“Why is Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons worse than the rebels’ use of al-Qaeda?”
19 Replies to “QOTW”
An Obama-loving sycophant friend of mine’s son just joined the Marines. I’m sure he must be thrilled that his son could at some point be sent to Syria to secure stockpiles of chem weapons or perhaps even worse – inadvertently help AQ defeat Assad.
I think it’s because the MSM told us that al-Qaeda represents “the forces of light and freedom” – while chemical weapons do not.
Because the contrived narrative of the MSM, of necessity, must displace
reality, trump reason and substitute for your own sense of morality.
I thought that helping the Iraqis out of the hell they were in under Saddam was worth a fight, I have been convinced that I was wrong. If the country doesn’t have the stomach for a fight, we ought not get into it. Now the Obamabots all think I have come to this conclusion just to undercut Obama. I haven’t.
Also, Republican support for an attack has dropped with each passing day of the clown show out of the CiC’s office.
Seems the first thing the rebels do when they take over a place is kill the Christians…..so why the **** would we want to help either side.
I’m with Sarah…..let alah sort it out.
I also came to the conclusion by a gradual process that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes as the vast majority of all the people in the ME want to remain in the 7th century.
bygeorge, agreed, as Sarah said, “Let Allah sort it out”.
It is when they attempt to impose their amalgamation of religion and ideology on us that we should strike hard militarily externally and strike hard legally internally.
As to the question, I suspect that the unofficial alliance between a certain administration, the MSM and the MB influence the general drift and tone of the reporting so as to demonize Assad and ignore the make up of the various factions of the rebels. Recall the MSM dismay when the Egyptian military threw out the MB pals of POTUS.
Can’t wait for the late night talk shows to do some monologue on how Obama is mangling the meaning of the english language the same way they went after GW for all those Bushisms.
Tim;
Like you I thought Gulf War II was justified but in retrospect question the long term objective. I understand the USA’s geo-political concerns in the ME but also realize that the imperative over oil security is weakening as other sources are developed. Keystone XL cost are a drop in the oil bucket all things considered. I suspect the Chinese might prefer a USA guarantee of oil supply over that which the Russians might provide. Hint’s of a world class oil find in Australia must have all SE Asia excited.
ME oil security, as provided by the USA, has always had Saudi Arabia as the anchor. The USA bought the Saudis and vice versa. The security struggle in the ME has morphed into a religious war between Shiites and Sunnis, Iran versus Saudi Arabia. To a large extent the propaganda against Iran has worked well. IMO the Iranians have faced not just an Iraqi invasion that cost 2.5 million lives but also an economic attack led and financed by the Saudis and most of the Western world. I would be busy building a bomb as well.
Realizing that the ME still supplies about 25% of world oil perhaps it is time for the USA to rethink the strategic necessity of blindly supporting the Saudis. It is Sunni Islam, as directed by Saudi Arabia, that has generated AQ and all their terrorist offshoots. It is Sunni Islam that plots dominance internationally in mosques financed by Saudi Arabia. It was not Iranians at the controls of the 9/11 airplanes.
North American security orgs, CIA and CSIS, should be investigating how much of the eco movement ranged against domestic oil production is financed by Saudi Arabia. The resources for energy independence in North America are present now! It is a national security imperative that American foreign policy not be dictated by a ME country that has money to burn funding those who oppose energy independence. I have to suspect that some politicans have been bought to maintain the status quo.
tim,
The difference is twice Saddam attacked other countries. So far, Assad hasn’t attacked anyone. I can handle dictators who know their place. When they start venturing outside their borders, they need to be smacked down hard.
Gulf War II was trumped up because Bush I didn’t follow through during Gulf War I; if they’d kept rolling all the way into Bagdhad then, chances are Bush I wins a second term, we never have to live through Billary, and the world’s a better place today.
‘course, if they’d let Patton keep rolling onto Moscow in WWII, world would be a better place today as well.
“…I also came to the conclusion by a gradual process that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes as the vast majority of all the people in the ME want to remain in the 7th century…”
Agreed Ken. To paraphrase George Jonas, from time to time it is necessary to go into these rabid states, pound the shit out of their army, exterminate the vermin in charge, and then leave…with the warning that if you have to come back again, you will.
