Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Syria’

False Flag in Syria? Srjda Trifkovic

The "black flag of jihad" as used by...

The “black flag of jihad” as used by various Islamic terrorist organizations (since the late 1990s) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As if the Afghan blowback of the 1980s had never happened, as if the Iraqi debacle were ancient history, the Obama administration is about to involve the United States in yet another multi-faceted Middle Eastern conflict without good or bad parties, a civil war irrelevant to the welfare or security of the U.S. regardless of its outcome. The result can only be a minus-sum-game for America. If Bashar survives, the American prestige will suffer; but if the rebels prevail, Syria will become safe for jihad. As Milton Bearden, a CIA veteran who oversaw the covert program to arm the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets told Foreign Policy last June, the Obama administration should realize that if you arm the rebels, you are no longer in control. The U.S.-supplied weapons will end up in jihadist hands—with groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is active in Syria as the Jabhat al-Nusra. This is the group the Obama administration placed on the State Department’s list of “terrorist” organizations late last year. It is now the likely recipient of U.S. largesse as the best organized rebel group in Syria. – See more at: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/08/27/syria-a-classic-false-flag-atrocity/#sthash.snxCmVK1.dpuf

Advertisements

Weapons of Mass Destruction…reprise

kerry wmdBack in 2002 or 2003, I’d just started seminary.  I had an uneasy feeling about attacking Iraq, but I kept my mouth shut because I had no place to put the feeling politically.  I figured it must just be leftism leftover from all that time trying to be a poet.
But now I really regret that I didn’t stay with that uneasiness.  Not that it would have changed anything.  But I wish I would have said, “No, Saddam is a bad guy, but it’s better for him to be there than to give weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda.”  How did the leaders of the country then not realize that taking Saddam out of power was more likely to result in al-Qaeda being funded and armed than leaving him there?
Then of course there was the minor inaccuracy that Saddam turned out not to have any chemical weapons.  Woops.
George W. Bush was idealistic.  He naively thought “American Democracy” could be transplanted to the Middle East, and that would solve the problem of al-Qaeda.
It’s too bad that he thought this way, since he is and was (by all reports) a Christian.  Essentially the strategy was to neutralize religion as a motivating force by introducing consumerism.  That is the Western model, right?  That’s how warring, passionate Christian sects have been tamed here.  So they thought it would work in the middle East too.
Anyway, it wasn’t quite that simple.
But Obama didn’t learn the lesson.  He still thinks that “American Freedom” is going to make life better in the middle east.  At least that’s what he says.
If anything he has ratcheted up Bush’s policies.  In the name of creating democracy in the Middle East he becomes the supporter of the folks we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to get rid of.  That was, remember, not Middle Eastern secularist dictators.  Assad and Hussein never had someone fly a jumbo jet into an American skyscraper.  It was Muslims.  Not all Muslims, but Muslims who believe that Islam obligates them to perpetrate terrorist attacks in the United States.
In the name of getting rid of the sources of such terrorism, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  He supported the revolution in Libya which killed Qadafi and then turned around and killed the American ambassador.  Now he’s supporting the “freedom fighters in Syria” who are jihadis.  Those who aren’t will be just like the pro-democracy protestors in Egypt who were quickly thrown to the side after Mubarak was gone.
Common denominator between Syria and Egypt?  Massacre of Christians by opponents of the regime.  Of course the Christians in Egypt and Syria supported the dictators!  They knew the dictators were going to give them something more like equal rights under the law than they would get under Islamic law, which makes all unconverted “people of the book” second-class citizens who are subject to discrimination, extra taxes, limitations on who they can marry…etc.
Obama really does seem like he’s more intelligent than George Bush.  That’s why I can’t believe that he doesn’t know that he’s just pursuing George Bush’s Middle East policy more vigorously than George Bush did.
Even down to the weapons of mass destruction excuse again.  Come on, Mr. President!  As easily manipulated as Americans are (see my confession above), it’s going to be difficult to convince Americans using the same excuse again even with the media feeding us Pravda twenty-four hours a day.  Can it possibly be that the White House really believes this same story about weapons of mass destruction after the same story was used to bring us into Iraq?  Even if it’s true, shouldn’t an intelligent person automatically assume that it’s not?
Most politicians become dumb from being advised by experts who keep telling them what all the experts believe and from constantly responding to what the broad majority of their constituents believe.  They are incapable of having an original thought.  If they weren’t that way before they went to Yale they became that way in public life.  John Kerry is a great example.  Rumsfeld and George Bush Sr.  seem like Republican versions.  They’re company men and know how to advance quietly, or they’re public personalities.  But they only are as useful as the experts’ opinions are correct.
Others are just yokels and rednecks.  They may be blue collar, union yokels, like Biden.  They may be southern liberal yokels.  Or they may be true gun-toting right-wing yokels.  W. Bush was one of these.
Then there are politicians and cabinet members who actually seem intelligent.  Cheney seemed that way, but his cunning didn’t extend as far as world diplomacy.  Obama always seemed like an intelligent politician, but he has a different type of intelligence than a guy like Cheney.  Unfortunately, it’s a college boy sort of intelligence that is driven by ideal and ideology and not the way things work.  I think JFK was this way too.  Ego gets in there too and that clouds your judgment.
Maybe I’m wrong about the President, but that would only mean one of two things: he does see what’s going on clearly and he wants to aid and support al-Qaeda.  Or else he thinks that it is morally necessary or in America’s long-term interest to topple Mideast dictators and support popular sovereignty even when that means people vote in Islamic theocracies who are sympathetic toward jihad and terrorism.  The first is hard to believe.  The second, which seems more likely, is despite good intentions a complete misunderstanding of human nature.  It’s better to have a bloody tyrant run countries in the middle east than a cabal of religious zealots whose ultra ultra conservatism and willingness to die terrifies the rest of the populace into submission or silence.
It’s better to have an unprincipled tyrant running the country than a principled, committed, true believer who is wrong.  The Tsarnaevs were committed enough to kill and to die exchanging gunfire with cops when every law enforcement officer for miles around was actively searching for them.  The men in Iraq who made videos of themselves sawing off the heads of American contractors were principled, dedicated, and committed.  They truly believed their god was pleased and honored when they cut off people’s heads.
No, it’s better to have bloody corrupt dictators.  It’s more moral for us to not help principled jihadists overthrow corrupt tyrants.  Why?  Because the more principled and devoted you are to a mistaken cause, the more evil you will do.
That same principle applies to our leaders.  Better a corrupt, lying politician who rules prudently than a well-meaning, idealistic fanatic.
Here’s a liberal writer in the Washington post sheepishly admitting that Obama may have less evidence for his weapons of mass destruction pretext than Bush did.

The case for Syria may be worse than Iraq

By Alex Seitz-Wald, Published: August 30 at 10:07 am

A Code Pink demonstrator in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

A Code Pink demonstrator in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

With Code Pink protesting outside the White House as the administration grows impatient with United Nations inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, it’s beginning to feel a bit like 2003 in Washington.

The Iraq War is casting a long shadow over a potential  Syria conflict, as even President Obama had to acknowledge. “[We’re] not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about,” Obama told PBS NewsHour Wednesday night.

But for all the fears of repeating Bush’s mistakes, Obama is taking the country to war in Syria from an arguably weaker position than Bush did with Iraq 10 years ago.

On public opinion alone, they are worlds apart (and this is a democracy, after all, so such things should matter). “Do you think that the United States should or should not take military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?” a Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll asked two days before the bombing began in 2003. A clear majority, 65 percent, said yes, while just 30 percent said no.

Compare that to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning that found that 50 percent of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria, compared with 42 percent who support it. When asked if the U.S. should prioritize removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power, just 16 percent of respondents said yes. Now even Republicans are turning against a potential attack, Nate Cohn noted.

Syria is a historical anomaly here as Americans have generally supported military intervention in recent years, from the humanitarian missions of the 1990s to the Bush wars of the 2000s, to the Libya campaign in 2011.

And while Bush’s “coalition of the willing” was a joke, at least he had the United Kingdom. Obama lost London yesterday when Parliament voted to oppose the war effort. “Gosh, it’s as if they’ve had some unpleasant experience working with the United States on an armed adventure in that part of the world,” Jonathan quipped. It was a major defeat, but the Obama administration is nonetheless preparing to go it alone, the New York Times reported:

Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.

“How very Bush-like. Or Bush-lite, I suppose,” Kevin Drum wrote.

Meanwhile, in Congress — and 79 percent of Americans told the NBC pollsters that Obama needs to get congressional approval to attack Syria — there’s mounting opposition to attacking Syria. Yesterday, 53 liberal Democrats sent a letter to President Obama saying that while the regime’s crimes are “horrific,” that alone “should not draw us into an unwise war.” That comes on top of the 140 members of Congress who signed on to a Republican letter cautioning against intervention.

It’s still entirely possible that a resolution to authorize force in Syria would get somewhere in the neighborhood of the 297 votes the Iraq resolution got in late 2002, but there’s hardly the same drumbeat for war coming from members of Congress that we saw back then.

And while the legal foundation for the Iraq war was shaky, at best, the justification for Syria is also pretty dubious. Jon Chait, who notes that he’s “predisposed to favor a punitive air strike against Syria,” explained:

The clearest justifications for military action don’t apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didn’t sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

The sad irony here, Evan McMorris-Santoro and Ben Smith wrote at BuzzFeed today, is that many of the problems facing Obama’s war effort have their root in the failure in Iraq. “We’re now paying for the mistakes of George Bush and it hampers the United States’ ability to do something,” Howard Dean told BuzzFeed.

Fortunately, there seems to be little appetite in the White House for anything near the scale of Iraq  – “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” as an unnamed administration official said — so the actual consequences will never be as bad.

But while it’s infuriating that someone like Donald Rumsfeld is criticizing the White House for failing to justify a potential attack on Syria — it puts him in ”the Chutzpah Hall of Fame,” as Steve Benen wrote — it’s even more infuriating that Rumsfeld may be right.

Christians in Syria

June 19, 2013 1 comment

As our government sends money to fund the revolution in Syria, remember the plight of Syrian Christians.

