Scumbag Joe attacks Syria — because 'everyone' hates Iran — or something like that

26 February 2021

I warned you about Joe Biden's anticipated warmongering

Here, for instance:

Self-defense . . . is not a strategic quality that we permit our supposed adversaries to indulge.

Self-defense, when others display it, is — according to American leadership — always strategically "destabilizing".

Slaughter is evidently profitable, ethically good and should be paraded as an attention-catching symbol of the prevailing American ethos.

And here:

US strategic planning seems to involve acting in ways that threaten other nations and then using those nations' subsequent efforts at self-defense as an excuse to act even more aggressively toward them.

Apparently eager to prove me right . . .

. . . President Biden delivered — in typically American style — with characteristically outlandish convolutions of logic in justification:

"At President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted airstrikes against infrastructure utilized by Iranian-backed militant groups in eastern Syria," John Kirby, Pentagon spokesman, said . . . .

The airstrike was in retaliation for a Feb. 15 rocket attack against a U.S. base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil that killed a coalition contractor and left several American contractors and a U.S. military service member wounded.

"We're confident that target was being used by the same Shia militia that conducted the strikes," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters . . . .

The strike may have resulted in "a handful of fatalities," according to a U.S. official.

The decision to strike at a militia targets inside of Syria and not inside of Iraq was seen as a smart move by national security analysts.

Thursday's airstrike "was probably calculated and scaled to avoid an escalation and send a message that Iran's use of militias as proxies will not allow them to avoid responsibility," said Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East . . . .

By striking an area in Syria "completely controlled" by Iranian-backed militias, [Phillip] Smyth [a Soref fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy] said, the U.S. "eliminated the risk of the Iraqi street, which is increasingly nationalistic -- anti-Iran and wary of the U.S. -- from getting upset by what could be perceived to be a unilateral strike within Iraqi territory."

"The rocket attacks that triggered this were meant to test the Biden White House, and that's a very Iranian thing to do," said Doug London, a 34-year CIA veteran . . . .

If you can read all that, without laugh-barfing . . .

. . . you are more tolerant of murdering American idiocies than I am.

To wit

We blame Iran — with neither evidence nor legal justification — for having forced us to (oh so kindly) distribute our warring acts of (allegedly Godly just) vengeance in Syria.

Thus, we kill Syrians — who (we can suppose) are just Iranians in disguise — because we don't want to kill Iraqis.

Killing Iraqis, it is suggested, might make other Iraqis mad. And some of those mad Iraqis might retaliate against our (Word of God-delivering) American bodies.

Therefore — we are led to think — it is more strategically wise to fly (or missile) over to Syria and kill a "handful" of folks there.

This is because Iran — which isn't Syria — is always bad. A fact that conveniently makes it easier for us to detect Evil's Blotch, as it spreads in the Middle East. Just look, we are repeatedly told, for where the Iranians are.

And Iranian-backed militias (per the American party line) are in Syria. As well as in Iraq.

But unlike the Iranian-sponsored militias in Iraq — the Syrian-Iranian militias are not as adulterated with 'normal' (supposedly peaceful) folk — whose subsequently angry relatives and friends might hunt us down and kill us — in revenge for all the limb-ripping, heart-stabbing mayhem we do to their people.

In short

'My fellow Ahmurikans' — it is just so much easier to kill the people, who resist aggression — when they congregate together in some convenient place — even if that place is not in the nation, where their most aggressive self-defense is going on.

Makes sense, right?

This is why we chant "USA, USA, USA!"

No one is as bright as we are.

Anointed of God and all that.

Caitlin Johnstone synopsized . . .

. . . the United States' characteristically terrorizing behavior this way:

[W]e are being told that the United States launched an airstrike on Syria, a nation it invaded and is illegally occupying, because of attacks on “US locations” in Iraq, another nation the US invaded and is illegally occupying.

The US military is an invading force in both Syria and Iraq; it is impossible for [US] actions in either of those countries to be defensive.

It’s the people trying to eject them who are acting defensively.

The deaths of US troops and contractors in those countries can only be blamed on the powerful people who sent them there.

Obviously and logically true.

Then, there's the American (versus Syrian) definition of "handful"

Under conditions in which History clearly demonstrates that US leadership does not care about murdering people — for fun, profit and the American Way — accurately reporting numbers doesn't matter either:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strike killed at least 22 fighters from Iraq's state-sponsored Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force.

The raid also destroyed border posts of the Hashed, an umbrella group that includes many small militias with ties to Iran, said the monitor.

"At least 22" seems like . . .

. . . four and half "handfuls" to me. If the Syrians are correct.

And notice how the US has evolved — if that be the applicable word — from the Vietnam War's individual "body count" metric to today's "handfuls".

Single lives don't matter anymore. Now — hardened by our self-asserted existential crises of great note — we estimate the deaths that we inflict by our five-digit hands.

Soon it will 'messes of handfuls' — or perhaps — 'swaths'.

Then populations. Possibly followed by the planet-fulls.

Progress.

We only do what we must. Right?

The moral? — To American leaders — what's just "a handful of fatalities"?

Just another day in gobbling the globe.

At what point do the war criminal sins of American leaders wind their way down to stain American sheep?

Do we, perhaps, begin to understand Islamic insurgents' motivations?

Or is that too much of stretch and (in consequence) a task to be left to other days, more insightful brains and finer souls?

PeteFree.com

Scumbag Joe attacks Syria — because 'everyone' hates Iran — or something like that