Democracy? Forget it. Not only is the concept foreign to them, it’s repugnant.
Surely no one is convinced that Obama and Kerry’s motives were altruistic!
Doesn’t strike even the most ovine of Obama’s minions that a shelling here and there in Syria will resolve nothing?
As I said before, Obama wants this all to occur. It started in Benghazi and will end (or be finished by) Israel.
Short-term memory aside, it started when the US created the forerunner to al-Quaeda to fight their proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Subsequent US administrations have thanked the mujahadeen by supporting them in international conflicts.
Under Obama, this became official policy via his plan to topple middle east dictators in the naive belief that peace and love will break out once the dictators are gone.
So far, that has proven to be an idiotic plan as proven in Libyia and Egypt.
At some point, how much thanks is enough?
The title of this post needs a rewrite…it should be:-
“Why is Assad’s alleged (only in the BROADEST HYPOTHETICAL SENSE) use of chemical weapons …etc’.
Think about this article, how what the WSJ author wrote affected Kerry (and perhaps Obama), Consider the implications of the two quotes related to its author:-
“Originally the op-ed only listed O’Bagy, 26, as only “a senior analyst” at the ISW, later adding a clarification that disclosed her connection to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.”
…also….”O’Bagy wrote on Twitter after the uproar that “I have never tried to hide that Ive worked closely with opposition & rebel commanders.”
You may make a leap in logic and wonder about the accuracy of the reports that Assad used the chemical weapons. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html
I would suggest it started with the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. The British and French still thought they had some influence in world events. The USA set them straight in a hurry.
In WW II Eisenhauer was suspicious that Churchill was trying to get the USA to fight Britain’s colonial wars in the ME and in the Balkins. Ike said to hell with that and invaded through Normandy.
The decision to invade via Northern France was made by Churchill and Roosevelt in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff long before Eisenhower had been selected as Supreme Commander.
It is certainly true that Churchill liked the idea of multiple fronts and sideshows, but it would be wrong to conclude that he did not back the cross-channel invasion, or, that Ike was the fellow who dreamed it up.
Fukuyama, darling of the smart set, called the fall of the Soviet Union as the end of history.
WRONG!
The cold war halted history. With the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, the Warsaw Pact and NATO were in a Mexican standoff: OK, nobody move. Sure, there were proxy wars but no one was allowed to get out of hand on either side; just too dangerous. But then, both players were rational.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, history restarted. And, what is the longest running war: The Muslims against non-Muslims. They’ve been at it for 1400 years. They are also not rational players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Fukuyama = discredited.
I agree; but it didn’t used to be so. The Middle Easy was Greek and Christian, with other religions living comfortably together under the Roman Empire.
Also, the Iranians were a proud people with a long history and their own religion.
Free Zoroaster!
I was hesitant on wars in the ME as well. But I’ve become a believer in killing the followers of the prophet wholesale periodically. It does them good and keeps us safer. Moths to light, flys to honey, whatever you want to call it, the muslim has to be periodically humiliated and slaughtered to preserve the West.
Since we are having a mini discussion as to when this started. David A. Andelman writes in “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today” that the background to all this began when the victors of WWI rewrote the borders of Europe and the Middle East without taking into account the various ethnic groups and the various religious factions.
He gives a few examples: “In June 1920, the tribes of the Euphates rose up against their British masters- a rebellion that cost Britain 40 million pounds and 450 troops, leaving 10,000 Iraqis dead”, p 74; the French in Syria had a Druze rebellion which “spread to Damascus itself, leveling the city and leaving more than 5,000 Syrians dead in its wake”, p 78.
Andelman also discusses the frustration of the Wahhabi Ibn Saud and his British advisor St. John Philby at being neglected, so Ibn Saud sent his fierce Ikhwan warriors who took Mecca and Medina. The British hung Ibn and Philby out to dry. As an interesting aside St. John Philby had a son Kim, who had listened to his father’s denunciation of the Whitehall mandarins and converted to another religion in Cambridge–communism.
An Obama-loving sycophant friend of mine’s son just joined the Marines. I’m sure he must be thrilled that his son could at some point be sent to Syria to secure stockpiles of chem weapons or perhaps even worse – inadvertently help AQ defeat Assad.
I think it’s because the MSM told us that al-Qaeda represents “the forces of light and freedom” – while chemical weapons do not.
Because the contrived narrative of the MSM, of necessity, must displace
reality, trump reason and substitute for your own sense of morality.
I thought that helping the Iraqis out of the hell they were in under Saddam was worth a fight, I have been convinced that I was wrong. If the country doesn’t have the stomach for a fight, we ought not get into it. Now the Obamabots all think I have come to this conclusion just to undercut Obama. I haven’t.
Also, Republican support for an attack has dropped with each passing day of the clown show out of the CiC’s office.
Seems the first thing the rebels do when they take over a place is kill the Christians…..so why the **** would we want to help either side.
I’m with Sarah…..let alah sort it out.
I also came to the conclusion by a gradual process that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes as the vast majority of all the people in the ME want to remain in the 7th century.
bygeorge, agreed, as Sarah said, “Let Allah sort it out”.
It is when they attempt to impose their amalgamation of religion and ideology on us that we should strike hard militarily externally and strike hard legally internally.
As to the question, I suspect that the unofficial alliance between a certain administration, the MSM and the MB influence the general drift and tone of the reporting so as to demonize Assad and ignore the make up of the various factions of the rebels. Recall the MSM dismay when the Egyptian military threw out the MB pals of POTUS.
Can’t wait for the late night talk shows to do some monologue on how Obama is mangling the meaning of the english language the same way they went after GW for all those Bushisms.
Tim;
Like you I thought Gulf War II was justified but in retrospect question the long term objective. I understand the USA’s geo-political concerns in the ME but also realize that the imperative over oil security is weakening as other sources are developed. Keystone XL cost are a drop in the oil bucket all things considered. I suspect the Chinese might prefer a USA guarantee of oil supply over that which the Russians might provide. Hint’s of a world class oil find in Australia must have all SE Asia excited.
ME oil security, as provided by the USA, has always had Saudi Arabia as the anchor. The USA bought the Saudis and vice versa. The security struggle in the ME has morphed into a religious war between Shiites and Sunnis, Iran versus Saudi Arabia. To a large extent the propaganda against Iran has worked well. IMO the Iranians have faced not just an Iraqi invasion that cost 2.5 million lives but also an economic attack led and financed by the Saudis and most of the Western world. I would be busy building a bomb as well.
Realizing that the ME still supplies about 25% of world oil perhaps it is time for the USA to rethink the strategic necessity of blindly supporting the Saudis. It is Sunni Islam, as directed by Saudi Arabia, that has generated AQ and all their terrorist offshoots. It is Sunni Islam that plots dominance internationally in mosques financed by Saudi Arabia. It was not Iranians at the controls of the 9/11 airplanes.
North American security orgs, CIA and CSIS, should be investigating how much of the eco movement ranged against domestic oil production is financed by Saudi Arabia. The resources for energy independence in North America are present now! It is a national security imperative that American foreign policy not be dictated by a ME country that has money to burn funding those who oppose energy independence. I have to suspect that some politicans have been bought to maintain the status quo.
tim,
The difference is twice Saddam attacked other countries. So far, Assad hasn’t attacked anyone. I can handle dictators who know their place. When they start venturing outside their borders, they need to be smacked down hard.
Gulf War II was trumped up because Bush I didn’t follow through during Gulf War I; if they’d kept rolling all the way into Bagdhad then, chances are Bush I wins a second term, we never have to live through Billary, and the world’s a better place today.
‘course, if they’d let Patton keep rolling onto Moscow in WWII, world would be a better place today as well.
“…I also came to the conclusion by a gradual process that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes as the vast majority of all the people in the ME want to remain in the 7th century…”
Agreed Ken. To paraphrase George Jonas, from time to time it is necessary to go into these rabid states, pound the shit out of their army, exterminate the vermin in charge, and then leave…with the warning that if you have to come back again, you will.
