Media Silent as House Quietly Passes Possible No-Fly Zone over Syria
Earlier this month, just after the elections, the House of Representatives quietly met to pass a resolution that seeks to assess the effectiveness and establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria, setting up what would be considered a possible act of aggression and possibly provoking a war with Russia. And the media is silent.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
The resolution includes Section 303, titled: Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.
According to Consortium News:
“Late in the day, on Nov. 15, one week after the U.S. elections, the lame-duck Congress convened in special session with normal rules suspended so the House could pass House Resolution 5732, the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act” calling for intensifying the already harsh sanctions on Syria, assessing the imposition of a “no fly zone” inside Syria (to prevent the Syrian government from flying) and escalating efforts to press criminal charges against Syrian officials…
HR5732 claims to promote a negotiated settlement in Syria but, as analyzed by Friends Committee for National Legislation, it imposes preconditions which would actually make a peace agreement more difficult.
There was 40 minutes of “debate” with six representatives (Ed Royce, R-California; Eliot Engel, D-New York; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida; Dan Kildee, D-Michigan; Chris Smith, R-New Jersey; and Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida) all speaking in favor of the resolution. There were few other representatives present, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the resolution was passed “unanimously” without mentioning these special conditions.
Most strikingly, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for the United States to impose a “no fly zone” inside Syria, a sovereign nation, an act of war that also would violate international law as an act of aggression. It also could put the U.S. military in the position of shooting down Russian aircraft.”
What special conditions? Consortium went on to point out, “According to Wikipedia, ‘Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives … such as naming Post Offices…’ In this case, however, the resolution could lead to a wider war in the Middle East and potentially World War III with nuclear-armed Russia.”
So, why would Congress do such a thing? Why would they be looking at further entangling us in something that is none of our business? One might question who these representatives’ handlers are for the answer to that question.
While there are some issues with Donald Trump as president, one thing he has said some good things on was American foreign policy and not putting our nose where it didn’t belong. He was even willing to allow Russia to deal with things in the area if that is what they wanted to do to deal with the Obama funded, trained and armed Islamic State.
Justin Gardner comments, “Any peace agreement that leaves Bashar al-Assad in power would be seen as a failure of U.S. hegemonic foreign policy, which has pushed regime change for years. It would also be seen as a victory for Russia, which is helping Assad fight ISIS and U.S.-funded ‘moderate rebels’ attempting to overthrown Assad.”
“Even the title of the resolution — ‘Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act’ – is based on a CIA-funded propaganda hoax involving alleged torture photos that was used to sabotage a 2014 effort at peace negotiations,” he added.
The point is that the united States should not be putting our nose in the midst of this. Because we have done so, we have opened up the Middle East to Islamic jihadists in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan even more than before, and we are now actually considering taking in Muslims from the very countries we have been engaging in unconstitutional wars.
The bill has already been read twice in the Senate and has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.