Connecting the dots…

A friend recently asked me whether my opinions regarding US bomb strikes in Syria have (or would) change in light of speculation that Assad was responsible for the sarin gas attacks that occurred in Damascus on August 21. My opinions on Syria have in no way changed, as I continue to follow it closely and keep up with the latest news/info every day. There’s so much to say on this issue that one struggles to know where even to begin. If I just open the floodgates and start spilling my guts about everything I believe, I’ll no doubt sound like a crackpot, jumping to all number of irrational conclusions.

Okay, for one: I still adamantly oppose the U.S. getting involved, regardless of who used the chemical weapons. The reason for this is that the rebel forces are now dominated by radical extremists. If Assad is overthrown, these are who will assume his spot…al-Qaeda linked Islamists. The western-friendly secular & democratic factions have no hope of taking power. For example: we funded (provided arms to) the rebels in Libya, as they fought to overthrow their dictator Gaddafi in 2011. The Muslim brotherhood has now taken power in Libya. And Iraq is also now dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, where we overthrew the dictator Saddam Husseinn, and now we’re left with something worse. In Egypt, after they managed to overthrow their authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak in 2011, we backed and supported their new Muslim brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Morsi was a pretty textbook example of what you get from the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of a political leader: it’s a non-tolerant Islamist state that is a total human rights disaster (for women, for gays, for non-Muslims). Morsi proceeded to pass new constitutional amendments that granted him unlimited power and made it impossible for any court to overturn any of his decrees–he had total control over all executive, legislative, and judicial powers, which he used to imprison his enemies and pardon Muslim terrorists in prison, and no person or governmental body had authority to challenge or revoke his decisions. He became an even more authoritative dictator than the one he replaced, Hosni Mubarak, who–just like Assad–was a cruel ruler in his own right but at least he maintained a secular state and allowed people of different religions to practice their faith freely by keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in check. Egypt has one of the largest secular populations in the middle east, and they were furious over Morsi’s power grab and religious fundamentalism. One year after Morsi assumed power, anti-Morsi protestors (mainly liberals, leftists, secularists, and Christians) took to the streets in what was likely the largest public protest in history. Literally millions of Egyptians took to the street demanding Morsi’s resignation, for several days, refusing to leave.

Protests against Muslim brotherhood in Egypt

Protests against Muslim brotherhood in Egypt

What were we, the U.S., doing during this time? Backing and supporting Morsi! AGAIN and again, we are backing the Muslim Brotherhood–it’s insane! The protesters in the street had signs that literally said: “America, WAKE UP. Obama is backing a fascist regime in Egypt.” I’m not kidding:

US gov't unabashedly supporting Morsi's fascist Muslim brotherhood regime

US gov’t unabashedly supporting Morsi’s fascist Muslim brotherhood regime

Our goal seems to be to destabilize the entire region, and replace dictators (who are power-driven and thus can be controlled through money/bribes) with the Muslim brotherhood (which is ideologically-driven and cannot be controlled–and they’re every bit as cruel).

We know the Syrian rebel forces are predominantly radical jihadis, because they’re largely from other countries who have traveled to Syria and seizing it as an attempt to establish an Islamic state and advance their God-given call to bring about a global caliphate (whole world under Muslim rule, i.e. sharia law–by any means necessary, including manipulation and deception, as is set forth in their doctrine of “taqiyya”). So this is no longer a true “civil war”, because it is not a conflict between warring factions of the same state. The rebel opposition has fighters from several different middle eastern countries, and these fighters aren’t travelling to Syria and fighting/dying to help them establish a free democratic state. No, they’re there to further the power and control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Russia and China both understand this, and unlike us, they basically share borders with the middle east–and they’re uneasy with having to deal with the rising power of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of many reasons they back Assad.

(It’s also another reason why this is not a true civil war–it’s really already a proxy war being fought out by various world powers, e.g. Russia, China, the U.S., Iran, etc….we (the US) are arming and funding the opposition in forces in Syria already–we’ve already gotten involved, we’ve already taken a side, even without missile strikes or direct U.S. military involvement. Similarly, Russia and Iran have long been arming/backing Assad’s regime (China’s being more tight-lipped but they openly side with Russia on this). Hezbollah is a Shiite militant group (strongest military force in Lebanon) that’s closely allied with Assad and providing huge support. Back on the opposition side, apart from us backing them, and factions from various middle eastern countries whose interests align with the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also big backers of the rebel forces. So you’ve got all these players involved, from all over, this thing is already a psuedo-world war because all these world powers are fighting indirectly through their proxies in the region. So when people say “we shouldn’t get involved in another country’s civil war,” it’s too late for that. The reason we shouldn’t get involved is because of how quickly it could escalate given all the interests involved. This raises the question of, what exactly ARE our interests in the region? Why are we backing the rebel forces? I’m getting there, and though there may be multiple answers to this question, I can tell you with full confidence that it has nothing to do righteous indignation over the inhumane use of chemical weapons. That’s just a smokescreen. We gave zero fucks about the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-90s, which was far more heinous than this Sarin gas episode; difference is we had no personal interests to pursue in Rwanda)

We also know the rebel forces are dominated by Western-hating radicals because they are torturing and killing Christians, burning and vandalizing churches, more and more…brutalizing men, women, and children…and western Media (not to mention Obama and most US politicians) are silent on the issue. I’m serious, this is a big problem going on that in the US is unreported.

Now why are we seeming to back the Muslim brotherhood at every turn, knowing that time and again this has proven to only lead to further destabilization and conflict in the region?

Advertisements

Unintimidating, Incompetent, and Frankly Embarrassing

We’ve already broadcasted to Assad (and the rest of the world) the sort of targets we aim to strike…giving them days/weeks to move assets, prepare, and generally do everything in their power to mitigate the effectiveness of any missile strikes we might be sending their way. They know precisely what’s coming, the full who, what, when, where, and how of this U.S. foreign policy misadventure. We’ve made it perfectly clear to them: no boots on the ground, no regime change, just some Tomahawk missiles aimed at “strategic” locations. How soon you forget, dear Middle Eastern friends, we Americans know a thing or two about “strategery”.

You see, citizens of the world, we’re so magical and awesome that we can remove Assad’s access to chemical weapons that he probably never used in the first place, and we can do this with bombs, WITHOUT risking exposing the toxic nerve agents to any innocent human beings who happen to be in the area, and we can do this despite forecasting these intentions well in advance–we do not fear that the weapons/assets we aim to destroy will be moved to secure locations while we’re busy trying to get the vast majority of US citizens that oppose this to realize how silly they’re being and acknowledge the flawless logic of our plan.

We realize you simple folk may struggle to grasp the wisdom behind our well-calculated strategies, and that’s fine, we forgive you for that. You’re not superheroes, after all, you’re only human. Thinking’s hard, it’s not for everybody. How fortunate you are to live in times such as these, where leaders have such impeccable judgment that you can blindly trust.

Guess what Barry? Guess what John? You sacrificed that credibility & assumption of trust long ago. Though it’s slightly amusing to watch your floundering attempts to portray yourself as formidable authorities of a world superpower, to be respected and feared…..lol I’m sorry, and not to pile on, but I’ve got to ask, and I’m serious: who is not thoroughly amazed at what an unbelievable fucking pussy Obama is? He’s just not a leader, it’s not in his make-up. He’s in over his head, has been from day one. THIS is true incompetence people, these guys can’t even warmonger efficiently! Don’t misinterpret me, I’m as opposed to Syrian intervention as anybody, but when the president and secretary of state are being upstaged and outreasoned on the int’l diplomatic stage by the likes of VLADOMIR PUTIN and BASHAR ASSAD, I mean sweet Jesus…how the mighty have fallen.

Today, Kerry seriously referred to the scope of the attacks he has in mind as being “unbelievably small.” UNBELIEVABLY small! As in, you won’t even ‘believe’ how small they are! As in–why are we even doing this in the first place?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/09/kerry-military-action-in-syria-would-be-unbelievably-small/

Administration’s Case For War Simply Not Compelling

This administration is pushing hard to win over US public opinion re: engaging Syria. It’s beginning to look like a foregone conclusion at this point, however this whole thing reeks of bullshit; you know when they bring the full-court press like this, trying to shape the narrative that “we know” what happened & therefore it’s our moral duty to thrust ourselves into this mess…it’s time to be suspicious. 

Also, this shouldn’t turn on whether Assad or the opposition is responsible for the Sarin gas–Syria’s been a bloodbath for two and a half years now, death toll over 100k….yet at no point during that time when Assad was slaughtering tens of thousands of his own people, did Obama or Kerry feel a “moral imperative” to get involved. This forced the pro-democracy opposition groups to ally themselves with Islamist terrorist groups (who are seizing the opportunity to overthrow Assad only to establish sharia law). 

Where was your compassion then, back when your willingness to enter the conflict might’ve led to something other than further chaotic destabilization of a region that we’ve already fucked up enough? Back when joining the fight wouldn’t entail supporting the same terrorists we’ve been battling for the past decade?? This regime is supported by Russia, China, and Iran, all of whom have warned us to mind our own business. Why aggravate that trifecta over an arbitrary “red line” you stupidly committed yourself to? WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PLAN?