Perhaps our readers with more political and military acumen than I can discuss America’s drunken weaving in and out, the pitfalls we dig before forgetting them and thus falling into those very same craters. Lord knows the examples of our failed policies are multitudinous…or perhaps the policies would have been reasonable in other hands with more ability to execute them.
In contradistinction to what goes on now, GW Bush’s foray into Iraq was preceded by a long period of attempts to find other means to rein in Saddam Hussein’s destabilizing powers in the Middle East. For this he had the backing of Congress and eventually the cooperation of much of the West (via the UN) in what we now see as “misguided” attempts to install the structure and forms of Western forms of government is an area which has proved repeatedly its immunity to democracy.
I never doubted the reality of WMD in Iraq. The fact that they were packed off to Syria always seemed the most reasonable explanation for their “disappearance”. Bush had his faults as an executive but to a large extent he played by the U.N.’s rules. Otherwise, he could never have gotten Colin Powell’s consent for the actions he proposed or the material support from Europe.
We’ve come a long way from those early years of the New Century. President Obama’s strategies, the chief of which was ballyhooed as “leading from behind” seem increasingly inchoate and reactive at best. There is not even a pretense at using the checks and balances of legislative “advise and consent” to guide his war-making. Instead we have seen a destructively down-sized and emasculated military used in random hit-and-run attacks on or within the borders of sovereign nations. The drone attacks in Yemen, the deliberate destruction of Libya, the meltdown in Egypt designed to install the Muslim Brotherhood…have I missed anyone?
The lead-from-behind idea might have worked had we not then started on the attack throughout MENA. Even a different Secretary of State might have been enough to save our bacon. But in some kind of political pay-off Obama installed a retro 20th century Clinton to implement his foreign policy. Not only did she play footsie with the OIC (Obama’s infamous “fifty-seven states” he promised to visit in his first campaign), but she thoroughly fouled the nest with the debacle in Libya. Her contribution to the political lexicon may well prove to be her angry attempt to stop the Congressional questioning about Benghazi. In obvious high dudgeon, captured on endless You Tube clips you can watch her furious meltdown. Red-faced and fueled on righteous indignation she bellows: “What difference at this point does it make?”
What ‘difference’ indeed. It’s the same kind of difference that motivated her husband’s random choices: to ignore the obvious and clearly defined slaughter in Rwanda while jumping into the complicated and centuries’ old conflict in Kosovo.
In searching for some analysis of the Syrian stand-off and the sure mess likely to follow, I found the Diplomad’s sad analysis, born of experience regarding the way Democrats fight- schizoidally, to say the least. His ideas might give us some insight on what is likely to go down [with my emphases – D]:
In the course of my adult life, especially in the State Department, I became aware of an interesting phenomenon when it comes to foreign affairs. Democrats prefer and advocate for U.S. intervention, including messy, bloody, military intervention, in places where there is little or, preferably, no US national interest at stake, e.g., Vietnam, Libya, ex-Yugoslavia. Find a place where there are US interests at risk–e.g., Panama, Central America, Iran, Cuba–they go into pacifist-anti-imperialist-defender-of-the-peoples-of-the-Third-World mode.
And then what? Well, by now we know only too well the script he lays out:
…as we saw most spectacularly in Vietnam, once the US does go in, they quickly begin to doubt the wisdom of the move, and even turn against the US intervention. They know that once we do intervene, even if it was in a place of no or limited importance before, the act of intervening creates US national interests, e.g., the need to show that the US cannot be defeated, that we mean what we say, etc. Once such interests are created, the liberals, “summer soldiers” if there ever were, become very critical of the intervention, and actively work to sabotage the US effort.
What is most useful is his description of Obama’s five years of ineptitude [see his links at the original URL]:
I have written before that our policy in the Middle East under the Obama misadministration makes no sense:
- Our intervention in Libya was counterproductive to our national interests in Libya and the region;
- our support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is an outrage on the scale of Carter’s Shah of Iran disaster;
- and our pressuring Israel to deal with and make concessions to the phony Palestinians is criminal.
