Home | About | Donate

The Fraudulent Case for a Syrian Escalation


The Fraudulent Case for a Syrian Escalation

Jonathan Marshall

The recent call by 51 dissenting State Department officials for U.S.


With the US economy on thin ice, more occupation and war is the short term remedy that has always worked - short term - until another occupation or war can start...Murkin exceptionalism.


That's right, Drew, it illustrates how criminally insane the CIA/State Department has become. If an IS flag flies over Damascus it just isn't their problem so long as Assad is deposed. Let's remember that in 2013 it was actually worse; the Syrian military still had chemical weapons and CIA/State just didn't care if IS seized those stockpiles. It doesn't get any more evil.
One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut realize these monsters are capable of anything, anything at all for their short term policy. I've come to doubt a lot about what the Assad government has been accused of but even if all of it is true it pales in comparison to the moral degeneracy in Langley and Washington.



On the heels of the State Department's neocon missive, NPR aired a report, after warning off sensitive viewers due to the graphic details, with Ben Taub, who has a recent article in the New Yorker about the Syrian government killing medical personnel who were helping civilians, and the heroic efforts of those who are risking their lives to provides medical assistance to civilians.

What followed included the heart-wrenching story about a doctor holding the hand of a child blown in two, during the child's last minutes.

"But after these five siblings came into the ward and they had really truly horrific injuries, the stuff of nightmares. So this boy came into the ward, you know, in loosely-connected pieces. He had no pelvis, and he was still alive. He was looking around the room silently, unable to make a noise. So (reading) the boy was dying. There was no treatment. He had lost too much blood, and his lungs had filled with concrete particles. Nott held his hand for four agonizing minutes. All you can do is just comfort them, he told me. I asked him what that entailed since the hospital had exhausted its supply of morphine. He began to cry and said all you can hope is that they die quickly."

Now, one thing I've learned about propaganda is this: If something effects you in a visceral way, there's a good chance it's propaganda.

"The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H.W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by American Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die."


So I decided to look into Ben Taub, the author of the New Yorker article.What did I find? This isn't the first time he's had anti-Syrian propaganda in the New Yorker.


So, we've got NPR interviewing an anti-Assad author with graphics details about the death of a child, supposedly due to the actions of Assad's forces.

It isn't just the memo of the 50 people in the State Department. There's a full court neocon press on to amp up attacks on Assad - which just happens to correspond with what Clinton wants to do.

I guess the neocons don't want to wait until November to attack Assad - or maybe they figure there's a good chance Clinton won't win.


We are being Hillaryed, as I say.


The author shows a profound confusion.

The main reason for war is always war itself, i.e., war for its own sake.

If, in addition, the conduct of the war results in some geopolitical benefit or other, then great. Otherwise, just derive the immediate benefits of the war, and run to the bank with them.

If you like this setup, vote for Hillary. Her main reason for being president is to have as much war and conflict as possible. The one problem will be that her lack of restraint in this regard will likely push us into direct confrontation with Russia, and there's a non-insignificant chance that the US will be nuclear-ly obliterated.

Hug your loved ones today, and every day until this happens. It may be coming soon.


Yep fraudulent millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands killed .


This article, like virtually every one coming off the TomDispatch press reminds me of that Benny Hill skit where one soldier follows the next one right off the roof.

Why do so many journalists ask the wrong question and pick up the same LAME frame? That frame is the one that seeks a victorious outcome as justification for constant expansion of the MIC's Killing Fields.

The more compelling and pertinent question--and frame--is why so many fail to recognize that the MIC requires this expansion in order to justify its own existence, maintain a high fear factor, and keep the money train flowing its way. And since that money train annually delivers HALF of what it collects from U.S. taxpayers, this substantial sum--and lost treasure--requires some form of justification.

If wars were won, they would end. Then what would happen to the endless money supply the MIC, war profiteers, think tank warriors, and weapons producers rely upon as a vampire does blood?

In the same way that the Koch Brothers and assorted billionaire pals find attorneys, psychologists, and PR people who can take things as deleterious as cutting Social Security and frame them into arguments that many--on the receiving end of LOSSES--would support; similar funds are extended to those devious masterminds who can turn willful wanton destruction into some notable ideal or viable military objective.

We're living in a time where Deception rules perception in everything from what we eat ("substantial equivalents") to elections (where a varied assortment of tricks and machinations produce the outcome amenable to the elites) to just about every story manufactured (for the purposes of mass consent) by the MSM.

Time to tune and/or adjust the frames! False narratives can never result in anything that's truth-based.


But they know. Which is why in the absence of a slave Syrian state, they play the Libyan card: a destroyed, obliterated state, and Hobbessian chaos where all fight all, and the imperialists buy cheap oil...


The only thing these State Department troglydites have in common is a strong belief in Might makes Right!