Monday, the Pentagon announced it is willing to shoot down Russian jets to protect terrorists who share the same beliefs as the 9/11 hijackers.
When your regime wants to protect terrorists, it’s time to change regimes. We can debate whether Donald Trump will make America great again, but if he ends this homicidal insanity there is no doubt the country will be morally superior to what it is now.
Here’s how the Pentagon portrays Monday’s press conference held by press secretary Peter Cook:
Trending: Science is Settled
Note how Iran is thrown in there like that should be a concern to any American concerned about Al Qaeda-related terrorists. Basically, the Pentagon announced it would rather protect terrorists—the same sort that we have supposedly been at war with for the last decade and a half—than defeat them. And we will do so at the risk of armed and lethal conflict with Russia.
As Daniel McAdams commented for the Ron Paul Institute:
The anti-Russia rhetoric in Cook’s comments was inexplicable as well. According to the Pentagon spokesman, the suffering in parts of Aleppo is not due to its ongoing occupation by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, but rather by Russian and Syrian government attempts to expel Nusra from the city. Cook’s explanation defied logic.
I don’t like the ethics of bombing in general, but the Pentagon has done that often. Cook’s humanitarian concern is a façade. He wants al Nusra jihadists to grow and conquer and is using ISIS as an excuse to start a war with a nuclear power to protect terrorists.
Please watch Cook’s exchange with two reporters.
Here’s a transcript of the first part (from here):
Reporter: Okay, with the Hasakah, you said that there was, there’s not a no-fly zone, but you’re instructing Syria not to fly there. So what’s the difference between those two?
Peter Cook: I, again, our warning to the Syrians is the same that we’ve had for some time, that we’re going to defend our forces and they would be advised not to fly in areas where our forces have been operating and that’s what happened last week.
Reporter: And when you say our forces, you mean coalition forces, not just US?
Peter Cook: Coalition forces and our partnered forces.
Reporter: So, but that seems to be a change from what we knew before, right? I mean, are you now threatening to shoot down aircraft that come near coalition forces that threaten coalition forces?
Peter Cook: I made clear, we’re going to defend our forces on the ground, absolutely.
Reporter: Okay, previous to this we had not, we had not known that the US aircraft would engage Syrian aircraft had they threatened coalition forces on the ground, but that’s now the policy?
Peter Cook: Again, I want to be clear here. We’re talking about coalition forces in partnered operations on the ground that are focused on the ISIL campaign. Bill, we’ve been talking about this from the start. We’ve always said that we would defend our forces. We have US forces, in this instance, that were on the ground in that region and that was obviously our first and foremost concern and continues to be our first and foremost concern and we’re going to continue to do everything we need to defend those forces.
Reporter: I understand the US forces part, but you’re saying our forces, meaning coalition forces, which is a pretty, that’s a blanket, that’s a pretty wide blanket and that means that there are a lot of potential engagements out there now if you’re saying that you’re going to, you’re threatening to shoot down Syrian or Russian aircraft that could engage our partners on the ground?
Peter Cook: I’m going to leave it where, I think we’ve been quite clear on what we’re doing here and that’s defending our forces on the ground and when they are conducting partnered operations, we need to defend those too and we’re gonna. That’s the message we sent to the Syrians and we’re gonna continue to defend our forces and I’m not going to get into specifics about where our forces are and hypothetical situations in the future. That is where we are. That is what we’re gonna do to defend our forces and our partnered operations on the ground.
Then the second reporter tries to get Cook to distinguish attacking terrorists (“coalition forces,” “partners”) while they’re in combat with ISIS versus simply attacking terrorist-occupied territory. If the latter is what he means, then how is an “exclusion zone” different than a “no fly zone”?
It’s not. Eventually Cook says, “You can label it what you want.”
Yes, and you can label the Pentagon, the Obama/Hillary regime, and many in the Republican establishment as bloodthirsty lunatics and terrorism sponsors. No wonder they hate Donald Trump who threatens to overturn all of this.
Here’s the full video if you want to watch it all.