ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

No reason to react

There are more reports of ISIS atrocities in Syria:
Islamic State militants have executed at least 400 mostly women and children in Syria's ancient city of Palmyra. Eye-witnesses have reported the streets are strewn with bodies – the latest victims of the Islamic State's unrelenting savagery - on the same day photographs of captured Syrian soldiers have emerged.

It follows the killing of nearly 300 pro-government troops two days after they captured the city, now symbolised by a black ISIS flag flying above an ancient citadel.
However, keep in mind that false reports of atrocities have been used to whip up support for war for centuries. That doesn't mean the reports are inaccurate, particularly in the electronic age when it's easier to document events, but it's important not to rush to judgment.

In my opinion, there is no reason to even contemplate military intervention in the Islamic world as long as Muslims reside in the West. This is the third great wave of Islamic expansion of a form that long predates the Westphalian system of nation-states and any policy that is based on Westphalian or post-Westphalian principles is bound to fail. Remember, a significant percentage of Muslims in the West openly sympathize with ISIS, and perhaps more importantly, it was Western governments that made the Caliphate possible:
A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”
Yet another strike against the principle of foreign intervention. The devil you don't know is often considerably worse than the one you are trying to cast out.

Labels: ,

75 Comments:

Blogger Matt May 24, 2015 9:52 AM  

The only military intervention that needs to take place is by the hands of the American people in the form of ultraviolent militias in our own backyards enacting justice against our false government.

Anonymous Just Mark May 24, 2015 9:57 AM  

In other news, somewhere in hell Lenin is smiling.

OpenID mattse001 May 24, 2015 9:59 AM  

I saw a presentation by a local member of Judicial Watch a couple of weeks ago. The excerpt called them a "conservative public interest law firm," but the speaker said one reason they were successful was their non-partisan stance.
It's true, obeying the law shouldn't be a partisan issue. But these days, it seems only one party is dedicated to flouting the law openly so I would guess detractors do indeed see them as conservative.

Blogger Random May 24, 2015 10:11 AM  

So John McCain visiting and smiling in Syria with al-Qaeda people, our supposed boogeyman enemy, doesn't count as flouting the law?

And those useful idiots keep sending him to the senate!

Blogger Nikis-Knight May 24, 2015 10:12 AM  

I remember when liberals delight ed in pointing out that cold war era US cooperated with the same Islamic groups that were now attacking us. Fine, lack of foresight there, but at least we were trying to stymie nuclear, expressionist Soviets. But to do so in this age, for the sake of regime change in Syria? WTF?

Anonymous rienzi May 24, 2015 10:16 AM  

If Syria is a mess of warring factions, then it can't be much of a threat, for the present, to a certain country that is sitting on a bunch of captured Golan Heights real estate. I wouldn't be surprised if Tel Aviv is sending arms and money undercover to every single faction in Syria.

If all these atrocities are happening as reported, then why would any Syrian soldier even contemplate surrendering to ISIS? May as well fight to the death. Or is this just a Western concept?

Blogger Robert What? May 24, 2015 10:19 AM  

Any speculation as to why the American government is so keen to topple more-or-less secular strongmen in the middle east? Such as in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and now Syria? Who in the American government (including the shadow government) benefits, and how? You would have thought that they would have learned something from Iraq, but apparently not. Unless they are pleased with how Iraq is turning out?

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 10:32 AM  

"Any speculation as to why the American government is so keen to topple more-or-less secular strongmen in the middle east?

It should be fairly clear to most by now that American policy in Middle East has nothing to do with American interest and everything to do with the Israel's interest. Zionist, Christian and Jewish, hold most of the power positions in state department and other foreign policy positions. The Oded Yinon paper written in 1982 and the Project for a New American Century papers of the late 1990s all outline fairly distinctly what the Zionist plans for the Middle East are. The US government has followed these plans to a t.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 10:37 AM  

If Syria is a mess of warring factions, then it can't be much of a threat, for the present, to a certain country that is sitting on a bunch of captured Golan Heights real estate. I wouldn't be surprised if Tel Aviv is sending arms and money undercover to every single faction in Syria.

Hell, Israel has been acting as the airforce for ISIS. Israel has bombed Syrian government positions 4 or 5 times over the last 6-months. They have also been providing medical aid to ISIS fighters. And there are reports of air drops to ISIS fighters.

