Though
it’s been nearly six years, the subject of the Syrian conflict remains
as contentious as ever. While those who characterize themselves as
pro-regime change have monopolized the
wider conversation on Syria, even the most tame opposition against
foreign intervention, or the CIA-backed rebels—who now come in varying
flavors of extremism—continues to be taboo.
Those who refuse to support U.S. military intervention in Syria and the
CIA backed regime change operation there that has been well documented
for over 25 years — are branded “Assadists” — and if you’re a writer or
commentator?
Well, that gets you and your work blacklisted from
publications and, in the case of journalists like myself and others who
make up a long list of anti-interventionists far too long to mention
here, even gets your speaking engagements shut down and kicked off of
blogs, regardless of what topic they’re on.
It seems that
opposing what clearly amounts to a NATO-imposed regime change operation
in Syria in order to create the next Afghanistan in the Middle East and
ultimately weaken Russia and Iran gets you characterized as a supporter
of genocide.
But this is not a new phenomenon — we’ve been here before as recently as Libya and Iraq.
During the pro-war campaign against Libya, we were told, just as we
were during previous conflicts, that military intervention was necessary
in order to protect civilians from a madman.
The same
loudmouthed pundits who led us down the bloody path of war have since
been eerily silent in the aftermath — where Libya is now being overrun
by groups like ISIS and the country is being described as a failed
state.
In Iraq, we saw an energized anti-war movement smeared as
being pro-Saddam, and now, despite what we’ve learned about both
conflicts, history seems to be repeating itself. Many are now suffering a
kind of collective amnesia over how war is peddled to the public.
EXCERPT from my latest VIDEO (link in the comments)