The Diplomad doesn’t mention Yemen and our drone attacks, or the mess in Algeria, or our forcing Jordan to take on American troops for “training”, or our increasing failures regarding the seriously mortal threats represented by Iran, or the condescension we have displayed toward the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe.
But now he has come to our latest stupidity, a course decided upon with little input from anyone but with Cameron braying on the sidelines:
From all the press it seems that this misadministration is gearing up for some ill-thought-out, half-baked, direct intervention in Syria on behalf of “rebels” who are nothing more than Al Qaeda affiliates. I wrote before that Obama seeks to repeat his disastrous Libya adventure in even more dangerous and complex Syria. Remember the Benghazi massacre? Wait until you see the jihadi loons who will take over Syria!
Now, you might reasonably ask, what about Assad? As was his father, he is a pencil-necked murdering swine. We all agree on that. As did his father, he runs a repressive, minority-ruled, Iranian-backed regime.
Whom are we arming to replace him? Even more murderous pencil-necked swine, that’s who. As we did in Libya, we want to replace a nasty piece of work who, nevertheless, can act rationally and with whom we can deal, with lunatic AQ-allied, apocalyptic jihadi fanatics who want a Muslim caliphate or death and will slaughter indiscriminately in pursuit of either goal.
The Diplomad’s advice is a path Obama would never, ever take. He’ll take our whole country down first:
If you want a clue on dealing with Arab states, don’t look to the State Department or the NSC–especially under Susan “It’s YouTube’s fault” Rice. Look to the Israelis. For them it is literally a matter of life or death who runs the corrupt Arab regimes in the neighborhood. The Israelis detest the Assad regime and have fought a continuous war with it since 1970. They also detested Arafat, and any number of other Arab dictators. They, however, were and are very cautious about promoting regime change.
He points out that Israel deals with the devil they know. Why? Because they darn well realize the destabilizing legions of lesser devils waiting in the wings to bring on endless anarchy.
Finally, his prediction:
Mark my words, if our policy “succeeds,” that is to say, it leads to the downfall of Assad, …[he] will be replaced by extremist jihadi psychopaths who will turn on us in a flash. If we don’t “succeed, “that is to say we just wound the bear, our reputation, what’s left of it, is gone, and we will have one bloody-minded and revenge seeking pencil-necked dictator–backed by Iran and Russia–gunning for us and our interests…
Here’s his best hope for what happens domestically from this SNAFU:
If we go into Syria, one positive thing I would hope for is US liberals and lefty Europeans shutting up about Iraq and our intervention there. You cannot support intervening in Syria and oppose intervening in Iraq. Well, not you if you are a logical, thinking person, but then we are talking about American liberals and their loony European lefty allies, so . . . never mind.[…]
Well, here’s a further thought: maybe we’ll find Saddam’s WMD.
We’ll “find” them as they are used on us. And even if the crates are marked “Made in Iraq”, don’t wait for any transparency. As they’re crossing out the identifying marks, just before those weapons go off, they’ll blame Iran.
Thus will we have the final and finely ironic poetic justice of all our “interventions” throughout the Middle East and North Africa: those ‘mythical’ WMD, whose original destination were probably meant to be a lethal present from Saddam to Tehran, will instead be used against American troops after all.
The echoing laughter you hear is the gods on Olympus, declining once more to interfere in Obama’s fatal hubris.
Plunging into Damascus
Wonderful analysis. My ideas stated here in a better way.
I think USA and Britain are going to do it again. This is a means of Weapon of Mass Distraction. They will deceive their own people, who are suffering from economic difficulties, to divert their focus and attention from their own gov.’s follies. They will just buy another year or so until they manage to find another place where they have to “interfere and save the innocents from their own rulers.”
They will intervene in Syria to establish another Muslim Salafist gov. there.
Ask American voters if they know who are Salafist or Muslim Brotherhood or OIC. If they don’t know how can they decide what their gov. is doing?
They don’t know so Obama does whatever he likes and they think that what he is doing is in the interest of USA. Oh my .. my .. We were told in a democracy you have freedom of the press. What next? That should have meant that the media points out the president’s faults to correct them. Freedom of the press in the west means write freely about drug, immoral, alcohol … sensationalize everything, reshape the truth to confuse the voters … etc.
The Old Testament urged and laid some foundations to instill some type of conscience in the people. The New Testament fine-tuned it even more to a higher pitch. What has happened in the west over the last 200 years is to throw away the mantle of being conscientious and feel free from any scruples to do whatever feels good. People have lost the sense of what is wrong or right.
After eating from the tree of life in the garden of Edan, their eyes opened and things got sorted out into wrong and right. So all hope was not lost. They would still have life by doing the right things. What condition of mindset were Adam and Eve in before eating from the tree of Knowledge? To me it sounds like they were like children. Like 2 years old who will try everything to discover and learn about. A 2 -year old will touch a glowing hot stove element to learn about it. Man being stupid by nature, he/ she will discover after burning his/her hand what’s wrong and what’s right.
Can a nation survive after cutting its ties with G-d, Dymphne?
No, Obama is just another Sunni Partisan. Who would have predicted it? Did the middle name give it away?
Man being stupid by nature, he/ she will discover after burning his/her hand what’s wrong and what’s right.
If you really believe that man is stupid by nature then where does your proposition leave the idea that man was created in God’s image? Stupid God = stupid creations? Is that the calculus?
As for how we learn – and you seem to say the *only* way to learn is thru harsh experience – then we are at fundamental odds here. There are as many ways to learn as there are varieties of intelligence. The process of moral inculcation in a child or a culture is (or works best as ) a slow and carefully paced series of ‘exercises’ attuned to the individual’s environment. The use of painful punishment as a teaching method often interrupts that experience…
In the Jewish Testament Yahweh is shown over and over to be a reasonable God. People bargain with Him all the time. But step past a line – say cause the death of an innocent – and your punishment is sure. Not always swift, but certain nonetheless. Kind of karmic in a way.
In the Christian scripture, the Ten Commandments (a good guide for any community) is replaced by the two-fold “love your God completely, and love your neighbor to the extent you love yourself”. That’s a tricky one, since it depends on a (relatively rare) healthy self-regard.
Can a nation survive after cutting its ties with God?
Are you asking if we can only survive as a theocracy? I don’t think so. Even Israel has problems with that one.
I wouldn’t want to be a citizen in a ‘godly’ nation. Our New England colonists experimented with that and it didn’t work any better than it did as described in the Acts of the Apostles.
Our best chance for success is to let people alone in their views on God, however they care to define Him, including the decision to define any deity out of existence, positing religious belief as a vestigial idea we need to outgrow.
I recommend William James’ “The Varieties of Religious Experience” as a good place to begin thinking about it. His argument ends up being utilitarian, which would appeal to our eventual overseers, the Chinese. Oh, wait – I guess that means James and then Chinese lessons.
The account in Genesis is instructive on several levels. I would make several clarifications. First, Adam and Eve were created in the likeness and image of God, and were apparently immortal. Living in the Garden of Eden, and not being subject to death, it is likely that they were not subject to pain either. Another thing that it is important to note is that the fruit of the tree of knowledge is not said to impart knowledge of right and wrong, but of good and evil. This is a critical distinction, for as the story unfolds we see that Adam and Eve do not eat of the fruit carelessly, but only after being persuaded that it was an advantageous course of action. In other words, they understood not only that disobedience would be wrong, but could also understand an essentially moral argument (whether false or true in absolute terms is a matter of dispute) that a course of action could be right, separate from the issue of obedience.