Blogger Ken May 24, 2015 10:37 AM  

Soooo...
-Lincoln baited the CSA into attacking a fort, and claimed he was innocent.

-The UK baited the Germans into blowing up the "totally innocent" Lusitania - which was carrying weaponry - and drew the US into WW1.

-FDR likely allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

-We didn't follow Patton's advice to invade Moscow after we won WW2.

- We allowed ourselves to be drawn into Korea and Vietnam, fighting wars we did not have the will to win.

- Every single time we've intervened in the Middle East, we've fouled up the region worse than before we walked in.

For a nation that claims such a noble heritage of integrity, the US's whole military history seems to be "We just want to fight; we don't care who it is."

Blogger Mandos May 24, 2015 10:38 AM  

I had the same reaction when seeing the news, sounds a lot like war propaganda even though we all know it is perfectly plausible.

I agree that an intervention is bound to fail no matter what. At least with regards to the objectives we would see as obvious in such a case, that is. Some brilliant minds among the anointed could use a couple divisions of GIs as useful pawns to gain time and manage some tactical alliances in their Middle-East reshaping fantasies. Like how Western governments made the Caliphate possible? Just wait till you see how they make it thrive.

Blogger GK Chesterton May 24, 2015 10:42 AM  

"Ultraviolent"...I'd rather not. What happened in Nevada is a far better model. Peaceful and determined.

Blogger Robert What? May 24, 2015 10:43 AM  

@stats,

Ok, but how does Israel benefit from all this mess?

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 10:44 AM  

My guess is that they want boots on the ground in Syria so they can take out Assad. They don't give a damn about attrocities committed by ISIS. Operational support will continue to ISIS until we reach Israel's final destination, the destruction of Iran.

Anonymous RedJack #22 May 24, 2015 10:45 AM  

Ken,
Read about Smedly Butler and the Banana wars. His pamphlet "War is a Racket" is very interesting.

This was a hard fighting Marine, still respected in the ranks.

Blogger Josh May 24, 2015 10:45 AM  

Ok, but how does Israel benefit from all this mess?

ISIS overthrows Assad, who is best friends with Iran.

This hurts Iran, which helps Israel.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 10:48 AM  

Ok, but how does Israel benefit from all this mess?

Sigh. Read the recommended papers. Plan all along has been to balkanize the Middle East. ISIS will help destabalize Syria. Once Assad is gone, ISIS will be helpful in taking out Iran. Haven't you noticed that ISIS has never, every attacked Israel or Israelis?

Israel is providing operational support to ISIS. That should make it clear that there ISIS is all part of the plan.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 10:51 AM  

It should be fairly clear to most by now that American policy in Middle East has nothing to do with American interest and everything to do with the Israel's interest.

You think Israel wants ISIS causing havoc? Seriously...

Vox was right when he said that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Assad is a smart guy -- he was never going to wage war against Israel. The most he had done against Israel is to be a middleman by funnelling weapons from Iran to Hizbollah.

Plus, too many people here and elsewhere do not understand all the nuances and think that all of the anti-Assad opposition is ISIS. Just look at this list of all the players in Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

If, say, the US gives weapons to one group but then those weapons are captured by ISIS -- because all of the factions fight each other too -- then that is NOT the US giving weapons to ISIS. If Israel provides air cover -- or medical aid, as is happening in northern Israeli field hospitals -- to one of those groups it is absolutely NOT the same as supporting ISIS.

The most-accurate thing that can be said is that Israel is (probably overtly and covertly) supporting the so-called moderate rebels in Syria (and NOT ISIS). In the eyes of the Israeli government (right or wrong), it's the best thing to do in Israel's interests.

The moderate rebels taking power is probably viewed as the best outcome. Assad staying is probably viewed as the second-best outcome. But this is just my armchair opinion. Still, I cannot image Israel is happy at all with the chaos happening just to our north.

Israel, like most state actors, places an emphasis on maintaining the status quo because you never know what will happen if major changes occur. But, yes, the situation is messed up and cannot be addressed in a pithy blog comment.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 10:53 AM  

They have also been providing medical aid to ISIS fighters. And there are reports of air drops to ISIS fighters.

