation, but comeon…reasonability test, they’re there). What exactly are we trying to accomplish by bombing a nation in the middle of a civil war, and (most importantly) What Happens Next? At absolute best it will be something like Pristina airport where we all just had a socially awkward moment and then nervously pretended we were all happy to see each other, merely a waste of resources at worst we’re looking at world war III. Assuming we “win” look at the cast of evil actors hoping to take charge with the fall of the government there.
    “Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself” – Napoleon.

    My ‘whodoneit’ analysis:
    I cannot think of one regime that has unleashed chemical weapons at their disposal when faced with impending overthrow. Csarist Russia was the first to face this dilemma, and it didn’t. Germany gassed its Jews but never used chemical weapons on the battlefield during its death throes. Japan gassed the Chinese but never the invading American forces. Chemical weapons are generally used as a side arsenal when it can employ them with relative confidence, not last resort weapon. The same could be said regarding Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds…he never employed chemical weapons against US forces during the first Gulf war. To the question
    ‘cui bono’ from a chemical weapons attack…the answer makes it far more likely that this was a rebel assault, designed to spark mass outrage against Assad and political pressure on the rest of the world.

      • ” I actually partially thought you would defend the Syria ‘intervention’.”

        No f*cking way. I haven’t been in favor of any intervention in the past 20 years…though I do understand why some of them happened, and can argue either side. This case is worse than most.

  4. Well, Obama just made a big speach about obtaining approval from Congress before pursuing this course of action. I don’t think he’ll get it, and it will be hard to proceed without it after making this speach so I am unusually hopeful.

      • You might be right, but I don’t think so (and I surely hope not).
        It’s very unusual for a sitting president to request Congressional approval prior to anything short of a full-scale military engagement. The Constitution states that only Congress has the power to “wage war”, et al…but (for less than fullscale engagements) that notion has been more honored in the breach than in the observance since the Korean war. Congress did vote against the Kosovo intervention, for instance, but only after the 60 day period when the “war powers” of the executive had expired.
        I think this is a very very good development, and with any luck it might set a precedent that curbs the power of the executive to use the military for less than imminent security reasons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s