So Killing Civilians in Syria Avenges Killing Civilians How?

In the first six months of the invasion of Iraq, the most conservative estimates are that over 2,000 civilians were killed in the aerial bombardment by cruise missiles, bombs, and cannon fire. Depleted uranium is used in many of these weapons, such as aircraft cannon fire and bunker buster bombs. In Libya, the areas with the heaviest NATO bombing were never investigated for civilian casualties, so there is no clear number. In Afghanistan, the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001,  and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the US aerial bombing campaign.

 In 2003, Robert Fisk for the UK Independent reported from Iraq on civilians injured by American bombs. He wrote:

Their mother described how she had been inside her home and heard an explosion and found her daughters lying in their own blood near the door. The little girls alternately smiled and hid when I took their pictures. In other wards, the hideously wounded would try to laugh, to show their bravery.

So please remind me again, even if we were sure of who is responsible for recent atrocities in Syria involving the use of chemical weapons, which we are not, how does the one hundred percent, guaranteed killing of more women, children, and non-combatants fix this?

Even US intelligence sources are contradicting their own bosses, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, in saying that ascertaining the origin of the chemical weapons use is no "slam dunk." This is a reference to former CIA Director George Tenet's use of the term when he assured us that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Now it emerges that some Syrians in rebel held territory are saying that chemical weapons are being provided to the rebels by Saudi intelligence in a bid to raise the likelihood of Assad being blamed and drawing the West into what is euphemistically called "military action."

But this is far too sterile and kind a word for what actually happens. Children are blinded, torn limb from limb, and sometimes they live and sometimes they die. Since many of the weapons we use for "military action" contain depleted uranium, a heavy metal made to punch through concrete, steel, armor, and people alike, the very ground in Syria will turn radioactive, giving rise to the hideous spike in unspeakable birth deformities we now see in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is even a term for the large number of babies in Fallujah, Iraq, being born with these heartbreaking deformities, "Fallujah babies."



And for this we are risking a world war?

Is there a possibility that the Neocon "crazies" reputedly spoken of by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and alluded to by General Wesley Clark, are still running the show behind the scenes? Because if they were, all this would make perfect sense, from that perspective. If the true goal is to devastate infrastructures and societies across the Middle East, no matter who gets hurt or what side they are on, then this "military action" fits the ticket.

Wes Clark revealed a memo from the Pentagon which stated that the real goal of the Iraq war was to kick off an attack on seven Middle Eastern countries in five years.

Wes Clark: "Seven countries in five years"

This would certainly clear the way for Israel to become the undisputed regional hegemon, in foreign policy parlance, which so far has shown no interest in halting the expansion of illegal settlements. In fact, that would fit right in with a paper entitled "A Clean Break," by Bush administration Iraq War architects Douglas Feith and Richard Perle in 1996. The paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was written as advice to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The paper urged: