This is reposted from fuzislipper’s place, Fuzzy Logic
Syria: Obama’s Attempt At Another Middle
Eastern Conquest for Islamofascists
Syria. Where to start? We can start, reasonably, with the Islamofascist “Arab Spring.” If we look at what actually happened and not at what is said to have happened, we can clearly see that the “Arab Spring” was about toppling brutal, barbaric, medieval secular dictatorships and replacing them with brutal, barbaric, medieval Islamofascist totalitarianism.
Brutal secular dictatorships are bad. Islamofascist totalitarianism is, arguably and from the western world’s perspective, worse. After all, which one has any potential to affect American, Israeli, and western interests, particularly when we are still reliant, in part, on the Middle East for oil? Which one is going to–not is likely to, but has sworn to and absolutely will–devolve into real attempts to “wipe Israel off the map”?
As a staunch supporter of Israel, I am often asked (okay, never, actually, but for the purpose of argument . . . ): how can you possibly be against bombing [Syria]? After all, goes this line of thought, America is a close ally of Israel, we love Israel, keeping chemical weapons out of the hands of Israel-hating Assad is a good thing. And there’s also some weird and wrong-headed argument that these chemical weapons pose a threat to Israel and to the United States. You know, somehow.
Um, well, two things. One, Assad has been president of Syria since 2000 and has been stockpiling chemical (and other) weapons ever since; in fact, there are good arguments and strong evidence that suggest that Saddam Hussein moved his own WMD’s to Syria before the American and allied invasion of Iraq, but Assad has never used them on Americans, either in his country or on other nation’s soil, be it ours or where we are located throughout the Middle East, etc. Is he a brutal, evil man? Oh yes, I don’t think anyone can deny that. But does he threaten American national security in any imminent way? No. Even Obama has admitted that much. There are brutal, evil dictators all over the world, but when Obama seeks to displace them, he simply puts in place (either directly or indirectly), even more–or certainly, equally–brutal, evil dictators. This happened in Egypt. It happened in Libya. And, if Obama gets his way, it will happen in Syria.
And two, these “moderate” rebels that we are already supporting through training, arms, and cash are freaking al Qaeda. Al Qaeda. Remember them? The ones who were responsible for a direct attack on American soil in 2001? The one who’ve sworn to fly the flag of Islam over the White House? The ones who’ve dedicated their lives to the eradication of not only Israel but of all western nations? I remember them. Very well. The threat to Israel from these barbaric monsters is very very real. Much more real than anything Assad can do or has done.
Supporting al Qaeda and its affiliates in the Syrian civil war is . . . insane. And for those who still cling to the fantasy that there are actual “moderate” rebels in Syria, remember that Obama never ever supports actual moderation in the Middle East. He supports only Islamofascist goals. This is why, in 2009, he did not help the Iranians who were fighting for actual freedom; why he watched as Iranian protesters were gunned down, rolled over by tanks, tortured, and slaughtered in the streets . . . all the while they begged for American support. Obama does not support secular uprisings in the Middle East, and he does not care one whit about civilian or other casualties (what has he said about the ongoing rapes, tortures, beheadings, burnings of Christians anywhere and everywhere his al Qaeda buddies “work”? Nothing.). Obama is all about violence, and he is all about the “ends justifying the means.” Always has been, always will be.
But, but . . . we have to stop Iran. By Bombing Syria. Or something.
You want to stop Iran? Go to war with, bomb, engage in “strategic strikes” against (whatever your favorite euphemism) Iran. Starting a war with Syria will not stop Iran. Stopping Iran will stop Iran. And if Obama were in the least bit interested in doing so, he’s had ample opportunity since 2009, but he’s always waffled, erm’d and uhhh’d, while Iran continues its nuclear buildup.
My heinous atrocities are more heinous than your heinous atrocities. So there!
There’s a truly bizarre post entitled “10 Things Worse Than Eating A Dead Man’s Heart.” This post is supposed to excuse, somehow, the barbarism of the Obama-backed al Qaeda Syrian “rebels.” It’s compelling, of course, because we are not yet used to this sort of medieval barbarism, but the thing that is missing is that Obama’s al Qaeda “peace partners” (!) engage in exactly this sort of barbarity and inhuman behavior.
Syrian Rebels decapitate 40 day old baby. en.alalam.ir/news/1512664 Syrian Rebels decapitate Catholic Priest. http://youtube.com/watch?v=tY1… Syrian Rebels decapitate Christian and feed his body to dogs. http://dailymail.co.uk/news/ar…
15 Syrian Rebels torture and rape Christian child before murdering her.
230+ civilians massacred by Syrian Rebels for being Alawites and Christians. http://youtube.com/watch?v=lPK…
There is no “this evil is greater than that” here. For every Assad atrocity, there is an al Qaeda rebel atrocity. Or two.
Boots on the ground
So, we still have people insisting that bombing Syria from afar is the answer. Hey, goes this line of thought, we’ll “surgically strike” Syria, and . . . um, well, it gets cloudy here because there is no way that doing anything but invading Syria with 75,000-100,000 actual ground troops will secure the chemical weapons (i.e. get them out of Assad’s hands and/or keep them from our would-be al Qaeda “allies”–omg, that makes me sicker than I can even express).
But here’s the deal, no one is voting for, has proposed, or will propose an actual invasion of Syria. Nope. What’s on the table is a face-saving “strike” that will not make Obama more of a laughingstock than he already is. After all, we can’t have the American president be “mocked” for doing too little . . . or too much. Emperor Goldilocks has to get it just right. But nothing that has been proposed will do anything about securing the chemical weapons (either of the Assad regime or of the al Qaeda “rebels”).
So what’s the freaking point?
Oh, yeah. We have to protect Obama from himself.
Um, no. We don’t, actually. He tried to use the American muscle he’s long disdained, wield a big stick, but his red line was a bluff. And just as they saw through Carter, our enemies see right through Obama; they know he has no clothes, and they laugh at, ridicule, and mock him. And frankly, he deserves it. When he came out this week claiming the “world” set the red line, that he didn’t, that his own credibility wasn’t at stake, I was actually shocked (perhaps unduly so given what an absolute liar, charlatan, and unhinged egomaniac this petty little man really is).
What will happen if Congress votes to support this ridiculously wrong-headed “strike” on Syria? Full-blown world war. So far, the sides are: Russia, China, Iran against the U. S. and France. Yay!?
Obama has created an untenable situation, and there is nothing that he can do about it. Oh, sure, he’ll buy himself 45 days, bully and blackmail Congress into voting for his face-saving war, but what will that really get him? Historically speaking, Obama is a failed president, both internationally and domestically. That is his legacy. And long may it live.