The Syrian Facade: 9 Points to Acknowledge Regarding Syria

1
110

The newly-revived militarized conflict within Syria has likewise sparked new intense controversy regarding the U.S.’s involvement in foreign affairs. In an act of unapologetic irony, the Neo-Conservative Right wing has turned against Conservative Nationalists, Identitarians and Libertarians that stand in opposition to superfluous foreign intervention. With much drama and sensationalism revolving around the Syrian conflict, it is necessary to remove oneself from the general situation to maintain an objective perspective, and be capable of acknowledging factual evidence without preconceived bias. In order to accomplish this, there are 9 primary points that Conservatives must acknowledge regarding the Syrian Conflict.

1. One can disagree with a policy without being entirely opposed to the President.

First and foremost, one cannot approach situations like these without first acknowledging that it isn’t necessary to agree with 100% of a President’s policies in order to be generally supportive of them. This false dilemma that insists that one must instantaneously agree with every decision at the hands of a political figure without the slightest instance of skepticism and hesitation is not an honorable trait, but a destructively illogical one that contributes to a mob mentality. Acknowledging this basic tenet of logical discourse is a necessary prerequisite to discussing both foreign and domestic policy.

2. The United States has been supporting Muslim radicals in Syria.

While this fact regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East comes as a heinous astonishment to many Americans, the American Government has openly admitted that it federally supports Muslim rebels in Syria. In a 7 page document released by Judicial Watch, the U.S. government released several basic statements regarding the general situation in the Syrian conflict.

“ A. Internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction.

 B. The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda are the major forces driving the Insurgency in Syria. 

C. The West, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime.”

In other words: America, which suffered from a tremendously horrific terrorist attack by Al Qaeda during 9/11, and cost the United States 2997 victims, is now providing the same Islamic terrorist organization with fire support in an effort to subvert and destroy the Syrian government. 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

3. Previously claimed chemical attacks by Assad have lacked evidence of the use of Sarin Gas.

Defense Secretary Mattis admitted in February that there is no corroborating evidence to support the accusation of the use of Sarin gas by Assad.

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”

Mattis also admitted that actions taken by the U.S. in response to these accusations would be established upon mere possibilities, rather than established evidence. “We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use… I don’t have the evidence, what I am saying is, that other groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground, have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence,” Mattis said.

4. Hillary Clinton passionately supports Trump’s decision to intervene in Syria because it is a continuation of her policies under the Obama administration.

Obama’s terrifying war wrath left a trail of destruction in its wake at the end of 2016, with a total of 26,171 bombs that had been dropped on various, predominantly islamic countries in the Middle East, as well as intervention in Syria that provoked heavy criticism on behalf of President Trump. Now, however, Trump is continuing those same detrimental foreign policies, with the astonishing support of Hillary Clinton, as well as other democrats and Neo-Conservatives like John McCain. Clinton stated that her intervention in Syria under the Obama administration was not an adequate response, but that the Syrian airfields should be destroyed– without the slightest consideration of how this would affect America’s relations with other countries, notably Russia.

5. Russia has unveiled a new nuclear missile in response to the U.S. tampering in Syria

Due to consistent U.S. provocation in Syria, Putin unveiled astonishing new nuclear weapons that emphasizes Russia’s military capabilities in the form of the “Satan Mark II” nuclear missile. over US allies.)

“Satan 2, which Putin claimed is already deployed in some missile silos, is a replacement for a 1970s-era Satan ICBM. The new version is slated to reach full service in 50 silos around 2020, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to the Center’s Missile Defense Project, the Satan 2 ‘is reported by Russian media as being able to carry 10 large warheads, 16 smaller ones, a combination of warheads and countermeasures, or up to 24 YU-74 hypersonic boost-glide vehicles.’”

It is also estimated that the missile can affect a land mass equivalent to the size of the UK, France or Texas. The introduction of these new nuclear capabilities is a prominent variable to be taken into consideration when weighing American involvement in Syria.

6. Trump has retracted his previous condemnation of intervention in Syria, and is instead embracing the same foreign policy as the Obama administration

Despite vehement condemnations of U.S. intervention in Syria as it was occurring under the Obama administration, President Trump is now retracting his statements and instead taking an opposing initiative.

Despite Trump stating that the currently strained relationship with Russia is due to false accusations of Russian collusion, he has continued to perpetuate that strained relationship by provoking Russia, both rhetorically, and through escalated military intervention. Trump also accused Russia of attempting to facilitate an arms race, even despite the United States, United Kingdom and France serving as the provocative force in the militarized conflict in Syria.

7. Russia called for an emergency council meeting to propose a resolution that has been rejected by the U.N.

In addition to the call for an emergency meeting to present a resolution that was rejected, Russia is considering providing additional military equipment to Syria.

“Moscow may consider supplying S-300 surface to-air missile systems to Syria and “other countries”, Colonel-General Sergei Rudskoi told a televised briefing on Saturday.”

Russia has also stated that the alleged chemical attack was a fabricated event meant to serve as a catalyst to subvert the Syrian government.

8. The use of missiles in the Syrian airstrike provided an additional 10 billion to the weapons manufacturers.

The use of Tomahawk missiles has provided an enormous financial contribution to top weapons manufacturers, solidifying the correlation between these military operations and a consequential monetary profit- particularly for companies like “Raytheon, Lockheed Martin (LMT), General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.”

“ Since President Trump announced that he intended to bomb Syria, the stock values of some of the country’s top weapons manufacturers have soared, adding a collective $10 billion in market capitalization values over the course of just one week.”

9. Intervention in foreign countries are a violation of the principles established by the Founding Fathers.

As a point of finality, it need be emphasized that continual intervention in foreign countries are against the principles of the Founding Fathers. Both Washington and Jefferson spoke passionately on this issue:

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world” — George Washington

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.” — Thomas Jefferson

With these 9 points taken into consideration, the tense situation in Syria is observed under a newly suspicious light. The automatic assumption should not be that the United States should be involved in every militarized conflict, as it is a superfluous expenditure of resources, capital and the valuable lives of American soldiers. Conservatives, if anyone, should be the first to demonstrate skepticism and hesitance when the United States is considering foreign intervention. “America First, America Only” policies cannot coincide with unnecessary militarized action in an irrelevant domestic conflict-especially if that conflict has been a perpetual ideological warfare that has existed since the dawn of time. It is time for nationalist Conservatives to make themselves distinct from mere partisan, warhawk Republicans; no more accepting false intervention for the sake of a monetary profit; no more complacency in holding the office of the Presidency to the highest moral standard. America First, America Only.

1 COMMENT

  1. Apparently this was a combination of sarin and chlorine attacks where sarin was dropped on one area and chlorine was dropped on an adjoining area to camouflage the sarin attack. You can tell from the pictures that this is a sarin attack.

    (0)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here