Trump heeft niet één rode lijn als het gaat om Syrië, maar meerdere. Zo heeft hij nu ook ‘vatenbommen’ (of vatbom, of barrel bomb) toegevoegd aan de rode lijn…….
Na de terreuraanval van de VS op een Syrische luchtmachtbasis, als vergelding voor een niet door het Syrische leger begane aanval met gifgas op Khan Sheikhoun, beging stuntelaar Spicer, de Witte Huis woordvoerder z’n zoveelste blunder. De hufter stelde openlijk, dat het beleid van de VS er vooral op gericht is, de Assad regering te destabiliseren, i.p.v. de terreur van groepen als IS en Al Qaida te bestrijden………
Rex Tillerson, de VS minister van BuZa, liet afgelopen week weten, dat de VS zal ingrijpen als er elders ‘onschuldige burgers’ het slachtoffer van staatsgeweld worden…….. De hypocriet, alleen in de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak, zijn al meer dan 1,5 miljoen slachtoffers vermoord, hoofdzakelijk burgerslachtoffers, waaronder veel vrouwen en kinderen……….
De hoogste tijd, dat de wereld een dikke rode lijn opstelt voor de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS: een verbod de rode lijn te overschrijden, die voor de VS begint waar de territoriale wateren van de VS eindigen en waar de grenzen van de VS zijn getrokken!!
Hier een artikel van Shahtahmasebi op Anti-Media, dat ik gisteren ontving (zie ook de berichten, die u onder de links in rood kan vinden, zoals die over Sean Spicer):
Trump
Has A New Red Line In Syria
Trump Has A New Red Line In Syria
April
13, 2017 at 9:44 am
Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi
(ANTIMEDIA) — Trump
administration officials have been making stunning admissions in the
days following the recent military strike on the Syrian government.
White
House Press Secretary Sean Spicer experienced a Freudian slip when
he accidentally
said America’s
goal in the region was to “destabilize Syria” — before he
realized what he had said and attempted to backtrack. Then, he
accidentally said it again.
And just one day before Secretary of State Rex Tillerson left for
Moscow, he told reporters
the U.S. would come to the defense of innocent civilians “anywhere
in the world.” Spicer elaborated on Tillerson’s sentiments.
“When
you watch babies and children being gassed and suffer under
barrel bombs, you are instantaneously moved to action,” the
press secretary said. “I
think this president’s made it very clear that if those actions
were to continue, further action will definitely be considered by the
United States.”
The
reference to barrel bombs, something the U.S. has accused Syria’s
president Bashar al-Assad of using for almost half a decade, is a new
addition to an already complicated red line concocted by Obama and
pursued further by the Trump administration.
When
Spicer was pressed about whether the administration now believes more
conventional modes of warfare may also constitute a red line, he
replied:
“I
think the president’s been very clear that there were a number of
lines crossed last week … The answer is if you gas a baby, if you
put a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a
response from this president. That is unacceptable.”
However,
the White House later said that Spicer was referring to barrel bombs
carrying industrial chemicals like chlorine. But as
the Guardian notes, this
would still represent a substantial expansion of the U.S.’ rules of
engagement in Syria.
No
one seems to see the irony in the fact that Tillerson stated the U.S.
would come to the defense of innocent civilians “anywhere in the
world,” all while it massacres
Iraqi civilians without
so much as a blink from the corporate media. Or the fact that the
U.S. is directly
enabling Saudi
Arabia to commit a war of aggression in Yemen, even though legal
experts have warned that
American contribution to the war makes the U.S. a co-belligerent in
Saudi Arabia’s vast list of war crimes.
Instead
of questioning Trump’s sincerity, much of the mainstream media
is worshipping
him for his militant stance on Syria.
Meanwhile,
U.S. officials are clearly sneaking more pro-war rhetoric into their
statements, establishing new red lines they know they can certainly
document. Of course, if the evidence is lacking, they could just as
easily manufacture the
necessary evidence on the ground using the rebels’
sophisticated propaganda network.
Even
if it is the case that Assad should be removed at all costs in order
to bring peace to Syria, no one seems to be remotely concerned with
the question of what comes after he loses power. In a country rife
with extremists ranging from ISIS and al-Qaeda’s
affiliate in Syria to
the 65,000
fighters willing and able to take ISIS’ place,
no one seems concerned with who or what will replace him.
Would
a puppet government installed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Qatar, and Turkey be able to hold onto power in Syria in the face of
these extremist groups? Won’t the subsequent government have to use
extreme violence to quell any uprising from these groups, as well?
Or
will these groups make up the
government?
No
matter how you view the situation, this story does not have a happy
ending. If Americans are naïve enough to believe the Trump
administration cares about human rights and is motivated to take
action based on humanitarian concerns,
they probably
deserve what’s to come.
Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo
=========================
en: ‘VS aanval op Syrische basis, zoals gewoonlijk uitermate voorbarig en bijzonder gevaarlijk!!‘
en: ‘Al Jazeera filmde een onderdeel van de ‘gifgasshow’ in Kahn Sheikhoun………..‘
en: ‘Vlaamse pater roept op niet langer de westerse anti-Syrië propaganda te geloven!‘
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geld niet voor het label ‘Spicer’.
