Deaths-head revisited. John Kerry: spokesman for psychopaths in power.
Psycho war monger John Kerry has been trying to con the world, yet again, into supporting an attack on some dark-skinned people 'oceans away'. As I watched his speech a few days ago, I had lots of things I wanted to say in response. Sadly however, I wasn't invited to attend the event. So I've written my responses here, for the only people who actually matter in this world, i.e. not John Kerry or his coterie of psychopathic masters and servants. Of which there are many. Too many.
President Obama has spent many days now consulting with Congress and talking with leaders around the world about the situation in Syria.

And last night the president asked all of us on his national security team to consult with the leaders of Congress, as well, including the leadership of the congressional national security committees. And he asked us to consult about what we know regarding the horrific chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last week.

I will tell you that as someone who spent nearly three decades in the United States Congress, I know that that consultation is the right way for a president to approach a decision of when and how and if to use military force. And it's important to ask the tough questions and get the tough answers before taking action, not just afterward.
Yeah good point Johnny boy, "fixing the facts around the policy" in 2002/3 didn't work out too well huh? And it's creating a bit of a problem for the effort to fool the rabble yet again with the same old unimaginative, emotionally-charged lies.

And I believe, as President Obama does, that it is also important to discuss this directly with the American people. That's our responsibility, to talk with the citizens who have entrusted all of us in the administration and Congress with responsibility for their security.
Oh, of course! You just go right ahead and "discuss" it with us all by talking directly at us about that new "very bad man" and all of the horrors he has committed on the world, and don't forget to mention the poor children and how much you empathize with them.
That's why this morning's release of our government's unclassified estimate of what took place in Syria is so important. Its findings are as clear as they are compelling. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone, those listening, all of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available.

And read for yourselves the verdict, reached by our intelligence community about the chemical weapons attack the Assad regime inflicted on the opposition and on opposition controlled or contested neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs on the early morning of August 21st.
Yep, we'll all read for ourselves the four page document that some tea-boy in the state department threw together, but there really isn't much point because you're basically reading it to us now.
Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack. And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves.
That's really good to hear, that you won't repeat "that moment", that single moment that somehow spanned several years where you and your ilk plotted behind closed doors to work up a plan on how to convince the world that Saddam was such a "bad man" that the US military had to invade and occupy the country for 10 years and kill 1.5 million Iraqis in the process. Tell us also about "that moment" when you spun the 9/11 attacks into a justification to launch an unending 'war on terror' on the entire planet. Tell us about, "that moment" when you thought you might blame 9/11 on Saddam, and when that fell through, you came up with "WMDs", and when that was exposed as a lie, you just said, 'Well, we're here now!'
But still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly.
Of course! You absolutely MUST keep the ACTUAL evidence from the public, and instead just make claims that, you say, are supported by the actual evidence that you can't show us, because, well, national security would be seriously threatened if everyone realised that your evidence doesn't actually exist. So yeah, better keep those blanks sheets of paper "classified".
So what do we really know that we can talk about?
Well Johnny boy, at times like these I like to remember the words of one of your co-psychos in power:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

- Donald Rumsfeld on February 12, 2002 at a press briefing where he addressed the absence of evidence linking the government of Iraq with the supply of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.
See what I mean?
Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East.
Eh... just a second. What about Israel's chemical weapons program? When Israeli El Al Flight 1862 crashed en route to Tel Aviv in 1992, 190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo. In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities. Former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years."

Former Jerusalem bureau chief for United Press International and author of Triple Cross, a 1990 book on the leaking of Israel's nuclear secret, Louis Toscano, said:
"I've never had much doubt that they [Israel] were producing a limited arsenal of chemical weapons. In fact, it was widely rumored that a chemical factory was operating under the guise of a university research center around Haifa," Toscano said. "What makes it all the more dangerous is that they, unlike Saddam or any of the other Middle East bogeymen, have developed weapons systems capable of delivering such weapons."
And maybe you missed it Johnny, but Syria's CW's program is decades old. Which kind of makes this picture of you in 2011 a bit embarrassing.


Senator John Kerry, his wife, Syrian President Bahar al-Assad and his wife, in Damascus 2011.

"Kerry praised Assad later in 2011 as being a "very generous" man."
We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday's attack happened.
Eh....hang on there. In May 2013, the UN investigated alleged CW usage in Syria and concluded that they were used by the 'Rebels' aka 'al-Qaeda', aka your buddies in Syria. To be fair, since the 'rebels' are a bunch of CIA-hired mercenaries from everywhere else BUT Syria, I suppose we can't accuse them of using the CWs against "their own people". Not that they wouldn't if the CIA paid them enough to do it.
We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn't succeeded in doing so.
Actually, the Syrian military had been advancing very quickly against the West's 'al-qaeda' forces and had more or less rid Damascus of the terrorists that you and the CIA were sponsoring. So there was no reason whatsoever for the Syrian military to use CWs. In fact, to believe the idea that the Syrian government would have ordered the military to use CWs on the very day that UN inspectors were in Damascus would require us all to believe that the Syrian government actually wanted to give the US an excuse to call for a Western attack on Syria, because that is precisely what has happened. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Assad or the Syrian government is any where near as crazy as you appear to be Johnny Boy.
We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.

And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons.

We know that these were specific instructions.
Well, you say you "know" these things, but provide no evidence for it, and neither does your report, so despite what you said at the beginning, that we shouldn't "take your word for it", it seems that is precisely what we will have to do. Just like 2003 and Saddam's non-existent WMDs.
We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.
Again, you provide no evidence for this. This claim in particular, would be convincing, IF you had evidence for it, but I suppose this is the 'evidence' that you cannot share publicly. Pity, that, we'll just have to "take your word for it" then, just like 2003 and Saddam's non-existent WMDs.
And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness, and death. And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors.
Well, yeah, we've seen the videos. But are they really showing us what you say they're showing us? Do they truly show the result of a chemical weapon attack? Maybe, but one thing they do NOT show is who was responsible. It's pretty amazing that you, of all people, Johnny boy, would be relying on Youtube videos as evidence. It's a pity you and the US government don't consider other Youtube videos as equally sufficient evidence to "know" that the official story about the 9/11 attacks is a LIE.
And just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them didn't report -- not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a cut, not a gunshot sound. We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood.
Indeed, we all saw that footage. But, as yet, you have provided NO EVIDENCE pointing to who was responsible.
Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.
"Assad's gas"?? A little evidence wouldn't go amiss here. So far, all you've done is throw allegations around, and swaddled them with emotionally-laden references to dead children. Modern history is littered with the corpses of dead children, murdered by chemical weapons, and used by the US military. Remember Vietnam and 'agent orange'? 4.8 million dead, 500,000 children born deformed as a result. Among the things that you "know", Johnny boy, do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrite"?
The United States government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. Even the first-responders, the doctors, nurses and medics who tried to save them, they became victims themselves. We saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger.
Now that's strange, because several chemical weapons experts have pointed to the videos in question and stated that it was strange that none of the first responders seemed to be affected by the alleged gas, and that none of them were wearing any masks. But it's nice to see that you are loyal to your 'al-qaeda' friends in Syria, and using THEIR figures for the number of dead, rather than the official statistics of groups like Médicins Sans Frontieres and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and who put the number of dead at 355 and 322 respectively.
This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
Again, Johnny boy, this is YOUR contention, which you make without providing ANY evidence.
We also know many disturbing details about the aftermath. We know that a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact, and actually was afraid that they would be discovered.

We know this.
Could you be ANY more manipulative with your "we know this"?? You know NOTHING. You are making ALLEGATIONS! Yet it appears the 'evidence' to back it up is the evidence that you cannot share publicly. In which case, it's useless as 'evidence'.
And we know what they did next. I personally called the foreign minister of Syria, and I said to him, "If, as you say, your nation has nothing to hide then let the United Nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access, so they have the opportunity to tell your story."