All of this suggests that the “knowledge of good and evil” they obtained was not moral awareness but rather vulnerability to the effects of wrong actions. This is strongly suggested by the first “evil” they noticed, their lack of clothing. Clothing is “right” because it protects against the “evil” of physical vulnerability, the invulnerable would never notice anything wrong with being naked while the vulnerable should immediately want something to cover their more vulnerable parts. It seems that they realized the vulnerability of being disobedient only after noticing that they were vulnerable by reason of being naked.
This actually does serve as a helpful parable to understand the essential problem with many modern societies, particularly America. In America, being poor doesn’t mean struggling to survive, it means struggling to afford the status symbols which would indicate that you aren’t poor. Because of this most Americans have absolutely no concept of what it would mean if the water and electricity went off, not for an hour or day, but permanently. If the store shelves were never going to be restocked because fuel shortages destabilized the trucking industry. If credit/debit/EBT cards were suddenly just plastic with no real use. Americans do not understand the potential (and now inevitable) consequences of making idiotic political choices…and they honestly don’t want to learn.
This is hardly a unique problem, it is the characteristic malfunction of every civilization that becomes sufficiently affluent for those who decide policy to be raised without encountering the real hardships of life. In a healthy civilization, there are mechanisms to transfer leadership from the naive and feckless who have no understanding of the consequences (good and evil) that flow from policy decisions (right and wrong). Representative democracy is one such mechanism, allowing the people who were not privileged to replace their leadership periodically so that the leaders were not born to the privilege of being insulated from reality. But America became prosperous to institute a system whereby engaging with the hard realities of life, particularly the necessity of working for a living but also of such things as enduring travail in birth or financial ruin because of stupidity, all were rendered voluntary. The people didn’t have to learn about the good and evil that arose from right and wrong, and most have chosen to remain ignorant.
And now we face consequences that are simply too enormous for the system to insulate against, partly because the destruction of the system is itself one of the consequences. Those who have made the hard choice to learn about good and evil from experience will still suffer, but they may survive. For those who have deliberately remained dependent on the “social safety net”, there is no hope.
I am a loyal follower of the Diplomad. I started reading him way back during the tsunami and he was spot on then as he is now.
The time for the US to act in Syria was 2 years ago, before the Islamic crazies flooded that nation; when the people in charge of the peaceful protest were educated secular democrats.
I happen to know one personally. He is a Syrian dissident that was given the choice of leaving the country or being thrown in some Syrian prison hole. He currently works at the Brookings Institute in DC and did everything he could do to engage the help of the US admin for a peaceful transition in Syria. And, just in case you think that everyone in this conflict is a lunatic (which would be easy to believe at this point) there is a secular counsel in waiting ready to take over the governance of Syria.
I wrote to him about 6 months ago and told him that his country was doomed, that the west dithered for so long that the situation was now out of control and that the Christians, Kurds and even Alawait’s days are now numbered. He was not happy to hear my opinion but I still think that is the truth.
So, this reprehensible American President is now going to start lobbing missiles into Syria? The US is going to smash stuff up, kill civilians and engage in a proxy war with Russia and Iran because he made a stupid “red line” statement (which he never intended to keep) a year ago and needs to cover his a..? While France and the UK cheer us on! Yeah, go ahead US spill your blood and treasure in Syria (which used to be a French protectorate) and we’ll stay here and see how it turns out!
It is hard to imagine how Mr. Obama could screw up the Middle East any worse than this. After all, there are only a few countries left to mess up in… Jordan comes to mind; let’s have our US blundering set Jordan on fire too!
It is hard to imagine how Mr. Obama could screw up the Middle East any worse than this. After all, there are only a few countries left to mess up in… Jordan comes to mind; let’s have our US blundering set Jordan on fire too!”
Agree, hard to imagine, being the operative words. And Israelis are more concerned now about Jordan than anything. That failure would be catastrophic, so they say.
Babs-
I only found the Diplomad via emailed links from one of our readers, Bill. He will be glad to know I finally cribbed from D.2 since he knows how much I like the man’s work.
I agree re Jordan. They must be quaking in their boots, wondering when the American evil eye will turn on them and suddenly demand democracy for Jordanians.
