22 Feb 2017    10,944 views

Eight Common Sense Questions That Show We’re Being Lied To About Syria And Russia

article image

With a little critical thinking in a few key areas, you can see for yourself that your government is lying to you about these nations.

Debate 11
Debate 11
Login and Click Agree/Disagree first to Debate.
Why Agree? Write your opinion:
Why Disagree? Write your opinion:

It’s generally safe to assume that anyone who tells you they know the full story behind everything that’s happening in America’s intelligence network is either clickbait or a psy-op. There’s too much going on back there —too many factions, too many small moving parts, too much deception, too much bluffing, double-bluffing and triple-bluffing— to know what’s going on for sure. These people are professional liars. Manipulating governments and deceiving their people is literally their job.

Lucky for us, the hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings who actually comprise the United States don’t need to know the full story of the big picture of everything that’s going on. All that needs to happen to collapse the manipulations and manufacturing of consent for military interventionism and Cold War revivalism is to know that we’re being lied to, and there are a few simple, common sense questions we can ask ourselves about the narratives we’re being fed by the corporate media that when met with a little critical thinking immediately reveal some gaping plot holes. If we know we’re being lied to, we won’t play along with their manipulations.

I invite everyone reading this to come up with and share their own, but here are seven such questions you can ask yourself:

1. Do you honestly believe that the United States government is interested in Syria because it wants to “protect civilians”?

Think about it. US propaganda mill Freedom House, a consistent proponent of interventionism and NATO expansionism, lists 49 separate countries that it labels dictatorships. If toppling dictators and protecting civilians is the primary objective of US military interventionism, how come America only actually intervenes in countries it has a material and/or strategic interest in? Why did the 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide have to content themselves with a few impotent UN troops who did virtually nothing? Is it possible that this is because Rwanda is not a major oil-producing nation or a strategically beneficial location for a beefed-up military presence?

2. Are you quite certain that the Syrians don’t prefer Assad’s rule over the Islamist jihadists?

It is an established fact that the only factions fighting Assad are ISIS and Islamist extremist jihadists with ties to ISIS and Al Nusra/Al Qaida. Watch this interview Assad recently did with Yahoo News and put yourself in the shoes of a Syrian citizen while you watch it. Even if he’s not being fully truthful, isn’t that the sort of person you’d want to have on your side in a nation that’s overrun with terrorist factions? If your choice was between being run by him or the jihadists, which would you prefer?

3. Do you honestly believe that Assad has been deliberately bombing his own citizens? What would he stand to gain from doing so?

Does any part of this make sense at all? For a dictator to have power over a nation, and use that power to exterminate his own people using weapons of mass destruction? Because that is the official narrative; that Assad deliberately bombs civilians and hospitals in his own country. What is he supposed to gain from this, exactly? Does he want to have the whole country to himself? Is he slowly exterminating his own people to create a little more leg room? On what planet does this make sense?

4. Do you honestly believe that Assad loves killing his own people so much that he invited the Russians to join in?

Do you? Are Assad and Putin like the two psychos from Pulp Fiction, teaming up to inflict pain on others for its own sake? If Putin loved gratuitously bombing civilians so much, aren’t there some closer to home that he could have settled for? Is this not the most moronic idea you’ve ever heard of?

5. If the previous questions cast doubt on the legitimacy of the official narrative regarding Syria, does it not make sense that we’re being lied to about Russia as well?

The media narratives around Assad and Putin are inseparable. Syria and Russia have been allies for generations, and Putin’s intervention in Syria at Assad’s request is always listed as one of the barbaric crimes the Russian government is accused of. If they’re lying about Syria, is it not likely that they’re lying about Russia as well? Theories abound as to why the Deep State would want to lie to the American people about both these nations, but remember, we don’t need to know the specifics of their agenda, we just need to know whether or not they’re lying.

6. Does it really make sense to take the US intelligence community at their word about anything?

These people lied to us to manufacture public consent for military interventions from Vietnam to Iraq to Kosovo. This is an established fact. They are professional liars. Why would we believe that NATO expansionism along Russia’s border is advantageous? That increased sanctions and tensions with Russia are desirable? And why in God’s name would we believe that they “hacked the election”?

7. What is the worst-case scenario of relaxing sanctions and tensions with Russia?

Do you really believe that Russia will invade Europe if we stop provoking them? Does their aiding an ally in Syria and annexing a territory whose people wanted to be annexed anyway in Crimea really show that they’ll be invading Poland tomorrow if we stop beating our chest at them? Where is the evidence for this? Is there really enough evidence to justify escalating military tensions with a nuclear superpower? Which takes us to our final question:

8. What is the worst-case scenario of escalating tensions with Russia?

The answer to this one should be obvious. The worst-case scenario of escalating tensions with Russia is literally the worst-case scenario of all possible scenarios for the entirety of the human species. A 2014 report published in the journal Earth’s Future found that it would only take the detonation of 100 nuclear warheads to throw 5 teragrams of black soot into the earth’s stratosphere for decades, blocking out the sun and making the photosynthesis of plants impossible, starving every terrestrial organism to death. 

The last Cold War brought us within a hair’s breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion. In 1962, a series of miscommunications and unpredictable coincidences led to a Soviet nuclear submarine nearly deploying a nuclear torpedo while it was being pummeled with mild explosives by the US Navy, who didn’t know it had nukes. Two of the ship’s commanders were about to deploy the "special weapon", and it was only the level-headedness of a third who refused to honor the orders of the ship’s captain that saved the world from a full-scale nuclear holocaust at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1983, a technical glitch nearly caused an officer from the Soviet Air Defense Forces to deploy the USSR’s nuclear arsenal in retaliation for what launch detection technology mistook for a US intercontinental ballistic missile attack. Both of these cases were caused by unforeseeable breakdowns that could easily happen any number of times should Cold War tensions be renewed, and there’s no reason to believe that we’ll get lucky again.

So that’s the worst case scenario right there. Even if you still don’t believe that you’re being lied to about Russia, is it worth it?




Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this, please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, or even tossing me some money on Patreon so I can keep this gig up.