US Invades Syria, Kills People, Claims Self-Defense

submitted by [deleted] from caitlinjohnstone.substack.com

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What Israel and Jews everywhere want the Jew-laden USA obeys and does whatever needed to keep Jews happy.

Goy blood and wealth means nothing to the Jew and Israel. If a million USA Goy die and a trillion USA Goy tax dollars are spent to protect Israel the Jew laughs and demands more more MORE!!!!!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really hard to argue against.

If my hallucinations weren't pseudo-hallucinations for sure, you'd be writing to a person able to hold a big set of contraducting ideas in his mind with the usual "total" loss of sense for "reality".

But sadly this isn't like this "diagnosable" stigma.

This is as "real" as it can get.

The simulation of all simulations: Reality.

Only one life-bar, so to say, you know?

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Blood doesn't count, oil matters, money can just print it!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(Not to mention:) Steal or rob Syrian oil perpetually, especially from southern Syria, since they finally got the civil war there they pushed so long for by funding ISIS.

[–]jagworms 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds like going hunting in South Park with Uncle Jimbo. "They're coming right for us!!"

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Huh it's almost as though none of it makes sense in isolation. Almost like there are multiple complicated factors at play that can't be examined in isolation, context-less.

Because Caitlin Johnstone, a russia Today correspondant, seems to have forgot that Iran also invaded Syria, killed people, then claimed self defense. And she seems to have forgot that Isis invaded Syria, killed people, and claimed self defense. And she seems to have forgot that the ruzzia invaded Syria, killed people, and claimed self defense. And she seems to have forgot that turkey invaded Syria, killed people, and claimed self defense.

Weird how she decides to write about America's presence there in isolation of all other factors.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Weird how she decides to write about America's presence there in isolation of all other factors.

I can't read Caitlin's mind, but I do read all her articles, and I imagine this is because there is a pervasive perception that Iran, Russian, and ISIS are 'bad guys' (which I agree with), while USA are the 'good guys' (not so much in agreement here). I think she wants to dispel the the idea that USA is acting with the moral high ground and hold them to the higher standards we supposedly have

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yeah that sounds really easy to do when you allow yourself to deceptively ignore all context and treat the matter in isolation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yeah that sounds really easy to do when you allow yourself to deceptively ignore all context and treat the matter in isolation.

I don't think thats a fair critique. What Russia, Iran and ISIS did in Syria has nothing to do with whether or not it was morally acceptable that my own country invaded a sovereign nation, killed people, and claimed self-defense. My standards for the way my country ought to conduct itself on the world stage do not disappear when other countries act badly. "Hey it's OK the USA put japanese people in camps during WW2 becaue Hitler did it the jews too!!". No, that context of Hitler does not excuse that we put Japanese people in fucking prison camps. I can very well treat this in isolation and say it was wrong

I am actually more concenrned about my own countries conduct than the other nations, because I am a stakeholder in my nation. She didn't need to mention those countries in the article, because she isn't defending their conduct, she clearly thinks invading countries and killing people is a bad act. When you put the USA in the same category as Russia, Iran and ISIS, I don't see how you can argue that this is OK or a good thing

Honestly, I think you ought to examine whether or not you are reflexively defending the worst aspects of Western Imperialism and the Military Industrail Complex, because you seem to get very defensive about anything that is critical of it, even though I think you are a smart fellow that understands some of these problems

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You, and she, cannot really examine what America is doing there in an information vacuum.

What Russia, Iran and ISIS did in Syria has nothing to do with whether or not it was morally acceptable that my own country invaded a sovereign

Its totally relevant what Isis, Iran and the russia are doing there, if their presence and activities causes the destabilisation that required America's presence.

America has a purpose in Syria which is directly related to those other groups.

America is in Syria because, in the absence of law, an absence caused by Iran and the russia propping up asad, the region became the source and planning center of some of history's worst terror attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spillover_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Isis are/were a destabilising factor that actually aggravated home-grown Islamic terror in the United States, the UK, Australia, Europe, all the regions on that second link above.

You cannot properly deal with or examine America's role and presence in the region without also looking at the rise of Isis, the danger of unchecked international terror networks, and the destabilising factor of Shia leaders + the russia propping up Asad.

Honestly, I think you ought to examine whether or not you are reflexively defending the worst aspects of Western Imperialism

Ok fair enough, I will take some time to reflect on it more. But overall I am satisfied that America is there for very, very good reasons (non-imperialist reasons). I don't think this is reflexive defense on my part. I think the night of the bataclan attacks was one of the worst in modern European history, and Isis were quite clear that that was only the beginning of what they had planned.

On top of that, you have the massacre at mount sinjar, the enslavement of the yazidis, all manner of unchecked horrific behaviour existing in a power vacuum that Asad+Iran+the russia were not going to deal with. So there are a great many non-imperial reasons for America's presence that you just can't deal with in isolation

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Now you are ignoring relevant context, such as the fact that we were the ones funding ISIS to use them to destabilize governments we didn't like and it backfired on us

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/battling-isis-iran-iraq-war-redux

Literally every time we fuck around in the Middle East it ends very very badly, and its all about our interest in oil, not human rights. We don't intervene in many countries with worse human rights violations

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well - hold on. Of course the west did not fund or use Isis. That's just your exaggeration as is not supported in either link.

Seamus Milne is a pretty problematic dude in a lot of ways, but this is the crux of his argument in your first link

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded.

Sure, and there was no Tesla Inc or TikTok before March 2003 either. Seamus has to do better than that to prove they "funded and used" Isis.

Then your second link just reiterates that America funded the Asad opposition, and later isis were supposedly in opposition to Asad (although I never saw any indication of conflict between them).

America and the west are not, like, writing a cheque to Isis or sending them a cargo jet full of mortar shells like we see with Ukraine.

Both articles just say - America's actions ended up helping Isis. We can deal with and talk about that claim if you want, but it's not the same as funding and using Isis like you wrote.

Also, both links are opinion columns and not the editorial position of either publication. If what you wrote was true, it should have been easier to find real journalism on the topic, instead of minced words from problematic opinion columns

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We've also had 2 wars in Iraq, the Afghanistan debacle, and the Iran Contra affair, all of which are so extensively documented that I won't bother citing anything. None of those adventures ended well for anyone, except perhaps the terrorists which are now running Afghanistan. We have a long history of destabilizing that region for financial reasons, and creating the conditions where terrorism thrives. Our actions in the Middle East clearly were what inspired terrorist attacks on our soil. I am really confused as to how you can see our military activity in the Middle East as a postive thing or a good idea at this point.

I'd also like us to stop destabilizing South America and doing coups and food embargos, which no doubt contribute to our immigration problems

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think Kuwaitis would beg to differ.

But still. Every American intervention you listed was made in good faith principles, with the backing and insistence of the voting public. It's just that fate, the agents of chaos, the opposition forces of Iran and the russia, the highly skilled non-symmetric insurgency warfare operators, all conspired to make outcomes that America didn't plan for. Still I insist that every intervention was made in good faith on sound humanitarian principles.

(I was totally against Iraq war 2003 at the time. But since 2022 we've seen the danger of a habitual invader who possesses WMDs. So today I am glad that we nipped that in the bud. Or else Saddam would have had his Kuwaiti genocide and a strangle hold on the gulf shipping)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was totally against Iraq war 2003 at the time. But since 2022 we've seen the danger of a habitual invader who possesses WMDs.

Yeah...except he didn't have WMD's and they just lied to drum up support for their invasion that they really wanted for the oil contracts for Cheney's homeboys

Also funny that we don't care about genocides in Africa nearly as much as genocides in oil countries. I didn't see us deploying the troops to save the Congo

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Site_rly_sux is an astroturf that's gonna keep perpetuating deep state lies. NATO's launched 326,000 bombs within 20 years, mostly from the US.

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/the-us-and-its-allies-have-dropped-46-bombs-per-day-for-the-past-20-years/

No other country comes close to that. Most US invasions and bombings are based on fake news that they manufacture.