Views: 2627
Another chemical weapons at the hands (supposedly) of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The public was bombarded with images of victims of the attack. Where have been the images of Donald Trump’s victims? If the liberal media really is opposed to Trump as they say, why haven’t they been as outraged about Trump’s crimes?
Donald Trump went on to call Assad an animal. But what has been Donald Trump’s record in the region? Historically awful. He now is responsible for over three-quarters of the civilian’s deaths in the U.S. war against ISIS. What seemed unspeakable under Barack Obama has proved to be too soft under Trump.
For all the media’s hatred of Donald Trump, where is the coverage of the civilians he has killed? Where are the photographs of those dead children? If anything, they want Trump to be more bloodthirsty. When Trump contemplated leaving Syria last week, The New York Times ran two op-eds on the subject, both critical of the move. One article proposed that Trump was creating ISIS 2.0 by pulling out of the region and the other said that Trump’s strategy was “no way to run a war.” Isn’t that the point though? We should have no interest in running a war in Syria. The Washington Post also warned about the U.S. emboldening ISIS by pulling out of Syria in two separate op-ed pieces last week. Horrified by my findings, I dug further. CNN also was no fan of Donald Trump’s plan to leave Syria. A sinister headline read: “Is Vladimir Putin Trump’s top adviser on Syria?” Next I looked onto MSNBC, who showed a clip from last week titled “We should not abandon the fight”. Still, astoundingly, the liberal media was in consensus against Trump’s plan to withdraw. Fox News was no better. They claimed that Trump was repeating Obama mistake’s by leaving Syria. I dug through arguably America’s five most trusted media sources and none of them ran an opinion that supported the President’s plan to leave Syria.
The left, at its worst, gets too caught up in the details of these blackouts. The timing of the chemical weapons attack is of course, rather curious. Why would Assad use chemical weapons right after Trump said he wanted to leave Syria? And why did the same sequence occur a year ago? On March 30th, 2017, Trump softened on Syria. On April 4th, 2017, a chemical weapons attack occurred. The signs point to the U.S. and their friends being behind these attacks if we strictly look at the timing. But this is all rather flimsy. These attacks both also occurred around April Fool’s Day, and no one would ever read into that. Now maybe Assad knows that the U.S. presence is essential to destabilizing the region. Or quite possibly, Assad had nothing to do with the attacks. I always lean towards blaming the U.S. but Russia’s presence within Syria has been brutal too. We just don’t know. So rushing to judgement, let alone military intervention, seems absurd. No matter who one “feels” is responsible. This is all assuming too that military intervention would help even if we did know the details. It hasn’t before and it won’t here.
It is important to remember though, even if we can’t read into the details, that the U.S. media was against withdrawal from Syria even before these attacks. It is awfully convenient to proclaim to be heroes now. But the media gave Syria no chance in the first place. With or without these chemical attacks, the U.S. wanted war.
Now the U.S. will be in Syria for much longer, killing civilians at an unprecedented rate. Happy now liberal media? Who knew that Donald Trump would have to prove to you that he wasn’t a pansy when it came to war? How much more damage do you want him to do?
Why do they assume that Donald Trump, the most ignorant, arrogant, reactionary, short-fused, power hungry man (their words but also mine) is now fit to decide the fate of Syria? Have they seen how he is running our country? Of course they have. And they don’t like it. But he can handle Syria they say. Anybody can run that “shithole”. They don’t recognize that the chaos in Syria is not a matter of incompetence by their people, it is a matter of a cruel world order that has put them at the bottom. With climate change turning things from bad to worse.
Donald Trump is an animal. He kills civilians without thinking twice. He is a strictly reactionary creature, moved by monsters and their victims. His view of the world is simplistic. He has no regard for human life. He is not even bloodthirsty per se, he just dismisses everything. He is a complete idiot. Over his head. He lacks empathy, courage, and insight. The whole world has always been in his hands and he cares little about the actors inside. He believes he can get away with anything. There is no morality, curiosity or thoughtfulness within this decrepit creature. He only thinks about winning. Why on earth do we want him active in Syria? It is one thing to urge on a thoughtful psychopath like Barack Obama, but to urge on this beast seems completely irresponsible. Such are the contradictions of the liberal media. They think that while Trump is unfit to serve this country, he is perfectly fit to serve the dystopian Syria. Liberals, like Trump, see monsters over there and saviors over here. The elites, no matter their cultural differences and squabbles, can always bond over the destruction of the poor. Indeed, their existence depends on it.
Originally published on 2018-04-10
Source: Counter Punch
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection, Public Domain & Pinterest.
Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!
Donate to Support Us
We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.