Will Yemen spontaneously combust? They must be simmering about those drone strikes. It sure speaks to the gut about sovereignty. Maybe they invited us in to get rid of Trouble?
Lebanon’s Hezbollah is going to be hurting if that long and sure supply line running from Iran->Syria ->Lebanon is cut. Wait…it has been cut. So will the armaments now be more directly and overtly supplied? By sea? Will Israel intervene, given its vulnerability with the Lebanon border?
Lebanon must be awash in rumors right now, what with the Palestinian factions of Hez in Lebanon having itchy trigger fingers and the Christian militias ready to react to any diminution of their power. Ugly, ugly…
Here’s a thought experiment: Lebanon was once French (and to some extent American-influenced via the university in the capital). If it gets to meltdown, will the French intervene? How?
Also, the cratering of the tourism industry in both Egypt and Lebanon will have/is having huge effects on both economies. All those empty hotel rooms, those cafés and restaurants closing will mean starvation for some. Meanwhile Egypt is cracking down on those porous places thru Palestine. What will that do to both economies? Will the unhappy PoorPalis take it out on Israel, on Sderot?
Somebody get out a map…
Cameron and Hague risk being (politically) hung by Obama’s thin red line, John McCain’s call for military intervention to restore U.S credibility will be viewed as cynical American adventurism or the just for the hell of it politics of an end of lifer.
Far from enhancing U.S. foreign policy credibility intervention in Syria at this point could generate deep and generational anti-Americanism across Europe from all points on the political spectrum.
“John McCain’s call for military intervention to restore U.S credibility will be viewed as cynical American adventurism or the just for the hell of it politics of an end of lifer.”
I agree. Mr. McCain has traded on his very honorable service to his country during the Viet Nam war for far too long. At this point, I don’t think he even knows what he is talking about…
I so wish the citizens of Arizona would retire him. He needs a rest.
In addition, his cavalier attitude of putting young Americans in danger for his gun boat diplomacy turns my stomach.
The problem with Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, … etc is not that if they have democracy their problems will end. Muhammad told them to marry four. They breed like pigs. They go to school. they graduate in huge numbers. Every year a percentage finds jobs. Some are imported by western their mothers ( USA and Europe and Britain …) are the kindly mothers of every muslim in the world). Their government can’t find enough jobs. They go hungry they rebel. e.g. The river Euphrates … Turkey, Syria, Iraq ) depend of its water. Should they direct the water to the cities or the fields to water their crops. A democracy cannot create 2 Euphrates and 3 Niles. Some experts say Egypt, where they breed like rats needs 2 Niles. Muslim Brotherhood with the help of western powers came to power but USA could not create two Niles. Natural resources and space for people and water and arable lands are limited. Kids coming out of wombs are unlimited. Can you reconcile that? Something very difficult not only for Muhammadans but also for the Westerners. Did The Reverend (Thomas) Robert Malthus diagnose the problem correctly. Oh, yes.
Did The Reverend (Thomas) Robert Malthus diagnose the problem correctly. Oh, yes.
I disagree.
Malthus’ view was limited to his time. If you search on the Malthusian Trap, you’ll see he was confined by a pre-industrial world view, a world view that was just about to be overturned with the coming industrial revolution…which would in turn raise the standard of living even while it created worse social problems than Malthus ever dreamed of.
I have great faith in the ability of our creativity and ingenuity to work out problems of scarcity. Yes, you have to be careful of what organizations like Monsanto end up doing – even if the original intention may have been salutary.
Israel is a success partly because it rewards curiosity and intellectual endeavors. That’s one reason Bill Gates has funded education in Israel generously.
So for a Christian reverend, Malthus wasn’t very. Christian, I mean. The England of his day didn’t offer much in the way of hope for the average person, did it? And he gave into his despair, his limited vision.
Never trust a rev who preaches scarcity. It means he failed Christian Theology 101.
This is the death knell for Christianity in the levant.
