The bloody struggle continues for democracy, peace, liberty, and….oh, sorry, this is Syria:
Foreign Islamists intent on turning Syria into an autocratic theocracy have swollen the ranks of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad and think they are waging a “holy war”, a French surgeon who treated fighters in Aleppo has said.
Dr. Jacques Beres said that half the rebels he treated were non-Syrian.
“It’s really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren’t interested in Bashar al-Assad’s fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterwards and set up an Islamic state with sharia law to become part of the world Emirate.”
More Arab spring for you. No good will come of this one as well.
Just why have we declared Assad to be undesirable? Seems to me he keeps a lid on things over there.
Conspiracy ….
I say leave them all to their own devices … for now. And, prepare for the worst while the animals carve each other up.
…isn’t this the part where the asteroid show up..?..
Foriegn Islamists? Maybe the good doctor was actually in Paris? Or was he listening to an ex page?
OMMAG, “And, prepare for the worst while the animals carve each other up.” Exactly, and hopefully they do a good job of it.
The bloody struggle for democracy seems to be working really well in Egypt.
The pieces of the puzzle of the Muslim dream of a caliphate, or as Dr. Bares says “the world Emirate”, are slowly being put together.
In the mind of the true believer,there is only nation,and that is islam.
Borders and governments are impediments to the cause and will be dealt with as allah has decreed.
We all seem to have the logical solution. Let them kill each other off to their hearts content and maybe we can talk to the winners when its over. Although I doubt it, and quite frankly , don’t give a damn.
Holy crap. Putin is starting to look better than Harper at foreign policy. Mind you, it was nice of us to hand Libya to the Islamists. Assad is an a$$hole but the alternative is a religious a$$hole. My vote is with Assad and I never thought I would ever say that. Let’s put some pragmatism in our Middle East policy.
Scar, I was going to add that, but did not have the courage. The new caliphate is a much bigger danger to us than a tin pot dictator ever will be.
But we were told that islam is the religion of peace.
mike
Mind you, it was nice of us to hand Libya to the Islamists.
WTF are you talking about? The Islamists lost the elections. Sorry to burst your ‘caliphate’ fantasy.
Putin is an idiot. Millions of Syrians hate him and his country because Putin has delusions of post-cold war grandeur and wanted to preserve an arms buyer and port that he could have had anyway.
Syria is great. All of our enemies killing each other. When the dust settles, the jihadists probably won’t even the numbers to affect anything. They are still only a small component of the FSA forces. Also, Syria’s liberation will help lead to the creation of Kurdistan, which will basically be Israel #2.
So tell me LAS,whats the down side of turning Kurdistan into Isreal 2 ?
None. It’s all to our benefit.
LAS “The Islamists lost the elections.”
Missed that. They won in Tunisia and Egypt but we didn’t overthrow those governments.
There will never be a free Kurdistan. The Turks won’t allow it.
The Tunisian Islamists are as mild as they come and certainly an improvement over what came before. Egypt is a derpfest and well there’s not much to be done there except stop giving them money.
I don’t think Turkey can stop Kurdistan. K-stan already exists de facto in North Iraq and now NE Syria.
The Kurds will prevail in Turkey, Syria and Iran…simple eh?
And I thought the proxies of Anglo-American imperialism were freedom fighters.
What will the mid-east look like by the end of 2013?
After the islamics were dragged into Iraq to fight US infidels and systematically slaughtered in 2004-2008, they laid low for a while. Now the survivors and a new group of islamics are fighting in Syria. Will Assad thin them out for civilization?
Or will the rest of the mideast swirl down the same toilet. I saw a report that bombings killed 100 people in Iraq last week. Sounds like 2005 all over again.
Mr. Cairo — er, sorry, Mr. Obama — seems pretty proficient at blaming “the failed policies of the Bush Administration”, or whatever he calls them precisely, for America’s troubles.
Which, in the case of the Middle East, is a pretty convenient line for him, considering that his mindless refusal to follow through on the Bush Doctrine is the source of the failure of that particular policy.
Channeling Clint Eastwood on US unemployment, Syria is also a national disgrace.
No, no. Say it isn’t so. I mean, what happened to “the forces of light and freedom”?
Islamists are forces of light and freedom to the totalitarian Left, Jamie.
Syria, is one of those strange wars, where normal people hope both sides lose.
