Syria: Obama’s Attempt At Another Middle Eastern Conquest for Islamofascists

Syria. Where to start?  We can start, reasonably, with the Islamofascist “Arab Spring.”  If we look at what actually happened and not at what is said to have happened, we can clearly see that the “Arab Spring” was about toppling brutal, barbaric, medieval secular dictatorships and replacing them with brutal, barbaric, medieval Islamofascist totalitarianism.


Brutal secular dictatorships are bad.  Islamofascist totalitarianism is, arguably and from the western world’s perspective, worse.  After all, which one has any potential to affect American, Israeli, and western interests, particularly when we are still reliant, in part, on the Middle East for oil?  Which one is going to–not is likely to, but has sworn to and absolutely will–devolve into real attempts to “wipe Israel off the map”?


As a staunch supporter of Israel, I am often asked (okay, never, actually, but for the purpose of argument . . . ):   how can you possibly be against bombing Libya?  After all, goes this line of thought, America is a close ally of Israel, we love Israel, keeping chemical weapons out of the hands of Israel-hating Assad is a good thing.  And there’s also some weird and wrong-headed argument that these chemical weapons pose a threat to Israel and to the United States.  You know, somehow.

Um, well, two things.  One, Assad has been president of Syria since 2000 and has been stockpiling chemical (and other) weapons ever since; in fact, there are good arguments and strong evidence that suggest that Saddam Hussein moved his own WMD’s to Syria before the American and allied invasion of Iraq, but Assad has never used them on Americans, either in his country or on other nation’s soil, be it ours or where we are located throughout the Middle East, etc.  Is he a brutal, evil man?  Oh yes, I don’t think anyone can deny that.  But does he threaten American national security in any imminent way?  No.  Even Obama has admitted that much.  There are brutal, evil dictators all over the world, but when Obama seeks to displace them, he simply puts in place (either directly or indirectly), even more–or certainly, equally–brutal, evil dictators.  This happened in Egypt.  It happened in Libya.  And, if Obama gets his way, it will happen in Syria.

And two, these “moderate” rebels that we are already supporting through training, arms, and cash are freaking al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda.  Remember them?  The ones who were responsible for a direct attack on American soil in 2001?  The one who’ve sworn to fly the flag of Islam over the White House?  The ones who’ve dedicated their lives to the eradication of not only Israel but of all western nations?  I remember them.  Very well.  The threat to Israel from these barbaric monsters is very very real.  Much more real than anything Assad can do or has done.

Supporting al Qaeda and its affiliates in the Syrian civil war is . . . insane.  And for those who still cling to the fantasy that there are actual “moderate” rebels in Syria, remember that Obama never ever supports actual moderation in the Middle East.  He supports only Islamofascist goals.  This is why, in 2009, he did not help the Iranians who were fighting for actual freedom; why he watched as Iranian protesters were gunned down, rolled over by tanks, tortured, and slaughtered in the streets . . . all the while they begged for American support.  Obama does not support secular uprisings in the Middle East, and he does not care one whit about civilian or other casualties (what has he said about the ongoing rapes, tortures, beheadings, burnings of Christians anywhere and everywhere his al Qaeda buddies “work”?  Nothing.).  Obama is all about violence, and he is all about the “ends justifying the means.”  Always has been, always will be.

But, but . . . we have to stop Iran.  By Bombing Syria.  Or something.

You want to stop Iran?  Go to war with, bomb, engage in “strategic strikes” against (whatever your favorite euphemism) Iran.  Starting a war with Syria will not stop Iran.  Stopping Iran will stop Iran.  And if Obama were in the least bit interested in doing so, he’s had ample opportunity since 2009, but he’s always waffled, erm’d and uhhh’d, while Iran continues its nuclear buildup.

My heinous atrocities are more heinous than your heinous atrocities. So there!

There’s a truly bizarre post entitled “10 Things Worse Than Eating A Dead Man’s Heart.” This post is supposed to excuse, somehow, the barbarism of the Obama-backed al Qaeda Syrian “rebels.”  It’s compelling, of course, because we are not yet used to this sort of medieval barbarism, but the thing that is missing is that Obama’s al Qaeda “peace partners” (!) engage in exactly this sort of barbarity and inhuman behavior.

Syrian Rebels decapitate 40 day old baby.
Syrian Rebels decapitate Catholic Priest.…
Syrian Rebels decapitate Christian and feed his body to dogs.…

15 Syrian Rebels torture and rape Christian child before murdering her.


230+ civilians massacred by Syrian Rebels for being Alawites and Christians.…

There is no “this evil is greater than that” here.  For every Assad atrocity, there is an al Qaeda rebel atrocity.  Or two.

