Description

Investigative journalist Rick Sterling joins Scott to discuss his latest article for Consortium News, “Taking the World to the Brink.” Sterling describes what he’s seen in his time in Syria and shares his perspective on the war and the most recent chemical attack in Douma. Sterling then explains why he’s very skeptical, once again, that the Syrian government is responsible for the latest chemical attack. Scott and Sterling discuss the failures of U.S. foreign policy generally, and then consider why the reception to ridding Mosul of Islamist terrorists was received so differently form Syria.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement. Read more of his work at Consortium News.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Regarding this video from @akokesh: LiveLeak.com – The Restraint of Muslims (WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE) | Adam Kokesh I created a LL account for the first time to get involved in the discussions over there. Pretty interesting responses. Everyone there is assuming Adam is a Muslim or a Jew, or claiming he “forgot” 9/11 (when he referenced it in the video), or calling it “bullshit” without substantiation. I’m interested as to the Lme userbase’s response. Please watch the whole thing before commenting.

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/11989250/EU-flag-burned-as-tens-of-thousands-join-Warsaw-nationalist-demo.html Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • 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