its one thing to be accurate, another to include all relevant information. Omission is the easiest and safest way to manipulate an argument. On top of that the "free" press' (corporate) ownership uses it to sell their products and the politicians that sell their products, and actual journalism takes a back seat to that and you get papers / news hours that barely contain actual news, let alone a comprehensive account of confirmed facts. Thats why its important to look at multiple sources. I dont have the time or the energy to follow all stories closely and I havent been doing so with this one (and I dont live in the US so I see some international media you probably arent familiar with). But I dont really need to know who fired what when the proposed solution is damaging for every party involved (save maybe Israel or oil speculators). And especially damaging for the supposed victims.
How is bombing a country in the middle of a civil war going to help? When the japanese did that to the chinese the entire world condemned them for being opportunistic cowards. Either take the weapons away or let them finish their war. If Assad wins then you can go after him, but bombing them doesnt help them and it doesnt help the US. Its hardly heroic to suckerpunch a bully from afar, less so if you run the risk of trampling his victims. Justice requires investigation and communication, piling more rubble and more bodies on top doesnt help. Regardless of whether the rebels are AQ or not, another US bomb run is only going to make the US more enemies in Syria and around the world. Especially considering the only other modern era chemical attack the US either looked the other way or actually helped, depending on your sources.
Reply With Quote
chachi