Boots on the ground

So, we still have people insisting that bombing Syria from afar is the answer.  Hey, goes this line of thought, we’ll “surgically strike” Syria, and . . . um, well, it gets cloudy here because there is no way that doing anything but invading Syria with 75,000-100,000 actual ground troops will secure the chemical weapons (i.e. get them out of Assad’s hands and/or keep them from our would-be al Qaeda “allies”–omg, that makes me sicker than I can even express).

But here’s the deal, no one is voting for, has proposed, or will propose an actual invasion of Syria.  Nope.  What’s on the table is a face-saving “strike” that will not make Obama more of a laughingstock than he already is.  After all, we can’t have the American president be “mocked” for doing too little . . . or too much.  Emperor Goldilocks has to get it just right.  But nothing that has been proposed will do anything about securing the chemical weapons (either of the Assad regime or of the al Qaeda “rebels”).

So what’s the freaking point?

Oh, yeah.  We have to protect Obama from himself.

Um, no.  We don’t, actually.  He tried to use the American muscle he’s long disdained, wield a big stick, but his red line was a bluff.  And just as they saw through Carter, our enemies see right through Obama; they know he has no clothes, and they laugh at, ridicule, and mock him.  And frankly, he deserves it.  When he came out this week claiming the “world” set the red line, that he didn’t, that his own credibility wasn’t at stake, I was actually shocked (perhaps unduly so given what an absolute liar, charlatan, and unhinged egomaniac this petty little man really is).

What will happen if Congress votes to support this ridiculously wrong-headed “strike” on Syria?  Full-blown world war.  So far, the sides are: Russia, China, Iran against the U. S. and France.  Yay!?

Obama has created an untenable situation, and there is nothing that he can do about it.  Oh, sure, he’ll buy himself 45 days, bully and blackmail Congress into voting for his face-saving war, but what will that really get him?  Historically speaking, Obama is a failed president, both internationally and domestically.  That is his legacy.  And long may it live.


19 thoughts on “Syria: Obama’s Attempt At Another Middle Eastern Conquest for Islamofascists

  1. I just don’t see Congress authorizing an attack. My bet is that they say no, Obama then makes some insulting, divisive and untrue remarks, and then blames everything bad that happens from that moment forward on the racist GOP and Tea Party. It’s his goto gameplan.

    Obama’s absolutely lost. He has no idea what to do. His world is constructed around a Leftist world-view of White guilt and that the oppressed people of the all share the same Marxist values and dreams and beliefs etc. When this fairyland viewpoint falls apart he’s left sputtering, bewildered and blaming something other than himself or his beliefs. It’s typical Left. On a smaller scale, you know how instructirs react in academia. Obama’s cut from that cloth– just factor in some fake Black-ness and all that entails and you’ve got him read.

    I was appalled, but not surprised at Obama’s “I didn’t say red line. My credibility’s not on the line” schtick. I mean this guy believes that if you get the media to just repeat the same lie again and again, then people will believe it’s truth. It’s his Leftism shining through. I’m waiting for him to tell us that “We’re pleased to announce that we’re going to RAISE your chocolate ration to 10 grams!” (1984).

    And no there’s no “good guys” to back in Syria. Backing Al Qaeda, though, is beneath contempt.

    I think Glick said it best and I’ll paraphrase. The US and its allies have an interest in preventing Syria’s chemical and biological arsenals from being used against them or their allies either directly by the regime, through its terror proxies or by a successor regime, and should contain the war as much as possible to Syria itself. Beyond this, there’s nothing to gain and heckuva lot to lose in by indulging in Obama’s “Operation Oops, I Said Red Line.”

    • The problem, though, Yukio, is that there is no plan to contain the chemical weapons at all. There is only a plan to strike Syria as a sort of “you bad boy!” thing, killing how many innocents in the process? Operation Oops is a good name for it–it’s all about Obama and nothing to do with America.

      • You’re totally correct. Obama has no plan. He’s incompetent– which I knwo you know.

        What I’m saying is that there should be actions taken to observe and control the arsenals and keep them from being used on Iraq or Israel. This probably would not entail direct military action except an absolute last resort.

        The problem is Obama has made this all about Obama. People– and not necessarily the Left– are arguing that the president needs to keep his teeth to people like Putin so “bombs away!” It’s all about Obama, while the real issue of these arsenals goes unaddressed.

        • I understand what you are saying, and I would agree if that were Obama’s goal. It’s not. His goal is to do just enough not to be “mocked”:

          There is absolutely nothing, short of a full-scale invasion of Syria, that will secure those chemical weapons. Chemical weapons, I might add, that Assad has had since at least 2001 (when Iraq moved theirs there), and chemical weapons, I might further add, that most nations, including our own, have. This is not about chemical weapons; it’s about Obama toppling yet another secular nutjob and replacing him with an Islmofascist nutjob. This is what he does.

          I could give a rat’s bottom about Obama keeping his teeth or whatever. He is not America, does not speak for America, doesn’t even understand America. The world knows this, even if too many lost Americans themselves don’t.

          Too many people, not you though, but generally, think the “old” way: that America is not being fundamentally transformed, that America still has the same goals, hopes, dreams for herself and the world, but that’s just not true . . . not as long as Obama is at the helm. Obama’s America is not my America, and Obama’s America could give a crap if hundreds of, thousands of, children die at the hands of their government or by any other means. This is Obama we are talking about; to pretend that he has any inkling what America is, what it stands for, what it means or that he will ever lift one finger to protect America or her actual allies is to deny the reality that has played out before our eyes. Obama was more outraged about Trayvon, about Jewish settlements, about Gates being harassed by police than he ever was about the deaths of . . . anyone. Including those he was responsible for (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the drone strikes). He’s a leftist. First, last, always. And you know that death, destruction, devastation are just a means to an end, and that end is always horrific.

          So, yes, we should want to secure those chemical weapons, but we don’t, anymore than Obama wants to stop Iran becoming nuclear (they have that right, right?). We should want to ensure that another Middle Eastern country doesn’t fall to the MB and al Qaeda as we saw throughout the “arab spring.” We should care about the jihadis’ goals and be working against them. But we are not. On any count. That is Obama. That is why no normal logic works, no normal argument makes sense. He’s not working in America’s best interests, not as we understand them. He never has, and he never ever will.

          • Well, I’m certainly not advocating an invasion of Syria. : ) But there does need to be an effort to contain Syria’s war within its own borders. Israel and Iraq are just too vulnerable and Iraq is hanging on by a thread– if it is at all. But you’re right Obama’s doing nothing good, nothing to address this very real threat.

            “Obama was more outraged about Trayvon, about Jewish settlements, about Gates being harassed by police than he ever was about the deaths of . . . anyone. Including those he was responsible for (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the drone strikes). ”

            Yeah, that very telling. He’s a community-organizer. And that job description is “get outraged over politically correct ‘issues'”– generally issues forced to fit with identity politics. It’s all he’s been trained to do. It’s all he can do. Pathetic.

            It’s both sad and infuriating. Three+ more years of this crud.

  2. If Congress votes to authorize the attack, it will be another sign how far our republic has fallen, how elected representatives see themselves are part of an elite club rather than truly being representatives of the people. Even Peggy Noonan sees this when she writes: “The Syria debate isn’t, really, a struggle between libertarians and neoconservatives, or left and right, or Democrats and Republicans. That’s not its shape. It looks more like a fight between the country and Washington, between the broad American public and Washington’s central governing assumptions.”

    This separation is even more alarming when you realize how the pattern in DC is remarkably like the one described in Berlin in the 1930s. Historian Milton Mayer writes:

    “”This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”

    Will Americans and their leaders in DC awaken to the danger here, and reverse course? Or are we already too far down the dark road to reverse course and begin steering back toward a republic as it was intended and founded? The farther down the dark road we go, the harder it likely becomes to carry out the reset.

  3. Reblogged at However, the ‘reblog’ function doesn’t work over there like it would here at WP, so I guess it is technically called a ‘repost’. There is full credit given to you on the repost!

    I like your logic here, fuzislippers. I especially like the idea of a direct Iran strike if that’s the point anyway. I have never understood why we would bomb one place in order to affect another place. Talk about slight of hand. IMO, it’s sorta’ the chicken’s way out.

    Take a bow.

  4. Pingback: From “Fuzzy Logic” - 'Nox & Friends

  5. I’m hoping congress votes no, but you know the gop is full of dickless wonders who are only too happy to lick his boot heels if they think they’ll get a little news media love.

    • I’ll be surprised if Congress votes no. Happy but surprised. I think it will depend, in part, on whether the vote is actually held Wednesday (9/11) or is put off for 45 days (of the Assad ultimatum). Whatever happens, attacking Syria is the wrong thing to do.

  6. Thanks for checking on me Fuzzy. You are so thoughtful and I appreciate it. I don’t read a whole lot of blogs too much anymore, but I did post this on Facebook. It was excellent as always.

  7. Pingback: Saturday Links: Classic Rock Edition - Conservative Hideout 2.0

What say you?

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s