Listening to US media day after day, blah blah blah about ISIS, the usual BS, empty and meaningly, uninformative. Then, today on Fox, in a news report, the anchor was Julie Bandares, i heard this quick passing comment. It was about the topic, why doesnt Obama authorize attacking ISIS in Syria, thats where their home base is, its not enough to fight them in Iraq, so why wont Obama launch a war on them in Syria, and someone said, i dont remember who, wish i could rewind it but its too far gone by now, someone said the unspeakable truth that i havent heard reported before, though its obvious to me---If the US attacks ISIS in Syria, they will be helping Assad (the Syrian government who the US has been trying to undermine by supporting what is euphemistically called the moderate rebels. Thats where ISIS got the strength to go into Iraq, US undermining of the Syrian government, arming their enemies, not just the moderates, who dont seem to be very plentiful or even verifiable. In other words, the US is using ISIS to fight Assad in hopes of weakening the Syrian government enough to topple it and support the moderates later, with direct US airstrikes and advisors. (i have seen this movie before). It was brief but it was one honest moment that somehow slipped out through the media--the US is not fighting ISIS in Syria because they dont want to help the Syrian government which is fighting ISIS like hell and has been now for at least two years. If the US really wanted to get rid of its ISIS problem, it would engage in cooperation with Assad and erase the problem. Ah, the problem of conflicted priorities. And again, the Iraqis have to pay the price for grossly imperfect US stratagems. sana.sy/en/?p=11003
Posted on: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 23:59:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015