Instead, for four days, they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after black at a rate four times higher than they had over the previous 10 days. And, when the U.N. inspectors finally gained access, that access -- as we now know -- was restricted and controlled.
"Shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence"?? And where is your evidence for this? Why should we not presume that the Syrian military shelled the area because the Syrian rebels aka 'al-qaeda' were there, which you yourself admit?
In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know -- all of them -- the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.
And yet, you can provide NO PROOF for them. I see. And Congress? What do they think of your evidence? Apparently, not a lot.
So the primary question is really no longer, what do we know. The question is, what are we -- we collectively -- what are we in the world gonna do about it.
You expect the world to "do" something about Syria when you present NO EVIDENCE to support our claims??
As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference and especially against silence when it mattered most.
Indeed. Martin Luther King railed against the Vietnam war, and yet, the US government looked the other way and murdered millions.
Our choices then, in history, had great consequences. And our choice today has great consequences. It matters that nearly 100 years ago in direct response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again. That was the world's resolve then. And that began nearly a century of effort to create a clear red line for the international community.
Good point. And the first ever use of chemical weapons occurred in WW I, and was championed and enthusiastically encouraged by none other than your ideological forebear, Winston Churchill.
It matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons. That's why we signed agreements like the START Treaty, the New START Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which more than 180 countries, including Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, have signed on to.
The US government has an interesting track record of 'support' for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and those who try to uphold it. For example, there are two main international bodies that are tasked with overseeing the implementation of the CWC. One operates under the aegis of the UN. The other is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In 2002, the head of the (OPCW) was Jose Bustani. At that time, Mr. Bustani had made it clear that he was willing and able to persuade the Iraqi government to sign up to the OPCW, thus granting OPCW inspectors full access to Iraq's purported chemical weapons arsenal. But Mr. Bustani was never able to pursue his initiative because John Bolton, on behalf of the US government, had Mr. Bustani removed from the OPCW under the implicit threat that if others members did not go along with this particular US-orchestrated 'coup', the US government would refuse to pay the rest of its dues to the organization. This prompted speculation that other countries went along with the U.S. initiative to avoid depriving the organization of needed funds. The reason why the then Bush government was determined to remove Bustani should be clear. If Saddam signed up to the OPCW, the US government could no longer promote the bogus claims that Saddam had WMDs and was intent on using them.
It matters to our security and the security of our allies. It matters to Israel. It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, all of whom live just a stiff breeze away from Damascus. It matters to all of them where the Syrian chemical weapons are -- and if unchecked they can cause even greater death and destruction to those friends.
This is blatant scare-mongering and utter nonsense, Johnny boy. Syria has never used chemical, or any other weapons, against any of its neighbors.
And it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies. It matters because a lot of other countries, whose policy has challenged these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say.

