Description

Veteran journalist Eric Margolis returns to the show to discuss his latest article, “The Syrian Madhouse Gets Even Crazier.” Margolis explains why Rex Tillerson’s recent decision to maintain a long-term presence in eastern Syria has created an even bigger mess and how the Turkish-Kurdish conflict has come to a head. Scott then details the long history of U.S. support for and betrayal of the Kurds.

Eric Margolis is a foreign affairs correspondent and author of “War at the Top of the World” and “American Raj.” Follow him on Twitter @EricMargolis and visit his website, ericmargolis.com.

Discussed on the show:

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen CashThe War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.comRoberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.LibertyStickers.comTheBumperSticker.com; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott.

Check out Scott’s Patreon page.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • So, I am in the process of taking an Arab/Israeli conflict class, and the more I think about it, the more I wish I could solve all of this death and destruction in the middle east. In this discussion post, I would like to stay on the Arab – Israeli conflict; primarily those that arose due to Israel becoming a state. (I.e. – The Palestinian refugee problem). Comment your thoughts, and how you think we may could solve all of this conflict across the world.

    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