TheVoiceOfSyria

c35f60f3-77d6-4049-b022-ca9759663a61

Syrian Christians make up 10% of Syria’s population. Since Syria is a secular state, Christians, as a minority were able to live their lives freely without being ridiculed by the overwhelming Muslim population. Christians were able to go to Church, wear whatever they like and live their lives according to their standards and not by the governments. In fact, Christians and Muslims got along perfectly well in Syria before the fake revolution occurred. Unfortunately the world is unaware that these so called “freedom fighters” are the ones committing a massive genocide in Syria.

Aleppo, which has the largest Armenian population, has been hit hard with countless terrorist attacks. Churches have been destroyed, Christians kidnapped, beheaded, raped and tortured. Damascus has a reasonable about of Christians, but Homs is home to the second largest Christian population in Syria, and unfortunately Homs is the first city where the fake revolution occurred. In…

View original post 691 more words

US Funding to Feed the Dogs in Syria

June 17, 2013 1 comment

slain priestPresident Bush’s theory was that if we made the Middle East safe for democracy, Arabs would get a taste of iphones and unmarried sex and the other glories of Western Civilization and would no longer be attracted to guys who fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

The idea had the merit of being idealistic and invoking America’s better angels.  In response to the tragedy of September 11th, we were going to export freedom; help oppressed people in the Middle East exercise their inalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.

Unfortunately the idea ran aground on the usual reef that ideas inspired by Christian charity often do in the political realm.  Government and diplomacy have the task of restraining evil, not creating utopia or anything approaching it.  The Church preaches grace to evil men, but it does so knowing that crucifixion will follow.  Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world.

But the U.S. government is of this world.  If it wants to protect the innocent and provide safety for its citizens, it has to have clear eyes.  It has to understand that sometimes an evil, secularist tyrant does a better job of keeping order and restraining murder of the weak than a popular government that reflects the will of the majority.

Exporting democracy, as President Bush wanted to do, really isn’t consistent with the genius of the American revolution.  It has more in common with the fanaticism of the French and Russian revolutions and the bleary-eyed idealism of Woodrow Wilson, who dragged us into a war we didn’t need to be in in the name of democracy.  And the foolish idealism that brought us into that conflict ultimately was responsible for the truly monstrous evil that was able to assume control of a shattered and humiliated Germany in the 1930’s.

When Barack Obama ran for president the first time, I was under the impression that he wanted to put an end to the naïve idealism that led us into two wars in the Middle East, which were not perceived as wars of liberation but instead crusades and attempts at colonization.  But now Obama seems to be not backing away from Bush’s vision, but instead advancing it, just as he has furthered the Bush policy of spying on American citizens.

He’s been inching toward intervention in Syria for months, and now has decided to put his weight behind toppling al-Assad.

Of course, Assad is a bad guy, just like Saddam was.  But when Saddam was in power, a large Christian minority could live in Iraq without their blood being spattered on the walls of their churches by suicide bombers on a near daily basis.  At this point nearly all the Christians in Iraq, who have lived there for approaching 2000 years, have fled.

The same thing, of course, has been happening in Syria.  Two orthodox bishops were kidnapped in the past few months.  The story below of a Syrian Christian being fed to dogs was published in December.  Just as in Egypt, al-Qaeda-esque jihadis have quickly taken over the rebellion which we were told would lead to something like western democracy.

Now we’re sending them guns.  When they don’t want us there, we’re imperialists.  That’s why the soldier was hacked to pieces with meat cleavers in London.  When they can’t win without us, we’re heartless and have no concern for human rights.  Even after the decision was made to send weapons to the rebels I read headlines saying the rebels complain that it isn’t enough–we need to send them missiles, apparently.  Maybe nerve gas?

And the US government assures us that it can make sure that none of the weapons I paid forget into the hands of the same slavering would-be martyrs who killed thousands in New York and got us involved in these wars in the first place.  None of the weapons I paid for will get into the hands of the “freedom fighters” who feed Syrian Christians to the dogs.

Sure, Uncle Sam.  I’m sure you’ll be able to do that.  You couldn’t stop the Boston bombing, even with advance notice about the perpetrators, because you were trying to convince us (and yourself?) that the real terrorist threat was from the Tea Party types and Focus on the Family.  Because Uncle Sam doesn’t know what every drooling idiot in America can tell you (unless they went to college).  If there’s a terror attack, a Muslim probably did it.

Now you put guns in their hands so that they can slaughter Christians in Syria and force them out of the country in the name of making the Middle East safe for democracy.

Syria rebels ‘beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs’ as fears grow  over Islamist atrocities

By  Nick Fagge

PUBLISHED: 19:41 EST, 30  December 2012 |  UPDATED: 04:50 EST, 31 December 2012

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and  fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring  atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38,  was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the  ruling regime behaved like bandits.

She said his headless corpse was found by the  side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was  soon to be a father.

 Sister Agnes-Mariam de la Croix said: ‘His  only crime was his brother criticised the rebels, accused them of acting like  bandits, which is what they are.’

Read more…

%d bloggers like this: