‘Introduction of terrorism into biosphere’: NYT article urges US to let ISIS ‘bleed’ Syria & Russia
RT: It is an opinion piece, so I guess it was bound to be quite edgy – what is your take on it?
Lionel: Well it wasn't necessarily bound to be edgy. It does not have to be edgy, but I read this. And I've never done this in my entire life but I’m going to do something for the first time: I want everybody in the world to read this.
NY Times' Friedman says Trump should leave ISIS alone. https://t.co/TAuNZfPQzZ— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 13, 2017
And I want you to read specifically what this is, because if you had to describe the plot that has been suggested by a lot of folks who believe in – oh I don’t know what you are going to call it ‘crazy, conspiracy theory.' But there are people who believe in the world that ‘maybe, just maybe’ that ISIS and Syrian rebels are backed by other groups of people who caused them to destabilize Syria to remove Assad in a move that is called the 'tortuous gardens' where you have a group of three and you have one that pulls out and lets the others fight. There is more than three here, but the idea is to allow one party to sit back and let other people “bleed each other.”
When you read this, there were two points to this particular piece. One was ISIS – according to Mr. Friedman – pose a threat ideologically, internationally, and by going after them in Syria this would do nothing more than to enrage them. So I guess we should back off and let ISIS roam because we don't want to anger them because after all this type of activity in Syria, especially with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah fighting them would then just enrage them. And God forbid we should incur their wrath.
The second point was to use ISIS as the means of “bleeding,” “bleeding Assad,” “bleeding Russia, Iran.” It is very, very terrible... I understand the way it was used, but when you talk about bloodshed in the life it is a very poor use of words. But then what I'm doing... I wish I could meet Mr. Friedman, I wish perhaps maybe we can work out even a debate... and I'm going to say: “Mr. Friedman, do you know, are you aware, of what the Assad regime has done to stop ISIS from killing innocent civilians including Christians and others? And that when you attack airbases, specifically this one in particular, that what you do is disable theoretically Assad and Syrian forces to fight and repel and to prosecute individuals who threaten and kill innocent?”
I mean I can't believe what I’m reading. And also to show how out of clue or clueless I am – what is this regime change? What, what? By what authority? This is a million dollar question, and I know I'm coming late to the party here and I ask basic questions, but this is my basic nature: By what authority do you remove a sovereign leader of a country?
And more importantly, and this is the thing you would think you would learn from Iraq and Libya, in particular, is when you remove someone what is the replacement? Who replaces? When you have an area that is fraught with instability when you have somebody who for whatever reason he is their leader, and you are going to have the “regime change"... Just like the famous words of Dick Cheney who said, "democracy is messy...” And remember Friedman is an international expert, oh I mean he is the “brain trust of internationalism”, he works for the New York Times, he should know this... But as we say in law, for the foregoing reasons and averment sited: What is this man talking about?! Somebody at the New York Times who read this said: “Hey, Tom! This is good stuff! You are basically calling for complete and total catastrophe and calamity! You are supporting ISIS as some type of a weird, kind of an introduction of terrorism into the biosphere here?” Like I've said, I don't do this – but read this!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.