Description

Chris Woods, an investigative journalist and leader of the Airwars project, discusses the hundreds of Syrian civilians killed by Western coalition airstrikes in Syria, and why it’s only going to get worse as the battle against ISIL moves to larger cities.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • @massimomazzone writes: “So, let’s discuss the elephant in the room. A couple of days ago was the anniversary of Oklahoma, was Timothy McVeigh morally justified? I am fed up with this “tactically counter-productive” and other B.S. Was he morally justified? Even if a lot of “dupes” or whatever Spooner called them, were killed, including children? I do not think so, but I would love to see a debate. I grew up in Italy as a Communist Party member when the Red brigades were killing people, personally, I have been vaccinated against violence. What about you guys?” Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Australia has had its first case in ages, of fake cops trying to pull someone over, a woman. Its a very dangerous situation because the only solution suggested by the police is to run from the Police! It also, in this case, may have been terrorist related. One of the incidents that started the balkan war was a set of police attack on Serbs and Muslims by what are now believed to be fake cops. People were attacked by cops claiming to be from the other ethnic group but seem to have been the same people. Agent provocateur’s.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies