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?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s