No, no, no. Israel has been giving medical aid and such to OTHER REBELS WHO ARE NOT ISIS. See my last comment. Seriously, people are woefully -- and perhaps intentionally -- misinformed.

Blogger Ken May 24, 2015 10:53 AM  

Red Jack,
Wikipedia's article is fascinating, but not detailed enough. I reckon I'll purchase a biography on the man; would you recommend one?

Blogger Ken May 24, 2015 10:54 AM  

Despite my criticisms of US war policy, I still love hearing about Heroes, and Smedley Butler HAD to become one to overcome his villainous name.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 10:56 AM  

Haven't you noticed that ISIS has never, every attacked Israel or Israelis?

Oh, come on. ISIS is a land-locked entity. So, they can only attack countries on their immediate borders -- one of which is not Israel. Plus, it would make logical sense to go after countries with weak militaries first -- one of which is not Israel.

Please.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 10:59 AM  

Israel, like most state actors, places an emphasis on maintaining the status quo because you never know what will happen if major changes occur. But, yes, the situation is messed up and cannot be addressed in a pithy blog comment.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Read the Oded Yinon paper from 1982 and Project for New American Century policy papers from late 1990s. What we are seeing in the Middle East has been in the works for years. And whether the average Jew in Israel agrees with the policy, it is fairly clear that the US government's foreign policy has indeed been taken hostage by a group of very determined Likudniks.

Anonymous Ain May 24, 2015 11:00 AM  

How anyone can still support US interventionism is beyond me. Not only is it a spectacular failure, it's downright satanic.

Fixing what we've broken sounds good at first, but the evidence shows that we make things worse.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 11:04 AM  

Oh, come on. ISIS is a land-locked entity.

You really need to get with the program. Israel is ONLY supporting the moderate rebels. Yeah, right. They have to know that any support for rebels in Syria is tacit support for ISIS and Al queda. You are kidding yourself if you can't see what is going on here. Once again, read the damn policy papers I've recommended. It is clear from these papers what's what.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 11:07 AM  

it is fairly clear that the US government's foreign policy has indeed been taken hostage by a group of very determined Likudniks.

None of those alleged "Likudniks" are in power in the executive branch of the U.S. government -- and have not been for years.

And if what you say is true, why was Obama's proposed Syrian intervention a year or two ago called off? (I was happy, I guess -- it was a few days after I and countless other Israelis got gas masks after waiting in line for hours in the hot sun.)

OpenID mattse001 May 24, 2015 11:11 AM  

"So John McCain visiting and smiling in Syria with al-Qaeda people, our supposed boogeyman enemy, doesn't count as flouting the law?"
No, the shocking part is, that's completely legal.
The GOP has plenty of problems with its leadership. The difference is, the GOP base is trying to oust them. You see no similar movement on the left.
Hell, Dems can't get rid of Pelosi and she just lost the second election cycle for her party in a row.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 11:11 AM  

They have to know that any support for rebels in Syria is tacit support for ISIS and Al queda.

No, it's not. You don't know what you are talking about and are therefore vastly and incorrectly oversimplifying a messed-up and complex situation. Here's just one small example in English of many on how all of the rebel factions are fighting each other too:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/warring-rebel-groups-abduct-each-others-members-in-syria/

This is not freaking "Star Wars" where the rebels are all unified and together with a single military force.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 11:12 AM  

None of those alleged "Likudniks" are in power in the executive branch of the U.S. government -- and have not been for years.

Are you kidding? What would you call Victoria Nuland? Are you really going to insist that I name all of the jews currently in the executive branch?


Blogger stats May 24, 2015 11:15 AM  

You don't know what you are talking about and are therefore vastly and incorrectly oversimplifying a messed-up and complex situation.

Puleeze! Is Israel supporting the overthrow of Assad or not?

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 11:17 AM  

"So John McCain visiting and smiling in Syria with al-Qaeda people, our supposed boogeyman enemy, doesn't count as flouting the law?"

He did not meet with al-Qaeda:

A message on the official Twitter feed for McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the US delegation met the commander of Saudi Arabia’s training and equipment programme and with Ahmed al-Jarba, whom it identified as the president of the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition (SNC).

