https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be...
"There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and WikiLeaks publications. In this particular case, the misquoting has to do with that we intend, or I intend, to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don’t like Hillary Clinton. All those are false. They come about as a result it seems of this campaign and those who are trying to personalize our publications."
I would suggest to you that the world is more complicated than the soundbites vomited to you by the as of lately, largely discredited media and Obama administration.
The accusations against Assad change as necessary. It used to be Sarin, until that was disproved, for example. Bottom line, they just really want Syria to be destroyed like Iraq and Libya were, and will make up accusations as necessary. Did he drop some barrel bombs (home made bombs)? Probably. Did some of them hit civilians? Probably. The US has killed it's share of civilians also, hasn't it?
You don't know anything, but you want a nuclear war with Russia. Seems appropriate.
EDIT: just want clarify that I don't necessarily disagree that Iraq and Libya were disasters, and that the Syrian situation seems to have devolved into a no good options situation, but that in no way excuses Assad's human rights violations.
If Assad's regime falls, the Al-Queda and ISIS affiliated groups move in. I'm not sure America wants that. Do we want that? Hard to say!
Saudi Arabia supports the Assad regime falling because the Assad regime is not Sunni.
If we set up a no fly zone in Syria, we are then in direct conflict with Russia's forces. It's no longer a proxy war.
I hope there's a way to be against US intervention in Syria(if only because of grim realpolitik reasons) and simultaneously not defend Assad.
I fully recognize that the Assad regime is terrible(I can pummel you with New Yorker articles). I don't quite believe the Assad people used poison gas, I think the jury is still out on that.
Am I defending he may have killed civilians while bombing rebels? Well, not defending, but putting in perspective, since we kill civilians almost daily.
Am I saying that you have been lied to by an administration that destroyed Libya and wants nothing more than to do the same to Syria? Yes, I am.
Nobody said you need to know every event in Syria to form an opinion. You just need to know about a single, proven event that supports the war hysteria narrative you have been fed.
Do you?
The US government paid out a pathetic $6000 to families of the dead civilians. I'm guessing that didn't quite break the bank.
1) It's a war. There is a fog of war where accurate information is not always available.
2) It's a common tactic to lie about your enemy to garner more money and weapons from your US sugar daddy.
3) The US government itself has an agenda to topple Syria for it's own reasons and those of it's Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia.
But hey, let's go to war with Russia based on unproven accusations. I wonder if you're old enough to remember Iraq, and the lies we were told about that? In 2003, we were told a lot of lies to get the population behind the destruction of Iraq. That was 13 years ago, so you were probably in high school or grade school. But it does happen that our government lies to the populous when it wants to destroy a country.
Perhaps this sounds harsh, but consider the possibility that US intervention in conflicts among and within other sovereign nations may do more harm than good. "Team America: World Police" is a fun movie. It may not be the best of foreign policy goals.
Iran and Syria support Hezbollah because they are unhappy with Israels expansion. Lots of people are unhappy with Israels expansion. How many UN resolutions have condemned Israel for it's actions? You count them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_con...
We are Israels big buddy, so we give scary names to the countries that support Hezbollah. But at the same time, we support rebel groups all over the world. Hell, we're supporting rebel groups in Syria right now. We also supported them in Libya.
Don't let the fact that Syria is on a list because of our unhealthy relationship with Israel, make you forget that we belong on that same list ourselves.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Sy...
And while it's ironic to watch the media that could not have been more supportive of Wikileaks when the reveals focused on Bush-era scandals (at least some of which deserved the attention as abuses) now discovering that Assange is as self-interested as they come now that his dumps concern Clinton, who they're clearly much more supportive of than Trump (justifiably), but he's been known to despise Hillary for a long time now, and the recent dumps have been far less carefully redacted this time around. Wikileaks should be a whistleblowing service. Unfortunately, Assange won't let it be that simple.