1,400 years, just so a Black Liberation Theologist can bombard the legitimate dictator of Syria and replace him with a swivel eyed lunatic Jihadist.
Well [take the Lord’s name in vain] ________! Is this the second seal or something?
If BHO is a Black Liberation theologian, then I’m Santa Claus. If he’s *anything* beyond his probable narcissism, he’s a Muslim by virtue of nostalgia.
Even his minister in Chicago doesn’t believe BHO is a Christian. Whew.
I’m positively certain that Black Liberation Theology is a gussied up Islam. Malcolm X was no accident.
Agreed. OBo might even be Malcolm’s son. There is a striking physical resemblance and OBo bears no resemblance to Obama from Kenya.
I believe that BHO in the White House is the son of Communist labor organizer and writer, FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS. And unlike Malcolm X, he actually LIVED in Hawaii at the time STANLEY ANN and her family did. He wrote a pornographic book about his 2 year long “affair” with a 16 year old WHITE daughter of a “fellow traveler” in the Communist party in Hawaii. He published it a few years after baby BHO was born to an 18 year old white daughter of a Communist and was the supposed “wife” of a Black African COMMUNIST student..BHO, sr. ….. OBAMA looks quite a lot like Davis… except OBAMA has has some work done on his nose and his lips to make him look less like him!! Well, my plastic surgeon thinks so… I had to have a little face surgery due to an accident and when the Doc over heard my hubby say that he did not trust OBAMA, the Doc opened up on OBAMA and said he believes OBAMA has had A LOT of work done on his lips, eyes, ears and lips and chin.
NOW why would a “proud” black man do that …to look less like an American black Communist like FRANK Marshall DAVIS… those long legs and the way he walks looks like Davis, in a short film I saw on another site.
Read it.
Black Liberation Theology is nothing more than recasting Jesus as Issa. Same thing. It views Christendom and Christianity as a corruption of the Gospel and the true god.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
[Your assertions fail to convince me]. Black “liberation” theology is just one more recasting of Jesus as Karl Marx a millenium+ too early.
I strongly commend Diplomad 2.0. I’ve written my own screed on the O at unclecephas.blogspot.com
‘Even his minister in Chicago doesn’t believe BHO is a Christian.’
The ‘reverend’ Wright apparently was trying to convert Obo from [his devotion to the sin of Sodom] and when that failed he induced him to go down-low for the good of crypto-islamism/marxism.
The reverend could tell us a thing or two if he were wont.
Let’s see – war goes badly for the rebels. Then UN inspectors arrive, following which, a chemical attack occurs… the dust hasn’t even settled, yet almost immediately there is talk of “armed intervention” – with no proof that the Assad regime was behind it. Media say that only the regime could do such a thing, and repeat it ad nauseam – yet “forget” to mention that the UN previously confirmed that the rebels were using chemical weapons… does this seem to anyone else like a complex plot from a James Bond-style movie about a false flag operation, for the benefits of an evil character somewhere? (maybe a Sheikh in Riyadh or Doha?)
Besides – before all this started, Syria was largely secular, and had one of the Middle East’s largest Christian populations… and was one of the places, where Christians were escaping to, from all over the region. Even Turkey… True, Assad may be corrupt and brutal – but what does the West stand to gain from helping Qatari, Saudi, Turkish and Chechen rebels, who execute Syrians while shouting “Allahu Akbar”? (somehow this goes unreported, and generates just 30,000 views on youtube) Unless, of course, the man in the White House stands to “gain” something of which we don’t know. (the unwavering support of Britain for the rebels is more understandable, since its assets are being bought-up en masse by the likes of Qatar, and its hyper-political correctness ensures that the country bends over backwards to address any grievance by the Islamic lobby)
You and he said a mouthful. Stunning that we didn’t hear many complaints about Hillary. Dems are great at not criticizing the state department, even while it blazes its way to ruinous failures like Egypt, Libya, now Iraq…et. al.