See: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/18/john-mccain-senators-saudi-arabia-tour-syria-rebels

Wikipedia on the Syrian National Coalition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_Opposition_Forces

Notice how the more Islamist groups rejected the coalition.

Seriously, so many people here are so wrapped up in conspiracy theories that they do not bother to get the facts.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 24, 2015 11:21 AM  

Is Israel supporting the overthrow of Assad or not?

Obviously, I don't know for sure. My best guess is that Israel is hedging its bets.

Israel's not directly attacking Assad with overwhelming force in case he survives because Israel would not want to piss him off too much. Israel is helping the moderate rebels in case they do take power. It's a wait-and-see approach.

Blogger Random May 24, 2015 11:23 AM  

"we're not the Judean people's front! We're the people's front of Judea!"

They're all in the cia's payroll in one way or another, why quibbling over labels?

Blogger bw May 24, 2015 11:25 AM  

it was Western governments that made the Caliphate possible VD

At least.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 11:26 AM  

Israel's not directly attacking Assad with overwhelming force in case he survives because Israel would not want to piss him off too much.

LOL! Israel doesn't attack anyone with overwhelming force (well, except for unarmed women and children in Gaza or the West Bank) that's the job of the stupid goyim in the US military.

Blogger grendel May 24, 2015 11:27 AM  

"And if what you say is true, why was Obama's proposed Syrian intervention a year or two ago called off? (I was happy, I guess -- it was a few days after I and countless other Israelis got gas masks after waiting in line for hours in the hot sun.)"

Because ol' horse face spelled out terms under which the U.S. wouldn't invade, and Putin and Assad jumped on them with both feet, seizing the opportunity to cast the U.S. as the unreasonable aggressor if they didn't accept the terms.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 24, 2015 11:34 AM  

I don't believe the Israeli government is naive enough to believe in "moderate Muslim rebels" -- certainly none who would be as moderate in power as the mostly secular Arab dictators who have gotten along with Israel pretty well in recent decades, if only to keep US money flowing.

Whichever rebels end up taking over will be far more jihadist than Assad, and far more likely to support a future Caliphate, which Assad would have opposed out of self-interest.

So I understand the strategy, but it seems pretty risky. Maybe the Arab Muslims will run around in circles hacking at each other (and any Christians they can find) within their own borders -- or maybe they'll unite for a third major expansion. If that happens, what's the chance that they'll ignore Israel and go directly to Europe or elsewhere?

Seems risky to shake things up when they had guys in charge who were bought and could be dealt with. Maybe Israel fears that, as recent American presidents have become more Arab/Muslim-friendly (Obama most of all, but Bush loved him some Saudis), they won't be able to count on the US to buy off the dictators forever?

Blogger Random May 24, 2015 11:34 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous nil May 24, 2015 11:38 AM  

"I guess you didn't get the memo. Read the Oded Yinon paper from 1982 and Project for New American Century policy papers from late 1990s. What we are seeing in the Middle East has been in the works for years."

Why do you think a 30+ year old journal article written before Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (which blew up in their face) is a good guide to understanding modern Israeli foreign policy?

Israel has no way of knowing whether or not the current chaos in the mena region will really be to their advantage, and there's very little they can do about it in any case.

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 11:54 AM  

Just say, "CIA flavor of the day."

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 12:05 PM  

Well, the goods in all this, for TP'sTB, is that Putin is denied. When it all settles down, hopefully TP'sTB will finally have unfettered access to the Caspian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, pipelines, gas, oil, and trillions more in other minerals. What? You think Ukraine has nothing at all to do with any of this?

Blogger Chris Mallory May 24, 2015 12:10 PM  

"Are you really going to insist that I name all of the jews currently in the executive branch?"

Not to mention all the dual citizenship Israelis who inhabit the judicial and legislative branches of the US government. We won't talk about the NGOs and think tanks that are Israeli controlled, I will lump the Federal Reserve in this batch.

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 12:12 PM  

And Israel doesn't exist in region 7 socioeconomic kingdom, zone, protectorate, whatever.

Things could get out of hand pretty quickly.

And I still do not think Russia will be swooping down on Israel, but NATO.

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 12:24 PM  

Dial Emergency 9-1-1. Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is. - Dick "The Dick" Cheney

Relax! He was only kidding!

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 12:29 PM  

RedJack #22

Ken,
Read about Smedly Butler and the Banana wars. His pamphlet "War is a Racket" is very interesting.


Anyhow, carry on.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2015 12:54 PM  

we railed against Assad when he was fumigating these roaches... and now we sincerely wish he had been more thorough.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 24, 2015 12:59 PM  

Is it possible for Iran to defeat Israel? Not in a direct military confrontation I mean being smart and long term, taking everything into account.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 24, 2015 1:01 PM  

"we railed against Assad when he was fumigating these roaches... and now we sincerely wish he had been more thorough."

There is your "moderate Muslim" who polices his own...:(

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 24, 2015 1:04 PM  

Bashir al-Assad protected Christians Jews & gays from savage moslems. The only way to deal with moslems is the way Assad, Charles Martel, Putin, Thomas Jefferson, Gen Blackjack Pershing & Vlad Tepes did. Bath house Barry has pushed the military's rules of engagement to tie the hands of soldiers. The best explanation of Benghazi is that it was a con game that got screwed up by a former seal sniping, meaning they created the problem had the solution ready but once savages started going down the script was useless.

Anonymous BGS May 24, 2015 1:05 PM  

By the way what is the proper number of ooooooooooooos in jews since we seem to be going there?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 24, 2015 1:06 PM  

BGS, are you poz?

Blogger dc.sunsets May 24, 2015 1:07 PM  

Making a Big Deal about your penchant for unhinged barbarism is an age old tactic in warfare and as such, even with (or especially with) today's photography, one has to take every assertion with a bucket of salt. Today's "news" could undoubtedly create an entire war, enough to convince the vast majority of its reality, when nothing actually happened.

The question becomes a contest between the moral level (even with the benefit of the ruthlessness of the weak) and the operational level ("surrender without a shot, or we will behead every male and sell your wives and daughters into slavery, torture and death.")

It's possible the line between these two differs from culture to culture.

Anonymous BGS May 24, 2015 1:10 PM  

BGS, are you poz? No but I have been called a bigot for not wanting to have sex with a guy who I knew was HIV+. I know the societal costs of HIV meds the same way I do the costs of Drug resistant TB, & illegal aliens that drop premmi babies. Along with being a top using condoms until you date someone for at least 6 months then both get tested would have been a good strategy for you to follow.

Blogger VD May 24, 2015 1:11 PM  

By the way what is the proper number of ooooooooooooos in jews since we seem to be going there?

Zero. That stupid performance rhetoric is not permitted here.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 24, 2015 1:17 PM  

The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

Do you think historians will ever write about what a truly wretched president Obama was? Everything the elites do these days is the exact opposite of a good idea. It's like GW Bush on steroids.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 1:22 PM  

Why do you think a 30+ year old journal article written before Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (which blew up in their face) is a good guide to understanding modern Israeli foreign policy?

1. Because this is obviously the policy being followed in the Middle East. All the dominoes are falling as outlined.

2. Plan was reiterated in policy papers of PNAC in the 90s.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 1:26 PM  

Why do you think a 30+ year old journal article written before Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (which blew up in their face) is a good guide to understanding modern Israeli foreign policy?

3. The plan is the have the USA do all of the fighting and dying and spending.

Blogger luagha May 24, 2015 1:43 PM  

If Israel wanted Assad gone they had many opportunities to do so. At least twice they've run bomber sorties over a house he's been in flying low enough to rattle the roof as a way of 'sending a message' that they didn't like what he was doing. Maybe Assad is living in a bunker nowadays but they could still do that again at most any time.

The small number of sorties against Syria, at least according to the wiki pages above, have been strikes on advanced weapons systems coming into Syria that were likely intended for Hezbollah; plus some standard Golan Heights infiltration stuff that has been going on for years. If they weren't, you'd hear about it at the United Nations.

ISIS hasn't attacked Israel because they aren't at the point in Syria where they control the Golan Heights. They only have a border with Jordan, which they seem to have quickly stopped attacking on after Jordan started flying revenge sorties and Israel made it publically known that an attack on Jordan would be considered an attack on Israel and the two countries would attack in concert.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2015 1:49 PM  

"zero. That stupid performance rhetoric is not permitted here."


oh no...

what ever well we...