Democracy? Forget it. Not only is the concept foreign to them, it’s repugnant.
Surely no one is convinced that Obama and Kerry’s motives were altruistic!
Doesn’t strike even the most ovine of Obama’s minions that a shelling here and there in Syria will resolve nothing?
As I said before, Obama wants this all to occur. It started in Benghazi and will end (or be finished by) Israel.
Short-term memory aside, it started when the US created the forerunner to al-Quaeda to fight their proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Subsequent US administrations have thanked the mujahadeen by supporting them in international conflicts.
Under Obama, this became official policy via his plan to topple middle east dictators in the naive belief that peace and love will break out once the dictators are gone.
So far, that has proven to be an idiotic plan as proven in Libyia and Egypt.
At some point, how much thanks is enough?
The title of this post needs a rewrite…it should be:-
“Why is Assad’s alleged (only in the BROADEST HYPOTHETICAL SENSE) use of chemical weapons …etc’.
Think about this article, how what the WSJ author wrote affected Kerry (and perhaps Obama), Consider the implications of the two quotes related to its author:-
“Originally the op-ed only listed O’Bagy, 26, as only “a senior analyst” at the ISW, later adding a clarification that disclosed her connection to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.”
…also….”O’Bagy wrote on Twitter after the uproar that “I have never tried to hide that Ive worked closely with opposition & rebel commanders.”
You may make a leap in logic and wonder about the accuracy of the reports that Assad used the chemical weapons.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html
I would suggest it started with the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. The British and French still thought they had some influence in world events. The USA set them straight in a hurry.
In WW II Eisenhauer was suspicious that Churchill was trying to get the USA to fight Britain’s colonial wars in the ME and in the Balkins. Ike said to hell with that and invaded through Normandy.
The decision to invade via Northern France was made by Churchill and Roosevelt in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff long before Eisenhower had been selected as Supreme Commander.
It is certainly true that Churchill liked the idea of multiple fronts and sideshows, but it would be wrong to conclude that he did not back the cross-channel invasion, or, that Ike was the fellow who dreamed it up.
Fukuyama, darling of the smart set, called the fall of the Soviet Union as the end of history.
WRONG!
The cold war halted history. With the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, the Warsaw Pact and NATO were in a Mexican standoff: OK, nobody move. Sure, there were proxy wars but no one was allowed to get out of hand on either side; just too dangerous. But then, both players were rational.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, history restarted. And, what is the longest running war: The Muslims against non-Muslims. They’ve been at it for 1400 years. They are also not rational players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Fukuyama = discredited.
I agree; but it didn’t used to be so. The Middle Easy was Greek and Christian, with other religions living comfortably together under the Roman Empire.
Also, the Iranians were a proud people with a long history and their own religion.
Free Zoroaster!
I was hesitant on wars in the ME as well. But I’ve become a believer in killing the followers of the prophet wholesale periodically. It does them good and keeps us safer. Moths to light, flys to honey, whatever you want to call it, the muslim has to be periodically humiliated and slaughtered to preserve the West.
Since we are having a mini discussion as to when this started. David A. Andelman writes in “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today” that the background to all this began when the victors of WWI rewrote the borders of Europe and the Middle East without taking into account the various ethnic groups and the various religious factions.
He gives a few examples: “In June 1920, the tribes of the Euphates rose up against their British masters- a rebellion that cost Britain 40 million pounds and 450 troops, leaving 10,000 Iraqis dead”, p 74; the French in Syria had a Druze rebellion which “spread to Damascus itself, leveling the city and leaving more than 5,000 Syrians dead in its wake”, p 78.
Andelman also discusses the frustration of the Wahhabi Ibn Saud and his British advisor St. John Philby at being neglected, so Ibn Saud sent his fierce Ikhwan warriors who took Mecca and Medina. The British hung Ibn and Philby out to dry. As an interesting aside St. John Philby had a son Kim, who had listened to his father’s denunciation of the Whitehall mandarins and converted to another religion in Cambridge–communism.