Home | About | Donate

The Syrian Refugee Crisis and the ‘Do Something’ Lie

The Syrian Refugee Crisis and the ‘Do Something’ Lie

Adam Johnson

It didn’t take long for the universal and entirely justified outrage over a picture of a dead three-year-old to be funneled by the “do something” pundits to justify regime change in Syria. The “do something” crowd wants us to “do something” about the refugee crisis and “solve” the “bigger problem,” which, of course, involves regime change. To create the moral urgency and to tether the refugee crisis to their long-standing warmongering, these actors have to insist the US has “done nothing” about Syria.


We had one poster claim that the Muslim Countries in the region do nothing for the refugees. An argument that is patently false as over 90 percent of all refugees have fled to the neighbouring countries of Lebanon , Turkey , Iraq and Jordan.

Indeed of Syria’s neighbours only one has indicated it will refuse refugees outright and it is not Muslim.

Destabilizing the region is by design. It has its roots in a paper drawn up over 3 decades ago in Israel. Much that was outlined in the yinon strategy was then adopted by the people that wrote up the Clean break Strategy .

Many of the same people who wrote this went on to form PNAC.

Their plans come to fruition. This let us do something about this is just a means of carrying the strategy out to its conclusion.


And who will rush into the power vacuum if Assad is deposed?

Hint: Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.


Brilliantly argued:

“Most of those advocating for the removal of Assad probably know this, but can’t say “the US should do more,” or “they haven’t done enough,” because this would raise the uncomfortable question of what they have done already. And the answer to that, as is with most US meddling in other countries, is a lot of covert programs US officials—and thus their court press—can’t openly acknowledge. So those in the establishment media are left to do a strange dance: at once ignoring all the US has already done while insisting the US should join a fight it’s been a party to for over three years.”

Mr. Johnson’s truthful analysis is refreshing. F.A.I.R does a great job deconstructing the official narrative relative to actual events ON the ground.

This also bears repeating:

“… every no-fly zone in history has eventually led to regime change. Which is fair enough, but those pushing for one should at least be honest about what this means: the active removal of Assad by foreign forces. Indeed, if one recalls the NATO intervention in Libya was originally sold as a no-fly zone to prevent a potential genocide, but within a matter of weeks, NATO leaders had pivoted to full-on regime change.”

Alas, regime change… right up there on the neocons’ Santa’s wish list.



“Once again, the disease becomes the cure, because a holistic diagnosis is not being advanced by Western media—only an evil dictator vs. freedom fighter cartoon. And why wouldn’t it? These nuances complicate the messy narrative of “If we get rid of Assad we can solve the crisis,” which has been US and UK orthodoxy since 2011. But the Guardian still has all their work ahead of them: If the West removes Assad, then what? Will the tens of thousands of radical, medieval wahabbists that have flooded in simply go away? Will the US bombing of ISIS simply stop?”

More articles by Mr. Adam Johnson, please… C.D.


Seems to me we should be supplying Assad. He is not nearly as brutal as his father and seemed to be holding that country together.

1 Like

I was hoping you would bring this up. These Gulf States are the closest US allies in the region and do the bidding of the USA. They are LIKE the USA the countries that are funding the Rebels in Syria. They are the ones bombing Yemen with US aid and creating another refugee crisis.

The USA came out and said it would not accept any more Syrian Refugees. These rich Gulf States have indicated much the same. They are all criminal regimes.

See your problem is this. You seem to belive that the Muslim world is monolithic and if one of those countries do not accept Muslim refugees it a problem with Islam. That is not the case. The world has nations that are Christian and Muslim that are despotic, tyrannical and warmongering nations. It not specific to a Religion.

Now to your last statement. One more time and I repeat myself. These people are fleeing for a better future economically. Their countries have been devastated by wars and sanctions orchestrated in part by the USA and the Western allies of the same. Had those countries not meddled in the Middle East seeking to destroy these nation states there would not have been this impetus to leave.

I would point out that the middle class in Greece also seek to leave that nation. There a flood of doctors and professionals seeking to migrate elsewhere. The same happens in East European Countries with peoples from the Baltic States migrating (Latvias population is shrinking). The irish have seen this happen in waves as has virtaully every country in Europe.

Is it your contention that people who seek to better their lives economically should only migrate to countries of the same faith? I have absolutely no issues with Muslims wishing to come to Canada. Why does it bother you should persons of a different faith decide to migrate to your country?


Nope I am not saying that at all. I am saying they cut from the same cloth. There no difference between the corrupt Governments of the Gulf States and the Government of the USA. Neither care one whit for the peoples that are fleeing those coutries, no matter their words.

Oh and they did settle in turkey first . I already told you there over 2 million in Turkey. there another 1 million in Lebanon and 1.5 million in Jordan. That is where the vast majority of the refugees are. less then 10 percent head to Europe.

It very much like Afghanistan. After the USA and Russia got through with it millions fled the country. The vast majority went to Pakistan and Iran where they remain to this day. Most of these people want to return to Afghanistan but as long as the USA turns it into a battleground they can not.

Very few went to Europe.


Well and wisely argued.

Promising deliverance from evil

Assuring a further descent into hell

I’m not sure what people want in some of the comments. Assad? ISIS? I know people are venting but it is self indulgent and teaches us nothing. People we should________ (fill in the blank) but they never say how that would be accomplished. I worry that some are blind to the danger ISIS represents.