The truth behind this account is pretty clear if you learn to parse the rhetoric coming from the neocons.

In Iraq, the goal was always stated as “free and fair elections.” That’s always the goal of the neocons, as long as all the candidates are pro-US.

However, that’s never the goal in Syria. They never talk about holding “free and fair elections”; they talk about “Assad must go.” Obviously elections cannot be “free and fair” if there are certain people who are not permitted to stand for election. The reason they don’t talk about free and fair elections in Syria is simple: that term implies that (a) Assad would be allowed to run for election, and (b) they know he would probably win, because he remains incredibly popular with the religious and ethnic minorities.

The other day, this appeared:

I have the ability to confirm this, because I have relatives pinned down in al-Qamishley. If true, this begs the question: if we are (a) building military bases in Syria without (b) the invitation of the Syrian government……then how are we NOT referred to as “invaders”?

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store