NY Times: Trump Should Not Fight ISIS - "Let ISIS Be Assad's, Iran's & Russia's Headache"Chris Menahan
Apr. 12, 2017
Michael Savage 'Being Silenced,' Losing Show to NeverTrumper Ben Shapiro
'The Color Purple' Author Targeted For Destruction For Saying She Read David Icke Book
Tucker Carlson Stands Strong: 'We're Not Intimidated, We'll Continue to Tell The Truth'
Belgian Government Gasses Its Own People At Protest Against UN Migration Pact
Belgium's PM Charles Michel Resigns After Facing Huge Backlash For Signing UN Migration Pact
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said Wednesday that President Trump should not fight ISIS terrorists in Syria, instead he "should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache."
Thomas Friedman, in his column "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?," first suggested Trump arm the rebel terrorists fighting alongside ISIS so they can shoot down "Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed":
We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.
He then called for not fighting ISIS terrorists in Syria and letting them be Iran's, Russia's, Hezbollah's and Assad's "problem."
What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they’re the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war — the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.Friedman's words almost perfectly echo those of the powerful "Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies" Israeli think tank, whose director Efraim Inbar said last year that ISIS "can be a useful tool in undermining" Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia.
There are no "moderate rebels" to support as Friedman claims.
As Representative Tulsi Gabbard told CNN after her trip to Syria last year:
"I'll tell you what I heard from the Syrian people that I met with, Jake, walking down the street in Aleppo, in Damascus, hearing from them.
“The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?Friedman wrote similar in 2015 when he asked: "should we be arming ISIS?"
O.K., so we learn to live with Iran on the edge of a bomb, but shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?The New York Times' top columnist openly supports using ISIS terrorists -- who massacre Christians and chop of peoples' heads in killings ten times more brutal than even the gassings in Syria -- as a tool of US-Israeli foreign policy, and yet there is no outrage and the media doesn't even give a sh*t.
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter and Facebook.