They find other points of contention to take issue with, anything else. But as we found out via Benghazi, they stuck tight to their divine heiress. It was the one known, among all the potential possibilities. Is it the same with Kerry? Affirmative.
This is why its just as important what they do NOT say (or criticize) as what they do. It reveals much
He called the left out exactly, its how they operate. And they will quicker shift their position on foreign policy as they desire, except at the aforementioned leader.
However, shortsighted as they are, they will not consider action in Syria as a proxy war with Russia and Iran. He is right, they should forever shut up about intervention in Iran.—which happens to be the major source of all this trouble. They are at the heart of it, but the left will love to treat the symptoms with paramount importance whilst ignoring the disease. They had their short-lived immediate gratification in Morsi. They’ll do the same in Syria, given the chance, regardless what the mountain of facts and evidence say.
But now I am sort of perplexed. In a recent speech by the new wave, Shiekh McCarthy, he explained, from his(their) perspective, the problem in the Islamic, pre-caliphate world as they see it. He said there is no country fully (meaning 100%) Islamic. He maintains that if and when they configure one, it will be ITS job to carry jihad or defend others Muslim states. (be the enforcer) But for the fact they do not have one, then by default they are limited and only have other means. (that was the implication) So you can take that as a good grain of salt and a cautionary one. That is a paramount goal. And why Egypt was so important, even if the Carter wannabe was practically shoving what they wanted down everyone’s throat. But while dems may switch tactics to a degree, they do not change ideology, and neither do Islamists.
As you say, we may yet see these missing ingredients, be they weapons or components of caliphates, materialize.
Intervention in Syria by the righteous USA and Britain to bring a secular Gov. to Syria is ludicrous. First Alqaeda will come to power in Syria. Alqaeda = fundamentalist Islam = Caliphate advocate Islam = Iran Gov. = Iraqi Gov = Muslim Brotherhood= Boko Haram .. etc. Karzai gov. is no less Islamic than the Alqaeda. All of those mentioned hate infidels everywhere. What differs among them is that Karzai and Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia, Egypt , Libya, Iraq … rely on the Useful Idiots (USA, France, Britain … ) to come to power. Some factions of Islam (Alqaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Boko Haram .. ) don’t like being thrust into power by western idiots. Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its strong branches all over USA and Britain never hide their feelings of hatred towards the west. They are really honest. USA gives them money and place to meet and when they finish they declare, ‘We are going to rule USA without firing a shot.” Is there a confusion in the USA Gov to make the MB think that way? That kind of thinking is not based on nothing.
Oh yes let’s have a proxy war with Russia and Iran in the Middle East, how cool will that be!
Drunk as skunks again.
What is a fanatic to do when you have chess players like this?
I heard a man on the radio last week who had been in Turkey recently when the Turkish authorities had intercepted an amount of chemical weapons (warheads? can’t remember) that they insisted were being moved by the Muj and were enroute to Al Qaeda in Syria. This was (amazingly!) on our version of the BBC and he was obviously not supposed to be dealing in reality – the poor chap just blurted it out – and will no doubt not be invited back any time soon.
How stupid is Assad supposed to be to using chemical weapons – surprise! – just when the inspectors arrive? He and the Muj know that this is the excuse the Western powers are waiting for to ensure the Muj win. I also heard on today that Russia & Saudi Arabia are coming to an agreement over Russia’s access to its Syrian port and oil supplies from Saudi Arabia. That would be the way the Powers have finally overcome the year’s wait that Russia have forced them to endure – they would have attacked Assad a year ago if not for Russian protestations. Now Russian protests will be muted and the way is clear for the annihilation of all minoroties in Syria and the establishment of another Shariah state.
It would also mean that this civil war will end sooner rather than later and enable all the “freedom fighters” to go to Egypt to reinstate the “duly elected” Ikhwan via another civil war. The West will once again find good reason – another manufactured atrocity – to attack Sisi’s forces for the sake of the “democratically elected government”.
They have koranic secularaphobia. We Christian peasants just don’t understand.