It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.
There's no need for alarm here Johnny, the entire world already knows that the US government never really means what it says, except when it threatens other countries with invasion and occupation on the basis of fabricated evidence of 'evil-doing'.
And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some site the risk of doing things. But we need to ask, "What is the risk of doing nothing?"
That's a 'risk' that US government has never taken. So maybe it's something to try for once? The world might actually enjoy a little peace for a while, without the US government always deciding to act against other sovereign nations on the basis of some trumped-up charge. Given that the US government is directly responsible for the two and half years of bloodshed in Syria, I reckon the Syrian people would be delighted if you, Johnny boy, and your psychopath friends in the US, were to keep your noses out of their affairs.
It matters because if we choose to live in the world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.
Now that's just defamatory, Johnny. There is no evidence that Assad is a murderer, and certainly no evidence that he "gassed thousands of his own people". By the way, is it technically accurate to refer to 1,429 people as "thousands"? But I forget, you're talking complete nonsense here, so why would I expect you to make sense?
This matters also beyond the limits of Syria's borders. It is about whether Iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons' attacks, will now feel emboldened in the absence of action to obtain nuclear weapons.
I was wondering when you'd bring Iran into the discussion. So, let me get this straight: Assad's use of chemical weapons, for which there is no proof, is somehow going to fast-track Iran's nuclear program? If so, I think you should share that information with the Iranians; I'm sure they'd be very interested in hearing how that would work.
It is about Hezbollah and North Korea and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons' current or future use? Or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?
But you left out the boogie man! How is this going to affect the boogie man and his long-term, universally-acknowledged plot against children all over the world?
So our concern is not just about some far-off land oceans away. That's not what this is about. Our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of Syria is about choices that will directly affect our role in the world and our interests in the world.
You mean it's all about the entire world being reminded that the US should be allowed to fabricate evidence whenever it chooses and use it to justify attacks on other sovereign nations? Don't worry, the whole world is well-aware of what the US government is and does. By the way, there's only one 'ocean' between the US and Syria.
It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations.
Well, I'm sure you'd like to think so, Johnny, but the unfortunate truth is that history shows that the USA has been the preeminent tyrant of the globe for the last 100 years. Since WWII, millions of innocent people have been slaughtered by the US military, on the orders of the US government and by the CIA and their proxy armies and death squads. But, I understand, when the US military dropped hundreds of tons of 'Agent Orange' on Vietnamese villagers during the Vietnam war, it was really "trying to honor a set of universal values".
This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us.
Since when did crimes against the most fundamental principles of international community matter to you or the US government? Since the morning of the day that you gave this speech? With a shelf-life of the amount of time it took you to spew the words out to the fawning media? I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, Johnny Boy, but successive US governments over the past 70 years have shown nothing but utter disdain for human rights and international law. The entire world recognises this, yet you seem unable to.
And it matters to who we are. And it matters to leadership and to our credibility in the world.
You might want to start looking for that 'credibility', because it seems to be about as evident as Saddam's WMDs.
My friends, it matters here if nothing is done. It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens.
Well, you see, the world hasn't "spoken out in condemnation". You seem to be confusing the fanciful imaginings of your own mind, and the minds of the "policy makers" in the US government, with reality. No one believes you. Deal with it.
America should feel confident and gratified that we are not alone in our condemnation and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act.
Yeah, you should feel very confident that the pusillanimous French President Francois Hollande and a gaggle of Middle Eastern US client states all agree with you. That's a real turn-up for the books, eh?
The world is speaking out. And many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, "to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime." The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, "to hold the Syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime."
A little selective quoting going on there, Johnny? The Arab League has stated clearly that a "military option is out of the question", while the OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said he "did not see much support for external military intervention" in Syria during the summit.
Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible.
Turkey has been supplying 'industrial toxicants' to the 'Syrian rebels' aka 'al-Qaeda'. What do you expect them to say?
Our oldest ally, the French, said the regime, quote, "committed this vile action, and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions."
The French are liars too. What's new?
The Australian prime minister said he didn't want history to record that we were, quote, "a party to turning such a blind eye."
The Australian prime minister is also full of crap. What's new?
So now that we know what we know, the question we must all be asking is: What will we do? Let me emphasize, President Obama, we in the United States, we believe in the United Nations. And we have great respect for the brave inspectors who endured regime gunfire and obstructions to their investigation.
You 'believe' in the UN? You mean like the way kids believe in Santa Claus? Is that why the NSA et al have been spying on them? To figure out if they really exist or not? Is that why the Bush government sought to prevent the UN weapons investigators from doing their job in Iraq in 2002/3 because they knew they would find NO WMDs and thereby thwart that particular attempt to justify an attack on a sovereign nation and people by disseminating a pack of lies through the mindless mainstream media?
But as Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, has said again and again, the U.N. investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the U.N. investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used. By the definition of their own mandate, the U.N. can't tell us anything that we haven't shared with you this afternoon or that we don't already know.
And, let me guess, you can tell us who used them? Any time you want to provide any actual evidence for your claims, Johnny Boy, feel free to do so. Until then, we'll just continue to assume that you are a lying sack of horse hockey who is trying to manipulate the world into supporting your Syrian blood-lust with wild and unsubstantiated claims.
And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. cannot galvanize the world to act as it should. So let me be clear. We will continue talking to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people.
What you really mean here is that you'll continue bullshitting the world and the American people. And since when was it the US government's job to "galvanize the world"? The world has suffered unimaginable horrors as a result of US meddling in the affairs of other nations. It's about time it stopped, before there aren't any people left to either 'galvanize' or invade and occupy.
President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests.
That's what worries the whole world right now; your "values and interests". They ain't as wholesome as you'd like us all to think.
Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too.
And you're so tired of war that you're using every psychopathic trick in the 'book of psycho' to try and get the world to support your desire to launch another war? Do you see a problem here? Sorry, but I don't believe you. You're a lying, warmongering psychopathic freak. You obviously love war, death and mayhem. It's what you'd do on weekends to relax if you could get away with it. Maybe you do.
But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about.
We know that. We've all been longing for peace for a long time, and yet the US government and CIA keep sending the US military to invade other countries. Obviously, longing for you to stop isn't going to work.
And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency, these things we do know.
History is already judging the entire world harshly for letting so many US governments commit unspeakable crimes and abuses of innocent people around the world. You're just continuing the tradition.
We also know that we have a president that does what he says that he will do. And he has said, very clearly, that whatever decision he makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.
So you're basically asking the American people and the world to just 'let us fire a few hundred Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian people, we promise we won't send in ground troops and all the blood-letting will be over really quickly'.