And that, dear friends, is why the Chimp in chief is siding with the “rebels”, even though the one they want to depose is in Iran’s pocket…
I’d agree with David Southam and support the Bush Doctrine, outlined in his second inaugural speech.
The Bush Doctrine is about freedom. Period.
To achieve this, first, ‘make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them, and hold both to account’ (something Obama is not doing)…and second, fight the enemy overseas before they can attack at home (something Obama is not doing). Third, confront threats before they materialize and fourth, advance liberty..democracy..as an alternative to the enemy’s ideology of repressions and fear (again, something rejected by Obama).
And as Bush noted, ‘freedom is not an American value; it is a universal value’.
Since Obama has rejected the Bush Doctrine of freedom in its entirety; remember his open refusal to acknowledge the freedom fighters in Iran); has enabled Iran to become more repressive and intrusive in the entire ME region; has enabled it to move into Syria; has enabled it to develop nuclear arms; has supported Egypt’s dance with the Islamists; has enabled Russia to move into the gap in power in the ME…what is the result?
The result is a much more traumatic phase in the inevitable movement to freedom, and yes, I say it’s inevitable. Because of the size of the population, you must have a free and market economy rather than a state-own distributive economy. But getting there is going to be, now, traumatic, because what we are now seeing develop is a Seminar Room Ideological Phase. Of Utopia.
The notion of utopia actually coming down from the clouds-of-words to the real world is always with us. Usually it stays in the seminar or prayer rooms. But releasing the repressive restraints of a dictatorship and not moving the focus towards democracy but stopping..allows utopian dictators to move into the power gap. That’s what’s happening now in the ME.
It’s taking place in the US as well, on a less volatile scale, but it’s the same fight between utopian fiction and hard factual reality. Obama is nothing but Words that belong in the seminar and prayer room but he’s moved them into the mainstream. Will Americans have the strength to reject this utopian fantasy?
Supply more ammunition, organize a campaign to incite the wogs even further.
As long as these savages are just killing each other, the rest of the world, the civilized part, has a much greater chance of living in peace.
LAS “I don’t think Turkey can stop Kurdistan.”
syncrodox “The Kurds will prevail in Turkey, Syria and Iran…simple eh?”
Not in a million friggin years. Remember Armenia? It used to be a lot bigger. Remember the Assyrians and the Pontic Greeks? You don’t? Where did they go? Turkey has a very large and very well trained and equipped army. They are chomping at the bit to thin out the Aryan Kurds. Add the fact that the Arabs and Iranians won’t tolerate an independent Kurdistan and the Kurds are pretty much buggered.
Seeing this is sept 11, anyone seen those missing Libyan stinger missiles?
If you watch the political dynamics between Germany and France in the last century, think of Vichy and also the French communists as part of the resistance to hopefully gain power and ultimately make France communist, then you will see these upheavals in the ME as typical.
These ME sub-groups moving in like vultures are typical behaviour in the shakeup of unsustainable 2-class forms of government in large populations. You need a middle class to make large populations sustainable. The middle class is where the entrepreneurs are and that’s what makes the economy grow. Without growth the population will implode and find equilibrium, i.e. an economic level that is sustainable.
Fascism and communism, and Islamism are all unsustainable large populations; they are all 2-class utopian.
I’m blaming this phase of an attempt to set up utopian Islamist fundamentalism regimes in the ME on Obama and his total rejection of the Bush Doctrine.
First, the ME was a tribal structure (two class with no middle class) and operated within a small local agricultural economy. Then came oil. The ME lacked the technological knowledge to extract, process, market the oil. The West had that ability and moved in. This set up a basic one-industry statist economy with oil revenues enriching a powerful upper class and being redistributed to sustain the population..who moved from the rural to the urban centers and out of local agriculturalism.
Then, the military dictators moved in to switch the hereditary rulers to themselves, defining themselves as ‘the people’ and nationalize the oil/Suez resources. Same distributive economy. The population increased beyond the capacity of this single resource economy to sustain it.
BUT, the West provided billions in aid to sustain the stability of these dictators. The dictators repressed their own people by military and theological measures. But the statist economy was failing to provide for the increased population.
A fundamentalist utopian ideology emerged (Al Qaeda) against the West, against the secular dictators – Islamic fascism.
Al Qaeda moved in to destabilize the dictators and stop the West from supporting them.
The Bush Doctrine was to topple the dictators and enable a free market economy and pollitical system (democracy) to emerge in the area. The Iraq War was meant to act as a domino. This spread in the region.
Obama’s total rejection of the Bush Doctrine and his support instead for the dictators has instead stopped the Freedom agenda (for a while, I’ll point out; it’s inevitable)…and inserted instead what will be a vicious interim civil war phase.
What Obama has enabled is for the emergence of utopian fundamentalism, Islamic fascism, in the region. Obama’s support for the dictators, his refusal to support the freedom fighters in Egypt, Iran, Syria, Libya, has meant that the fundamentalists have moved into the gap and are trying to take charge.
Then, Obama has also strengthened Iran by enabling it to become nuclear and to spread its imperialist agenda into the region. Iran is in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq. Iran is not interested in Islamist fundamentalism except as a tactic to repress the people. It has an imperialist agenda in the ME. Obama has strengthened and enabled Iran to move in to these areas.
And, Russia has moved in as well – and this is due to Obama’s blind ignorance and stupidity. Remember how he told the Russian PM he’d be more able to help them in his second term..
So what we will now see will be a violent phase of civil war between the people who want freedom and the fundamentalist Isalmists who are supported by Iran and Russia.
That’s Obama’s legacy.
ET @ 9.34am >
Well said!
I agree completely. One subtle addendum I would include is that the Utopian ideals are different at differing levels of the liberal soup. One level is the sales pitch eaten by the moon eyed liberal public, another for the officiating servants who receive at least some small reward for their part.
At the end of the day it’s the global elites who live without borders that truly profit and pull the strings of those down through the ranks of the global utopian cult. The United Nations and the likes of Obamba may or may not be true believers but at the core they are puppets and administrators, for whatever dividends their investment part pays.
In a nutshell, there is no humanitarian mission at the hub of this Utopian fantasy. It is a power and resource grab for those that will never have enough, only packaged in a new age snake oil.
Knight 99 – exactly. There’s no humanitarian agenda in what is going on. It’s all about power.
The Islamist fundamentalists want power over the people, to insert their utopian ideology of IF ONLY you all live within Sharia, THEN, all will be well. The example we have is the regime of the Taliban. But, note that it was only sustainable by vicious force, by external money (Bin Laden), and could not last on its own.
Iran is cynically using the fundamentalists as the front line fighters. Their agenda is also power, but it’s imperialist economic and secular power over the entire ME. They want not only Syria, Lebanon, but also Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They use Islamism as an ideological tactic to repress the people.
Then, there’s Russia, also cynically moving in; they want first control over the oil and resources, and even, the power to control yet again, Eastern Europe.
Obama? The man’s stupid, ignorant, arrogant, I don’t have the words to describe him. Basically he cannot allow other people to ‘have power’. So he’s against freedom. But what he’s done is so monstrous that…it’s beyond words.
Oh, and notice, not once have I mentioned Israel. That’s because none of this is about Israel or Palestine. The dictators in the ME have used the Palestinians as a red herring to divert their own people from rising up against the internal problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt…and also, want to repress the image of Israel as a democracy and market economy. Obama doesn’t understand this either.
This is Obama’s legacy, a total disaster in the ME, a strengthening of an imperial Iran and Russia. And a decade of civil war in the ME.
ET @ 10:4am >
Can’t agree with everything on this one, I believe you give Bush too much credit for working towards American public interests and global freedom & democracy.
Bush & Obamba may have personal ideological interests but at the end of the day, they work for the same people with the same global interests. That is why there is a revolving door of top White House cabinet positions from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to the administrations of either Bush or Obama.
This is carried through on the international scale. Libya was Europe’s war for trade and resources, Obama fell in line *without Congressional approval answering to the mandates of the UN.
Today Europe has essentially become a Technocracy, a prime example is Mario Monti in Italy *a key player in Libyan interests, The European Union, the IMF and the UN.
These are the interests that American and Canadian taxpayer’s fund and who their soldiers die for. It has nothing whatsoever to do with liberating little brown Arab people from dictators, never has & never will.
Knight 99, it shouldn’t be about ‘freeing brown’ or white or yellow any colour from dictators’.
That’s not the role of a foreign military service. That’s the role, heh, of the UN..pardon my even saying that…
It should be about securing the physical, economic and political safety of the people of a nation, eg, the US, by disabling the root causes of attacks and war on them, by enabling a free political and economic system to emerge in other areas.
Excellent brief history lesson ET but on-balance I must sadly agree with Knight 99’s darker assessment at 11:20.
I’ve come to feel that “freedom” is neither a American nor Universal value. “Security” is though. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who’s for “freedom to” while I know lots who are in favour of “freedom from” ________.
I’m also with Scar and Ken (Kulak) who swallows hard and admits that the tin-pot dictators are the lesser dangers.
I’ve come to view Assad and Hussein in the same light. They were forces of stability; yes, cruel murderous stability, but there it is, and it’s none of our damn business. That is the way of the Middle East forever and ever notwithstanding ET’s sunny optimism about the inevitablity of the rise of markets and a middle class.
Don’t we find it amusing how the West romanticizes the word “REBEL”. Just name them “Rebels” and they most be supported spiritually and materially. It’s a dark comedy.
Obama should have supported the Iranian “rebels”.
Iraq was indeed about oil…the UN oil for food was going to oil for Saddam’s palaces and for money to terrorists to blow up Israeli pizza parlours with women and kids in them. Saddam had to go, the oil had to flow to keep prices down but not prop up dictatorships. Ditto Iran, keep the oil flowing but help the people take down their own Theocracy.
So what you have now is Harper taking the lead, pulling out of Iran, not leading from behind. Canada is sending a signal that we support freedom (and specifically Israel). That’s leadership and it is a continuation of the Bush Doctrine and American blogs notice the difference between Harper and Obama on this.
There was nothing ‘stabilizing’ about Assad or Hussein. They were funders of terror, the former helping both Hizbollah and radical Sunni groups.
considering that his mindless refusal to follow through on the Bush Doctrine is the source of the failure of that particular policy.
No the Bush doctrine failed because it was based on the stupid idea that it’s America’s job to altruistically bring democracy to the ME masses and that democracy meant freedom and peace. It led to nearly endless war that the American people soundly rejected in the 2006 Congressional elections.
Scar: you’re right about Turkey’s army but they have a lot of enemies. The Kurds have worked the “I am the enemy of your enemy” angle for a long time to get weapons from states. Armenia tragically had no such advantage.
ET >
“It should be about securing the physical, economic and political safety of the people of a nation,……….. by enabling a free political and economic system to emerge in other areas.”
It should, but it’s not.
This is why we need to rise above the propaganda and say NO to all interventions in the foreign affairs of other countries. It’s none of our business, and does not serve our interests, regardless of what angle is sold to us by whatever administration sits in the WH or unelected bureaucrat sitting in the UN.
The US does indeed need to clean up its own house first, and we need to detach ourselves from the grimy paws of the global elitists running the UN, the IMF, the EU, et al.
understanding the middle east . . .
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-islam-s-ancient-sectarian-divide-fuels-conflict-in-the-middle-east-a-854106.html
First, I reject that the West should support ‘tin-pot dictators’ because they enable stability. No they don’t; they just kick the can down the road. The implosion is inevitable. Because the income of these tin pots doesn’t support the population. It’s simple.
The facts, the reality of the situation, whether under a dictator or a king, is that the populations of the ME have risen far, far beyond the carrying capacity of a one-industry town, er, nation.
The state-owned resources of oil and the Nile tolls were simply not enough to maintain the population via redistribution. Compare the FACTS in the US, where the state-owned taxes are not enough to sustain the growing demand for entitlements as the population both ages and also, as more people (illegals, unemployed) demand entitlements.
The ME has to enable a private sector small business economy, but this requires a middle class.
This has nothing to do with ‘sunny optimism’. In a SMALL population, a two-class organization is better, ie, without a middle class. It all has to do with population size and how that population can create wealth, ie, food etc, to sustain itself. If local agriculture can sustain everyone, then, you don’t need a market middle class economy.
Dictators and a two-class economy are not ‘forever’. They function only within a certain population size and phase. And it has nothing to do with ‘being in the ME’. There were dictators in Europe in all eras, whether it was that of the various kings and emperors or otherwise.
Freedom is, in my view, a natural or universal value. It’s freedom to speak my opinions, to associate with whom I want, to believe in what I want, to work and innovate. Security is also a natural or universal right, for that is the right to live within those freedoms (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
LAS, I totally disagree with you. The Bush Doctrine wasn’t about altruism but about protecting the freedoms and security of the American people. Democracy does indeed mean freedom for the people to govern themselves and it means peace between democratic states, but certainly, it doesn’t mean that those states don’t disagree with each other over trade, etc.
