There have of course been many articles coming out about Syria in the last few days, to the point where it’s easy for a real gem to inadvertently get lost in the shuffle due to the sheer volume of information that’s being released hour by hour. I consider it my journalistic duty, therefore, to draw everyone’s attention to one of the most jaw-droppingly stupid things that I have ever read, brought to you by none other than the crown jewel of the Fourth Estate, the New York Times. Please read it, point at it, and laugh at it. Call in your friends so that they can laugh, too. Gather the kids. This is a special occasion that should bring the whole family together.

Before we get into the face-melting stupidity of the article itself, let me remind you dear reader that the Times played a crucial role in duping the American public into supporting the unfathomably destructive invasion of Iraq and was unforgivably supportive of the regime change that ended up killing a million innocent Iraqis. This same military industrial complex propaganda rag issued an apology to its subscribers for its abysmal coverage of the presidential election last year, and is currently gushing near-orgasmic praise for Trump’s idiotic act of war against the Syrian government Thursday night.

The article begins by acknowledging what every critical thinker in the world has been saying about the official story of the sarin gas attack in Idlib: that it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to turn the west against him by committing an outrageous war crime right after the Trump administration said it would leave him alone, right before peace talks were scheduled to commence, and when he was winning the war against the jihadist insurgents. But rather than acknowledging the understandable, widespread and bipartisan nature of this criticism, the article’s author says that this basic, common-sense point of discourse is limited to “Mr. Assad’s allies and supporters.” So right off the bat the very publication which helped the US government lie to the world about WMDs in Iraq is saying that the only people who would question the official narrative are allies and supporters of Bashar al-Assad.

We then get to the real thesis statement of the article:

“For years,” NYT’s Anne Barnard writes, “at least since it began shelling neighborhoods with artillery in 2012, then bombing them from helicopters and later from jets, the Syrian government has adopted a policy of seeking total victory by making life as miserable as possible for anyone living in areas outside its control.”

That’s where the New York Times’ argument starts, and that’s where it stays. Assad used chemical weapons on Syrian non-combatants because he likes attacking Syrian non-combatants to make them as miserable as possible. He attacks his own people because he’s bad. The answer to the question of why Assad would commit a senseless, psychotic act of violence for no reason is that he’s a cartoon supervillain who likes to commit senseless, psychotic acts of violence for no reason.

“Militarily, there is no need,” says one source in the article. “But it spreads the message: You are at our mercy. Don’t ask for international law. You see, it doesn’t protect even a child.”

“It makes us feel that we are defeated,” says another. “The international community will stay gazing at what’s happening — and observing the explosive barrels falling and rockets bombing the civilians and the hospitals and the civil defense and killing children and medical staff — without doing anything.”

My God. Could you ask for a more empty-headed piece of war propaganda? “Assad keeps attacking us because he’s a bad bad man who wants us to feel hopeless and defeated… but you’ll step in and rescue us, won’t you America?”

That’s really all there is to the article, but you should definitely still check it out for yourself, because the war machine doesn’t often reveal its face so plainly and it’s good to be familiar with the mind of the beast. I just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention.

And of course, no, Assad does not deliberately target non-combatants in his nation for the purpose of “making them as miserable as possible.” That is not a thing. Even if you really are a cartoon supervillain and your goal is to make your citizenry miserable, you don’t go around conducting expensive military operations on killing them; there are much cheaper and efficient ways of doing that, like depriving them of food, water and/or resources, or having a band of thugs go around whacking people with sticks and destroying property. The narrative that Assad has been “shelling neighborhoods with artillery in 2012, then bombing them from helicopters and later from jets” makes even less sense than the idea that he’d use chemical weapons on them, so it’s an intensely stupid place to start your argument.

The corporate media is lying to us about Syria, just as blatantly and aggressively as they lied to us about Iraq. At best, Trump’s provocation ended the lives of seven civilians and accomplished nothing, because if Assad really is a psychotic cartoon supervillain who’ll do anything in the name of evil, then killing a few civilians and blowing up a few planes isn’t going to deter him from further senseless acts of democide. At worst, it will lead to nuclear war as escalations with Syria and Russia get out of control. Things are headed in the wrong direction. It’s time to turn around.

— -

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by 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.