1776 Undone

Our Israeli correspondent MC has some close personal connections with the likely fallout (so to speak) from President Obama’s upcoming war in Syria. Below are his observations about what seems all too likely to happen in the near future.

1776 Undone — The Counter-Revolution of 2013
by MC

It is not with joy in my heart that I read this morning that the US Senate is going to war; well, so to speak, because they themselves will not be anywhere near the firing line, but my youngest son will be.

It is the usual story of the ‘old’ men sending the young men (and maybe a few young ladies) to their deaths in a futile statement of puffed-up pride.

First one should be able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Assad has crossed a red line, and in my opinion, sodium/potassium fluoride is a very strange chemical weapon for a government with known sarin and VX weapons to use, but along with aniline, I do seem to have a vague memory of them being constituents of nerve gas.

The fluoride in our water might be sodium fluoride if it came as a waste product from a Uranium refinement process such as Oak Ridge, but more likely it is going to be sodium fluorosilicate scraped from the inside of the exhaust stacks of aluminium refineries or of fertilizer factories, and yes, these chemicals are more poisonous than lead, especially in combination with mercury and aluminium, mercury from our dental work, and aluminium from pots and pans in the kitchen.

Could it be that what we have seen in Syria is an event where just one side of a binary nerve gas delivery system exploded causing acute fluorine poisoning? Fluorine poisoning has almost identical symptoms to Fibromyalgia/CFS/ME conditions, and given the right concentrations, they are killers, causing muscular activity to completely shut down.

The report of the Syrian rebels receiving an undocumented batch of weaponry and having to ‘experiment’ to see what these weapons do, begins to make a lot of sense. Maybe I am seeing a pattern that does not exist, but to go to war on such flimsy evidence as currently exists is criminal.

My youngest son is one of the young men that these arrogant politicians may put in harm’s way, if Assad is attacked for using chemical weapons. Whether guilty or not, such an attack effectively authorises him to use those weapons for whatever purpose he wants, and in the twisted Islamist logic, Israel is guilty of any perceived crime against the Ummah. Jews are guilty because the Quran says they are guilty, and what was true in the seventh century, by Islamic logic, must be true fourteen hundred years later.

So Mr. Senator, and Mr. Representative, what safeguards can you give me that if Syria attacks me as a result of an unprovoked US attack on Syria, that you can defend me too?

But given the current Presidential attitude to Israel and the Jews I suspect a partial genocide would be welcome, as long as it can be blamed on a third party.

If Assad starts shooting missiles at Israel as he has threatened, Israel has a number of options:

  • Surgical strikes against the launch sites
  • The Samson option
  • Do nothing, allow NATO to defend us
  • General invasion of Syria.

In all of these options, many more people are going to die than the 1400 or so in the latest attack.

What, I might ask, is the ‘proportionate’ response to a Syrian VX missile attack on Tel Aviv, with a million people suffering a hideous death?

I have written before about the hidden role of Saudi Arabia in all of this, and it is very apparent that Saudi dollars are flowing and that the District of Columbia resounds to the ka-ching of clandestine cash payments.

Back in the UK, I see there is to be another ‘vote’, I suppose that this will follow standard EU protocol; keep voting until you come up with the correct decision!

I ask: What is going on here?

Is this the last gasp of dying democracies (or have they just been moribund for many years)?

‘Them’ the people are subjects of ‘We’ the elite. ‘We’ know better because ‘We’ were born into the ‘right’ family, ‘We’ went to the ‘right’ schools and ‘We’ know all the ‘right’ people.

The ‘thems’ are non-people, people whose education has been controlled for many decades, and whose ability to think has been ‘broken in’ by mass media propaganda. The ‘thems’ have become just so many pack animals, led by those broken to the saddle so that ‘We’ can ride them.

Perhaps the most insidious move has been to deny the ‘thems’ a platform whereby their views can be expressed. With a few exceptions, the journalists and TV presenters have closed ranks with the executive, the Judiciary and the military (and quasi- military) to deny the will of the people.

Even the internet is slowly being brought under control, the NSA will have read this article before you do, and I suppose that if I go too far, they will come a-knocking.

The only non-violent option is to ensure that you never ever again vote for a mainstream party or candidate. This will force the issue in no mean way, but it may be too late. The ‘We’ team is very powerful, and is now fully equipped to seize power.

But if you are a member of the forces supporting this ‘counter-revolution’, take stock of your position. Is this really what you believe in? Is life in a tyranny really what you want?

Chairman Mao’s hobby involved twelve-year-old females. These young girls had no choice in the matter; they were ‘selected’ and dispatched to his private quarters. This could be the fate of our daughters and granddaughters, because this is the ugly face of tyranny.

22 thoughts on “1776 Undone

  1. I thought to following idea was crackpot. But here it is anyway. Obama is a closet Muslim. Nothing else makes sense. America has also acted as the Saudi Hessian Coprs since 1990…so this just caps off 23 years of drift. The Sunnis are rampaging all over Syria. They just pulled off a massive jail break in Iraq. They have been burning down 80+ churches in Egypt. They have a foothold in Bosnia, Paris, Tower Hamlets, Hamburg, Stockholm, Brussels, Amsterdam, Marsailles. This is consistent with American policy.

  2. Read the “Archetype of the Apocalypse.”

    This will answer the metaphysical aspect of your question. Christianity will be extinguished in the ME by 2020. A good run, eh? 2 millennia ain’t bad.

    Come and See!

  3. Not crackpot. We have as our president someone who recited the shahada in public and then passed it off as just something he memorized “when I was a kid”. Muslims knew darn well what he was doing.

    He’s also beholden in ways we aren’t permitted to know.

    In some of the places you name, there is more than a ‘foothold’. In others, where it *is* a foothold, it used to be a toe-hold…I think of the organism as being more like a squid…

  4. Every member of the U.S. military, being sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States and under no obligation to follow illegal orders, has a positive duty to reject any further orders that originate from an illegitimate and criminal usurper in Chief.

    • In case it has escaped your notice but, the General Officer Corps is being purged of anyone who isn’t toeing the party line, General Mattis (USMC) is a prime example of this and there are many more.

      • This is certainly true and evident. But an interesting dynamic comes into play when we consider actual combat soldiers (whether officers or enlisted). To those who willingly expose themselves to the danger of combat operations, loyalty to the Constitution is a deeply felt obligation, regardless of actual level of knowledge of the Constitution and the essential principles on which it was based. I have invariably found that it is REMF’s who succumb to the allure of insisting any and all orders coming down the chain of command must be followed without respect to their lawful authority and the Constitution. Those who get shot at tend to take a very different view.

        It is my sense that Obama is on the path to discovering just how useless a bunch of rear echelon oathbreakers are as an effective military force.

    • Yeah, well, the members of the US military don’t seem to be taking the whole “sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States” very seriously.

      They have the skills and weapons needed to turn this country around in about 48 hours.

      Instead they keep supporting the beast and cashing their paychecks.

      Let me make a prediction: there will be zero AWOLS when Syria is invaded.

  5. Is MC’s opinion on Syria also the opinion of the Israeli Government ?
    Nobody in their right mind wants this ‘ attack ‘ to go ahead, it’s not that
    the fate of the Assad faction is important, it’s more what this lead to which
    could be anything bad including polarasation of the BRICS group against
    the Western Alliance ( read US ). Any kind of direct military attack by the
    US on Syria would be crossing a very big red line for the rest of the World.

    • The forced apology to Erdogan, some months ago, tells us much about Israeli Government policy, making people apologise for being the victim of a bully, whilst all too common, does not demonstrate ‘statesmanship’ it just displays an even greated ability to bully small countries.

      Israel has to temporise when Presidents get hostile, Presidents come and go, but, against the odds, Israel has survived.

      Much of Israeli Government policy is dictated in Washington DC, and in an issue like this Tel Aviv must steer a very narrow channel and take ‘soundings’ all the way along.

      Once the missiles start flying, there is going to be fallout, and the only enemy that Assad can lash out at is to the south, Israel and possibly Jordan, whether they are innocent or not is not going to be of much consequence.

      • Israel’s survival through the years is purely because it has always had a strong Right .Of course the well-organised AIPEC support group in the US is also crucial.
        Assad has now only one ambition, and that is to survive. You could argue that this may well make him more dangerous but he knows it is sure suicide to attack Israel.
        If Obama attacks Syria the most likely outcome is
        Assad and the Allawites heading back to Lebanon.
        I would suggest that little Israel could inherit a more destructive northern neighbor in that event.

  6. This is a direct quote from a Daniel Greenfield article:
    “Iran knows that Obama isn’t trying to bomb Syria because he really believes that WMD use is a red line. Its leaders know that the proposed attacks, like the arms being supplied to the rebels, are part of Obama’s support for the Sunni opposition at the behest of the Sunni oil states who have a death grip on Washington.”

    We in the US need to understand how corrupt Washington DC is: It is all about money, money brings power, power brings money, and the Saudis and Qataris have loads of cash. It is not just Obama, who can forget the sight of GW Bush holding the Saudi king’s hand and giggling like a schoolgirl?
    MC is right to be concerned, and for those who think this is all a Jewish plot; what possible benefit can it be to Israel to have this kind of misery on it’s borders?

    • And why do Saudis and Qataris have oil and money? Because some people think it is ethical to take stuff from Lakota, Ojibwe and Tlingit, but unethical to take stuff from Khalijeen, Hejaziyeen and Najdiyeen. Really, there is no more reason to consider America to be the lawful property of Christianity than e.g. Saudi-Arabia. Putin understands this.

      Anyway, the most expedient way to solve things is to hammer in the fact that Sunnism is destroying itself in Egypt: Qatar and MB against KSA and Salafism. Only conversion to a new religion can save things. But part of this religion is that KSA and Qatar hand over their oil and money to me, not the current rulers of the Netherlands.

      • The report telling: “The report of the Syrian rebels receiving an undocumented batch of weaponry”
        I think the writer of this he knew well who behind the money and payment for this matter, its not secret that who pay of this billions and well-spoken to take down the Syrian regime down. Why those corrupted and terrorists breading regimes so passionate about bringing other regimes in the region down while there are on the top of the list should be taken first?
        From the news Gulf states, Arab League so the finance side of the war taken care of it.

        Why the pay because there are the breading ground of terrorists till today by supporting and war is one option for them those the breading Mullah Wahhabi sending those terrorists to other places for sick of themselves and to feed their corruption and benefits for their job which no other job just their dirty sick minds and brain washing of the youths.

      • Kudos to : oogenhand

        You stated my ideas in a clear, insightful way. Thank you. How many foreign ministers, parliamentarians, ministers, congressmen, PM, in the so-called western democracies are able to discern facts from fiction like that? Shouldn’t our politicians be clever like that otherwise they must be kicked in the ass to hell.

      • You asking Why?
        but before going on let tell you your government (wherever you live in western world) each liter of petrol you fill your car tank your country “government”taxed you 40-60cent on each liter of petrol.

        so your country mark money from their oil.

        On other side those stupid rulers to keep regimes an corruptions life the give back their oil (I should not say “their” should say their nation money) in buying weaponry to spread to terrorists in world….

        Bilateral trade between the UK and the GCC has increased in recent years, reaching $48 billion in 2012, with Bahrain’s banking assets in the UK alone estimated to reach $11bn in 2013. The ongoing economic power of the Arabian Gulf continues to present an economic opportunity for the UK to support its own growth.

        opportunities grow in the Gulf as Arab Spring seen as failure

  7. A Just War analysis of a proposed attack on Syria.

    There are eight specific criteria for judging the justice of a war, and the justice of actions within a war. Six of these deal with the justice of going to war (“waging a just war); the other two deal with the justice of actions within a war (“waging war justly”).

    The first criterion is “just cause.” There are three classic just causes: to repel an attack, to retake what was taken unjustly, and to come to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. Clearly the first two do not apply. We weren’t attacked, and we have nothing in Syria to take back. What about the third? Use of poison gas is an unjust attack, under international treaties going back to the 1920s. But who used that gas? Was it Assad? Was it the rebels? We need to know who committed the unjust attack before deciding it was a just cause for war.

    The second criterion is “comparative justice.” This doesn’t mean that one side must be perfect, or the other side completely evil. It means only that one side must be more just than the other, and the degree of comparative justice limits the amount of force that may be used. If we intervene, we place ourselves “in the shoes” of the side we support. Which side in the Syrian civil war is more just? Assad? Al Qaeda? And whichever it is, by how much? Which side should we support?

    The third criterion is “victory.” There are no guarantees in war, but there must be a reasonable chance of victory before engaging in war. Well, what is “victory” in this case? How will we define it? How will we know when it’s achieved? Until “victory” is defined satisfactorily, and we have a reasonable chance of obtaining it, we shouldn’t get involved. “Limited” strikes on “selected” objectives don’t define “victory.” We need to define what objective is to be achieved, not simply what targets are to be hit, and with what weapons.

    The fourth criterion is “right intention.” As St. Augustine put it, just wars are not engaged in for greed or cruelty, but to obtain a just peace, to restrain evil, and to assist the good. What are our intentions with regard to the Syrian civil war? Would deposing Assad constitute a “just peace,” or would it be simply revenge on the part of the rebels? Without defining our intentions, the justice of this proposed intervention cannot be determined.

    The fifth criterion is “last resort.” Every REASONABLE alternative must have been tried first, before resorting to war. Have the “less than war” alternatives have been exhausted? Have they even been tried? Jumping to war without trying less-lethal alternatives first would be unjust.

    The sixth criterion is “competent authority.” The person making the decision to go to war must have the authority to do so. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is the “competent authority” to declare war. The President does not have the authority to commit the country to a war. Even under the War Powers Act, the President must consult with Congress within sixty days after initiating hostile actions, and then only when the situation will not allow of a delay (i.e. repelling an attack). Just who is making this decision to go to war? And does that person or entity have the Constitutional authority to do so?

    The seventh criterion is “discrimination.” Within a war, legitimate attacks must be against enemy military targets only. Intentionally attacking noncombatants violates “discrimination.” Just who or what are we proposing to attack in Syria? Would those targets satisfy “discrimination?” Until that is answered, we shouldn’t be supporting an intervention.

    The eighth criterion is “proportion.” It applies in two ways.

    First, it applies to the decision to go to war. Will the harm done by NOT GOING to war exceed the harm done by GOING to war? An aggressive tyranny can do a great deal of harm. Even a very costly war (in both treasure and lives) may be better than allowing the tyranny to continue its operations. Would our intervening in Syria be “proportionate?” How would the damage we do compare with the damage that would occur if we didn’t intervene? This includes not only physical damage and deaths, but the moral damage from allowing tyranny to continue its operations.

    Second, proportion applies to actions within a war. Despite attempts to be discriminating in attacking military targets only, there is often some “collateral damage” to noncombatants. If the attack was genuinely discriminating, this collateral damage was unintended. The requirement of proportion means that the good accomplished by the attack on a legitimate target must not be outweighed by the collateral damage done to noncombatants or nonmilitary facilities. Just what targets are we proposing to attack? What good will be accomplished by striking them? How much collateral damage to noncombatants and nonmilitary facilities will occur? We need to resolve this before selecting targets and weapons.

    Finally, I keep hearing that a “limited” and “selective” strike is intended to “send a message” to Assad. I served in-theater during the Vietnam War. I recall how Defense Secretary McNamara and President Johnson tried to “send a message” to the North Vietnamese with “limited” attacks and “bombing pauses.” It didn’t work. It merely proved that we weren’t serious. If we want to send a message, use Western Union. If we’re going to blow things up and kill people, it ought to be for some better reason than “sending a message.”

    • I think you’re leaving out one justification which I first heard during the Clinton administration, as I recall. That it is done only for altruistic reasons.
      I believe that this was voiced by HRC herself, during preparations for the war in Bosnia.
      It was okay to go to war as long as it wasn’t done in order to promote our own interests.
      By this standard BHO’s rationale is the greatest reason for war in history.

  8. For years the $audi$ have’ owned’ DC. They have wined.dined, and pocket lined many of our ‘esteemed’ Senators, representatives, and appointed government officials, via the horde of lobbyists that infest the inner reached of the beltway. Sadly we have the ‘best’ government that $audi money can buy.

  9. A fine wake-up call, MC. I hope and pray that People of the West shake off their consumer and socially-induced grogginess and admit to themselves that substantial changes are needed. As Burke noted in his Reflections n the French Revolution, being unwilling to change in any manner will result in a total change that will be far worse. The American South and the Ancien Regime are two prime examples of this, and the United States of today is poised to be the next unless the People are willing to part with some of the comforts and life in which we grew up in order to restore that which was bequeathed to us. Removing the Syrian government may well make Egypt look like a success.

Comments are closed.