Enabling the ME peoples to govern themselves rather than be ruled by dictators and dogma, meant that they could develop a middle class economy. As I’ve said numerous times, the statist one-resource economies are insufficient to support the ME populations. The people are impoverished; the system has to change to allow for a different mode of wealth production other than ‘entitlement funding’ from oil revenues.
Think of the US; it can’t support its entitlement population via its taxes. Or borrowing. Same thing. The focus has to be on increasing the power of a middle class private sector economy, something that Obama is preventing and disabling.
There is not enough wealth in the Western world even if there was a desire, which there is not, to continue trying to civilize the Islamic wastelands which would entail driving the Islam out of the wastelands. They are reverting to pre-colonial tribalism which best fits their Islam.
The West is fully challenged to turn from immanent economic suicide let alone save lives that have no value to their own societies. Islam is the retrograde force that will inhabit the ruins of Western civilization if we allow it to continue to be hollowed out culturally. IOW, we have enough on our plate trying to keep our world civilized let alone trying to civilize the seventh century in stasis.
ET >
“Freedom is, in my view, a natural or universal value.”
It is.
The problem that most people don’t understand with the Arab world is not that Arab peoples don’t want individual freedom, they do “its universal”, it is that they don’t believe in freedom for anyone else. By Arabic tribal extension Islam is absolute submission to a greater authoritarian ideal, based on Arabic cultural class systems. That is why it’s so popular.
This is the way of Arabic peoples, brother to brother, tribe to tribe, nation to nation.
Freedom for me but not for you, which is the biggest misunderstanding that western idealist for Arabic “freedom & democracy” can’t seem to get their heads around. You can forcibly put or help any Arabic sect into power, and they will be culturally predisposed to enslave or control any other Arabic sects around them.
It’s a zero sum game for us.
I would suggest two things, 1st. Syria – unlike Irag or Libya, has no oil – Up until now, Mid. East oil has influenced political thought and action in the Western world. With new technologies oil and nat’l gas can be abundant (self sufficient in N. America) with the right policies and extreme greenies are silenced in Europe. 2nd. Apart from Putin tweeking the U.S. nose, he wants to maintain a weapons client, and also a military base in Syria.
Knight 99, I agree.
Under the “Featured Comment” thread today at 9:11 am, Me No Dhimmi had a great video link @ 1:13.
The Siege of Vienna took place twice and the aim of the Muslims was to subjugate Europe. The inhabitants were to either accept Islam or die. The Muslims lost both times, and in Spain.
So, Assad and Saddam Hussein dabbled with Islamic radicals to further their own interests, but I do not believe their ultimate aim was world power. Not so with the ideology that is slowly taking control in the ME and northern Africa.
Knight 99, I don’t see that the Islamist wants individual freedom; Islamism rejects individualism, rejects the use of reason, rejects science and insists on mindless adherence to non-empirical dogma.
When you actually read that dogma, the Koran, you find that it’s an outline of a pastoral nomadic economic mode, one viable only in the 7th century, and one that was obviously, economically, under siege from settling agricultural peoples (non nomadic). So, Islamism most certainly can’t support the massive industrial populations of the current ME.
The imperialism of Islamism is ‘necessary’ because, since it rejects individualism, and rejects reason, it MUST control all informational input to the peoples under Islam. It must censor and control them. The key method of controlling a population is to control everyone they come in contact with.
Iranian imperialism, however, is very different. It’s secular, economic and political. It’s all about controlling the resources.
And I think that sometimes we must intervene. When a group of terrorists attack us, such as this day’s date, or in the UK or in Spain or wherever, I think that we, to defend ourselves, must attack their home bases.
LAS, I totally disagree with you. The Bush Doctrine wasn’t about altruism but about protecting the freedoms and security of the American people. -By giving spending hundreds of billions to give the vote to a strange and hostile people? BRILLIANT.
Democracy does indeed mean freedom for the people to govern themselves
Pure democracy is mob rule. It is 4 rapists and a virgin deciding what to do tonight.
For heaven’s sake, LAS, don’t introduce empty red herrings and fallacious arguments.
