Anti-Media/ Anti-islam/ Anti-Globalism _Volume001

 

Regarding the Syrian chemical attacks and subsequent US military attacks on Syrian air force:

Excellent critical breakdown of the aftermath of the chemical attack by #BlackPigeonSpeaks:

This recent video from Sargon of Akkad is also a must watch. I don't agree with every conclusion that Sargon reaches in this synopsis of media coverage and geo-political events in the Middle East from the 1990s to the present; however, this is an important, skeptical perspective that any clear-thinking individual should take into consideration before forming any opinions about Syria. Especially important to watch is the press conference testimony of independent Canadian journalist, Eva Bartlett, beginning at ~55m30s in the video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmxRddgpo-I

What we know (my editorial):

1) The media lies to the US public as well as the international public. The corporate media has repeatedly parroted stories to support certain government programs both at home and abroad.

2) The media pre-supposes unconfirmed conclusions over short periods of time in order to guide public opinion to support those conclusions, conclusions supporting a desired narrative and a desired US policy.

3) There has been no independent investigation confirming that Assad or the the Syrian army perpetrated the chemical attacks on it's own citizens. We DO NOT KNOW exactly who used the chemical weapons.

4) Given that there was no investigation, and thus no definitive conclusion, the 59 missile strikes on the Syrian air force by the US military (less than 72 hours from the initial tragedy of chemical weapons use) was premature!

5) Assad is a Western-educate, secular leader of Syria. 6) Syria has been overcome by a civil war for the last six years as islamo-supremacist (similar to ISIS) within the nation have demanded that an islamic theocracy take control of Syria rather than the current secular government of the Assad regime.

7) Only five days before the April 4th chemical attack in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley stated that deposing Assad was not high a priority of the US foreign policy (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-31/mccain-furious-rex-tillerson-saying-assad-can-stay).

8) Assad and the Syrian army has been winning the civil war against islamo-supremacists over the last six to 12 months (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-bashar-al-assad-putin-russia-syrian-forces-aleppo-win-victory-west-should-be-ashamed-a7450336.html).

9) Even a mentally ill psychopath would know that using chemical weapons on civilians would attract, at minimum, unwanted attention and criticism on those perpetrating the chemical attack; and, at worst, a complete international intervention to depose the leader who authorized the chemical attacks.

10) islamo-fascists and islamo-supremacists (like those in Palestine) have staged human rights violation attacks and have created media propaganda in the past (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPaq_TNEYwY).

11) If Assad is deposed, it is extremely likely that Syria will be overtaken by islamicist theocrats and islamo-supremacists and will spiral into fanaticism and chaos (as has occurred in other Middle East nations in the recent past).

12) Most recently, the notable MIT professor emeritus, ballistic missiles expert, and former military adviser (among other notable achievements), Theodore Postol, has asserted that the US report "does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun... on 4 April, 2017." (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mit-syria-chemical-weapons/).

Now it's important to consider potential motives behind the April 4th chemical attack. Ask yourself, who would have the requisite motive and expectation for beneficial reaction from either the opposition and/or the international community of nations: Assad or the rebel armies? What possible benefit could Assad receive by using chemical weapons on civilians (or even on militants), especially in a scenario where his army has been winning the fight? In contrast, consider the increasing desperation of a Syrian rebel force on the losing side of multiple battles, knowing that their only hope of survival would be the removal of Assad and his regime. Also consider that an islamo-fascist seeking to establish an islamic, theocratic government like that of ISIS or Iran, would consider it his moral and ethical duty to go to any measure to establish that islamic theocracy (even if that meant the murder of innocent children as we have seen in many bombings of civilians areas during the Iraq war).

And a post-script from #BlackPigeonSpeaks about the Syrian refugee crisis and the impending fall of Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FPXXHknv0g