Listening to a news program today a little after 2:30pm PST,
continued developments in the discussions surrounding the Syrian Crisis elevate
concerns that the U.S. is not interested in a humanitarian solution in Syria
insisting on military action or nothing.
Diane Feinstein laments the lack of support from her
constituency and says to this, "They don't know what I know". What do you know, Diane, and why doesn't the
American Public know what you know? Surely
our ignorance is not because we aren't paying attention.
A spokesperson for the Administration said that regarding
Military Intervention, "We will not entertain implausible
arguments".
That is tell-tale.
The speaker would not speak the unspeakable, that our assumption that
President Assad would effectively commit suicide by using chemical weapons is
plausible but that some private or secret interest, currently supplying the very
poor rebels with expensive weaponry to orchestrate a a takeover of Syria and of
the oil pipeline through Syria is implausible.
If it is so implausible, why is it not mentioned in
the news? The reason it is not mentioned
is to prevent people from coming to the conclusion that the rest of the world
already has concluded: the chemical
weapons are more likely to have been released by interests that wish to use the
U.S. military to serve their economic gain.
That is what is called 'implausible'.
Very quickly, the news mentioned requests by Russian
Diplomats to meet with American Lawmakers to discuss resolutions to the Syrian
Crisis being turned away. Why would we
turn away representatives of a powerful nation expressing concern about human
rights abuses? Perhaps because we fear
they will thwart our ONLY goal which is military intervention which will cause
more humanitarian crises than already exist.
The perception that the U.S. is concerned only with the
financial gains to be achieved through a military strike and NOT with the
humanitarian crisis in Syria is reinforced over and over by the lopsided,
incomplete information provided to the American public by the news presenting a
military strike as the ONLY option and by lawmakers refusing to work with
nations that seek an alternative to military action to diffuse the humanitarian
crisis.
Diane Feinstein said it all when she said the public doesn't
know what she knows. Lopsided reporting
in the news, the reluctance of lawmakers to even attempt a peaceful resolution, as well as sidestepping the issue that the
perpetrator responsible for the release of chemical weapons remains UNKNOWN, all
point to a hidden agenda with one goal:
military action. What do you
know, Diane Feinstein???
The drums of war are all our media presents and all we seem
willing to consider as our media
attempt to frame the situation in terms using military force against the Syrian
Government or nothing. What isn't talked
about are diplomatic alternatives that would truly show our government cares at
all about the Humanitarian Crisis. What
isn't talked about is our refusal to work with the International Community to
develop non-military options. What isn't
talked about is the failure of the media to present these points of view.
1
1
1