To declare that the cost of overthrowing dictators, to enable the people to write a constitution and set up a democracy, is akin to spending billions to give the vote to a ‘strange and hostile people’ is an invalid argument.
You first have to define and prove ‘strange and hostile people’- an unprovable assertion of yours. Then, with this premiss (strange and hostile people) define why they shouldn’t and can’t operate as a democracy.
Whew. Take a course in basic logic. Didn’t you ever have to define your terms in school?
And take a course in democracy. No nation operates within what is called ‘pure democracy’, ie, where all decisions are based on an open vote of the entire population. But they certainly do operate within the rule of law, and within constitutional and representational democracy, which is one where the decisions must adhere to the perimeters set by the constitution, and where the votes are made by elected representatives. And that’s majority vote.
Your attempt to reject democracy by your invalid insertion of ‘it’s mob rule’ is a smelly and irrelevant red herring.
By the way, speaking of Obama’s foreign policy in the ME, Drudge and Haaretz are reporting that Netanyahu wanted to meet with Obama to talk about the ME and Iran. Obama has refused; he said he’s ‘too busy’.
Gosh, we all know what Obama is doing. What he always does. Since he took office. Campaigns. He leaves all the decisions to others. But he and these others are hostile to Israel and amenable to the dictators of the ME. And to Islamism.
Just to add that I don’t think the West should SUPPORT the “stabilizing “tin-pot dictators. As Knight 99 suggests we should butt out.
I’m with LAS and Knight 99 on avoiding political entanglements. The West doesn’t need to become entangled to “protect its interests”. That’s just mercantilism under another guise.
This is why we need to rise above the propaganda and say NO to all interventions in the foreign affairs of other countries. It’s none of our business, and does not serve our interests, regardless of what angle is sold to us by whatever administration sits in the WH or unelected bureaucrat sitting in the UN.
Posted by: Knight 99 at September 11, 2012 12:07 PM
BINGO.
I recently suggested two books by Thomas diLorenzo Hamilton’s Curse and The Real Lincoln. Read in succession you get a solid understanding of how the republic was destroyed and replaced with a glory-seeking nationalisitc imperium.
ET >
“I don’t see that the Islamist wants individual freedom; Islamism rejects individualism,”
Close, but again we’re talking apples and oranges here. I agreed to your assertion “Freedom is, in my view, a natural or universal value” – ET– in the context of self, not community or religion, that was my point.
An individual Arabic person may very want all the personal freedom for his self, even rule a kingdom if he could. They don’t project that personal desire for freedom any further than a selfish need much less onto others, as many more individuals have proven to do in western culture. Status and slavery are very much alive and well in Arabic culture today.
There’s nothing more to it than that.
It’s a simple personal observation having lived amongst Arab people for many years and one of those misunderstood cultural differences that many westerners have trouble accepting. But understanding it is fundamental to understanding why our entanglement in their political affairs, especially in the name of “spreading freedom and democracy” is flawed and doomed to fail from the onset.
When Arabs are ready for freedom and democracy, they will fight for it and earn it on their own merits, just like anyone else has.
Our elitists know this well, which is why we go to these places with armies under falsehoods and in the name of their enrichments, not our own and certainly not for Arabs or anyone else outside of the global club of power, wealth, and privilege.
ET #2 >
“When a group of terrorists attack us, such as this day’s date, or in the UK or in Spain or wherever, I think that we, to defend ourselves, must attack their home bases.’
Certainly, but most of what has transpired in terms of the west attacking foreign countries of late seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorist attacks on us, no?
Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? and now Syria, maybe Iran?
The closest I think we could reasonably agree on is Afghanistan, but the Taliban were routed and Bin Ladin is dead, so why are we still there after a decade?
The point is now we are the ones under surveillance by our government, we are getting humiliated by the TSA when travelling, Bush imposed the Patriot Act, Obama strengthened it and brought in the National Defence Authorization Act to be used on American citizens. No racial or religious profiling, right?
So why don’t we leave the bloody Arabs/ Islam alone, and ban them from the west instead? It’s what they keep telling us, “stay out of our affairs”. It’s easy enough and maybe we could go back to having our own freedoms again without the need for the government to “protect” us from those that hate us so much. We cut them off and leave them alone and they stay the hell away from us. We can still trade goods, not an issue because we certainly have more of what they need, not the other way around.
It’s not a novel idea.