President Donald Trump: Show The World Your Evidence.

By Jerry Alatalo

“Power must never be trusted without a check.” (Letter to Jefferson, February 2, 1816)

– JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826) Second President of the United States

hile plans at the United Nations for investigating the chemical atrocity in Idlib province Syria were in the infancy stage and not yet begun, the American president directed the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria from warships in the Mediterranean Sea. Mr. Trump told Americans and the world it was to deter and punish the Syrian military for carrying out the chemical attack.

Among the many questions which have become raised after Donald Trump ordered a military attack on a Syrian airbase inside that country, the one that is receiving greatest attention and focus is: “Where is Donald Trump’s evidence, and why isn’t he providing it?”

It’s a simple question, really. In the context of fundamental legal theory when one of the sides in a legal argument wishes to present their case to the jury, it is common knowledge that party needs to bring evidence, or proof to back their claims and assertions. However, the response to it by U.S. President Donald Trump is much more complex, and for decades Middle East scholars, researchers, writers and people of the region have dealt with and experienced associated consequences of U.S. geopolitical actions.

As of yet, Donald Trump has not made his case – provided evidence, or proof – justifying attacking Syria to Americans and people around the Earth. His choice as Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has not provided evidence either in the last two United Nations Security Council meetings, convened to focus on the Idlib chemical atrocity and U.S. missile response.

Here is what Donald Trump said shortly after ordering the missile attacks on Syria:

“My fellow Americans… Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians using deadly nerve agent. Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this barbaric attack.”

“No child of God should ever suffer such horror. Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interests of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council. Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.”

“Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed, and we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.”

“Good night and God bless America, and the entire world. Thank you.”


“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons…”

Donald Trump’s address was extremely concise, wholly non-specific with regard to legal aspects of the military decision and action, while adding up to only a few hundred words. Perhaps Mr. Trump never anticipated Americans and people around the Earth wishing to hear him describe his legal perspective, and see his evidence making the case that Assad was responsible.

We the jury – citizens of America and the world – demand Donald Trump present any and all evidence he used to back the decision for launching cruise missiles on the sovereign nation of Syria…

This is an urgent demand.

(Thank you to Press TV News Videos)


Syria’s U.N. Ambassador Addresses Security Council 7919th Meeting.


(From the United Nations website)

(Start: Partial unofficial summary of the meeting)

Members voiced frustration over the persistent deadlock in the Security Council, as they held an emergency meeting today following air strikes launched by the United States against a Syrian military base, with some delegates warning that the organ could lose its “remaining credibility” if unity remained out of reach.

While a number of delegates expressed support for the air strikes as a “proportionate” response to the Syrian Government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians earlier this week, others condemned it as a unilateral act of aggression, underlining that the Council must authorize any such intervention.

At the outset, Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, recalled that on 4 April, alarming reports had emerged that an alleged chemical weapons attack had resulted in 86 deaths and more than 300 injuries.  This morning, two United States naval vessels deployed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea had launched 59 cruise missiles targeting Syria’s Al-Shayrat military base, he said, adding that the United States had explained the strike as a response to the alleged chemical attack.

“It is important that this Council send a strong, collective message that any use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated and will have consequences,” the Under-Secretary-General emphasized that the international community must hold all perpetrators accountable.  At the same time, he said, Secretary-General António Guterres remained mindful of the risk of escalation and had publicly appealed for restraint.

The representative of the United States emphasized that the Assad regime had murdered hundreds of thousands of people, broken international law and committed criminal acts that had shocked humanity’s conscience.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians was one occasion when the United States would not stand by, she said, adding that the Russian Federation also bore responsibility, having made it known that it would use its veto to cover up for Assad.  The world was waiting for the Russian Federation to reconsider its misplaced alliance with that regime, she said, stressing that it was time for all nations to stop the horrors taking place in Syria and demand a political solution.

Striking a similar tone, the United Kingdom’s representative declared:  “Assad showed us, yet again, this time in Idlib, that he is capable of redefining horror.”  Expressing support for the air strike, he emphasized that war crimes had consequences, describing the attack as a strong effort to save lives by ensuring that such actions would never recur.

Syria’s representative, however, denounced the air strike as a “barbaric, flagrant act of aggression” representing a violation of both the United Nations Charter and international law.  The Government of Syria did not possess chemical weapons and would never use them under any conditions, he emphasized, warning:  “This aggression will surely send an erroneous message to the terrorist groups, emboldening them to use more chemical weapons in the future.”  He expressed regret that history had come “full circle”, with the United States once again using fabricated evidence to justify its actions and to spread hegemony around the world.

The Russian Federation’s representative said the United States often cited the need to combat terrorism as justification for its presence on Syrian territory, despite the presence of its troops without invitation from Syria or Council approval, he said, adding that United States aggression had only strengthened terrorism by its attack on the Syrian air force, which had combated terrorism for years.  Following the air strike, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) and Al-Nusrah had carried out attacks against Syrian military sites, he said.  The draft resolution recently tabled by the United States, United Kingdom and France was “erroneous” in its determination that Damascus was guilty, he said, asking why they had not presumed its innocence instead.  Describing the air strike as an attempt to distract from tragedies in Mosul and elsewhere, he said that his delegation did not need to engage in a cynical show of photographs to recall those events.

Terrorism must be fought according to standards, he emphasized, adding:  “Look at what you are doing in Iraq.”  Noting that the Council’s 10 non-permanent members had worked for compromise on 6 April, he also pointed out that they had thanked the United States for having postponed a vote.  However, there had been no need for gratitude because that delegation had already decided to take military action.

Egypt’s representative cited this week’s events as “living proof” that the Syrian people were the victims of a proxy war that had paralyzed the region.  “We are fed up with the statements of regret and condemnation,” he said of the condemnations that the Council issued after every tragedy in Syria.  The time had come for “frank talk”, he said, calling directly upon the United States and the Russian Federation to seek a middle ground and a political settlement of the conflict in Syria.

(End: Partial United Nations meeting summary)


Syria’s United Nations representative Mounzer Mounzer was the final official to address the Security Council 7919th meeting.

(Thank you to Secundus Silent at YouTube)

When Pictures Are Worth Millions Of Lives.


The American Left and the Reality of 911: Beyond Their Wildest Dreams

The 9/11 events which occurred on September 11, 2001 remain the world’s greatest unsolved crime.

The ongoing moral and ethical failure of humanity to gather the will and determination necessary to address the crime which birthed 15 years of literal hell on Earth – destroying the lives of untold millions of innocent men, women and children – represents the most disturbing assault on human integrity, common decency, and respect for life of the 21st century.


by Graeme MacQueen, from

Noam Chomsky: Bastion of the intellectual left in the US – and hopelessly ignorant of 911

On November 23, 1963, the day after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Fidel Castro gave a talk on Cuban radio and television.[1] He pulled together, as well as he could in the amount of time available to him, the evidence he had gathered from news media and other sources, and he reflected on this evidence.

The questions he posed were well chosen: they could serve as a template for those confronting complex acts of political violence. Were there contradictions and absurdities in the story being promoted in the U.S. media? Who benefitted from the assassination? Were intelligence agencies claiming to know more than they could legitimately know? Was there evidence of foreknowledge of the murder? What was the main ideological clash in powerful U.S. circles and how did Kennedy fit…

View original post 6,411 more words