I see. Well, lemme think about this.... NO!
The president has been clear: Any action that he might decide to take will be limited and (sic) tailored response to ensure that, a despots brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable. And ultimately, ultimately we are committed -- we remain committed, we believe it's -- the primary objective is (sic) to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation, because we know there is no ultimate military solution.

It has to be political.

It has to happen at the negotiating table.

And we are deeply committed to getting there.
It has to be "political" but we need to kill a few thousand more Syrians first just to make sure that the "political process" goes in the right direction. I see.
So that is what we know. That is what the leaders of Congress now know. And that's what the American people need to know. And that is, at the core of the decisions that must now be made for the security of our country, and for the promise of a planet, where the world's most heinous weapons must never again be used against the world's most vulnerable people.
Oh get over yourself, you melodramatic queen! What "we know" now is that you're a lying psychopath and that you have the unbridled gall to try and con the world, yet again, into supporting your blood lust, and all you have to offer is the same old pack of lies and emotionally-laden BS.
Thank you, very much.
No, thank you, Mr. Secretary of State, for providing the world with clear evidence of your duplicitous and murderous agenda.

You see folks, what John Kerry is doing is repeating the 'big lie' enough times that *normal* human beings eventually 'break down' and accept that he MUST be telling the truth because, after all, what *normal* human being would or could consciously lie over and over again like that?

The problem here is one of projection. Normal people project their own 'moral compass' onto Kerry and his kind, and assume they are like them.

But Kerry and his kind are VERY different from normal human beings. They are psychopaths, with NO conscience, NO 'moral compass', and that allows them to lie repeatedly and effortlessly about the most serious issues, and therefore, with 'impunity'. The result is that normal human beings lend their emotional support to psychopaths in power, and these psychopaths then use that support in the service of the only thing psychopaths truly 'desire' - to destroy.

In this way, normal human beings seal their own fate by sharing in the responsibility for the enormous human suffering that psychopaths in positions of power cause. On this occasion, it is the Syrian people that will be further brutalized and destroyed with the support of the American and Western populations who chose not to stand up for their own humanity and those of the 'others' slated for the 'regime change' treatment.

Normal human beings in Western nations fail to realise that it is their own humanity that they are destroying, both within themselves by aligning themselves with the psychopathic ideology of their 'leaders', and within their fellow humans that are to be blown to pieces, in a "far off land, oceans away".