Doooooooooooooo

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 1:51 PM  

If Israel wanted Assad gone they had many opportunities to do so.

Israel is not going to attack anyone directly, that is what the goyim in the US military are for. Besides, according to "Securing the Realm" the plan is not to necessarily take out Assad, but only to destabilize his regime so he would be no threat when the time comes to attack Iran.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 1:54 PM  

If you want to know what is going to happen in the Middle East, Oded Yinon and "Securing the Realm" are the blueprints for what has happend and will happen in the coming years.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 2:02 PM  

The stupidity of the Arabs is breathtaking. Instead of ineffectual terrorists attacks on civilian and military installations, they could bring their troubles to an end with targeted assasinations of a handful of neo-cons in the US press and government.
Outside of this group there is very little support for the continued wars in the Middle East.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 24, 2015 2:11 PM  

"they could bring their troubles to an end with targeted assasinations of a handful of neo-cons in the US press and government. "

Wouldn't they use this as a casus belli?

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 2:16 PM  

Wouldn't they use this as a casus belli?

Maybe, or perhaps there would be celebration in the streets.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2015 2:16 PM  

"zero. That stupid performance rhetoric is not permitted here."

You know we're going to beat you over the head with this in the future when you start talking about freedom of expression right?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 24, 2015 2:21 PM  

"Maybe, or perhaps there would be celebration in the streets."

that would be great, but I heard the sasme rhetoric wrt NY getting nuked. When a bunch of Arabs destroyed WTC, those who loathe NYC still called for blood though.

Blogger stats May 24, 2015 2:26 PM  

When a bunch of Arabs destroyed WTC, those who loathe NYC still called for blood though.

You are probably right, but please just leave me my pleasant delusions.

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 2:45 PM  

3 A-10's. Remember the highway of death?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-holds-massive-military-parade-in-west-anbar-celebrating-victory-in-ramadi-wheres-the-coalition/

Yet. Yet?

Blogger Nate May 24, 2015 3:13 PM  

"3 A-10's. Remember the highway of death?"

You're forgetting Azrael... the spectre gunship that did much of the damage.

Blogger Nobody May 24, 2015 3:37 PM  

Warthogs. Puff. Either would have worked.

(I'm partial 30 cannon and cluster bombs. And they really are a sight to behold).

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum May 24, 2015 7:14 PM  

In my opinion, there is no reason to even contemplate military intervention in the Islamic world as long as Muslims reside in the West.


Military intervention is what's most likely going to happen this century.

If what the US did to the Confederate States in the 19th century (Gen. Sherman, I'm looking in your direction...), and what America did to the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan in the 20th century are examples of how America deals with problems, then sometime this century, Mecca will be in ruins.

I don't want to see that, to be honest. I know people who live in mecca (believe it or not...), I'm not allowed in mecca, but I know people who live there, but the average German in Berlin didn't care about the inner-workings of the Nazi party anymore than the average resident of mecca cares about the inner-workings of isis.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 24, 2015 10:10 PM  

the average German in Berlin didn't care about the inner-workings of the Nazi party anymore than the average resident of mecca care
The average German didn't support people keeping non moslem women as sex slaves, or death for gays. Before the Nazis came about Berlin had the freest most open gay community since ancient Greece, which is why people have to understand the pendulum swinging. If they need a volunteer to push the button on mecca please contact BigGaySteve's Big Gay spokesman's Services.

Blogger Thucydides May 24, 2015 10:47 PM  

Frankly, at this point, there is no longer any American policy in the Middle East, and probably hasn't been since the so called "Red Line" was crossed with impunity by Assad, if not before then. (The official policy since 2009 has been "cut and run" anyway).

The new scenario I am seeing looks more like this:

Saudi Arabia uses its vast financial clout to assemble an avenging Arab army to smite the Persians. They take out Lebanon and Hezbollah, Syria and march across Iraq to invade Iran proper. The smoking remains become a firebreak to stop the Turks from exercising any imperialistic designs about reviving the Ottoman Empire.

Saudi Arabia is already assembling a coalition to fight Iranian backed fighters in Yemen, which was a mistake on the part of the Iranians since the new Arab Legion gets a good shakeout and becomes battle tested. ISIS will probably get covert funding from the Gulf States again, since they are already in place and drawing the Iranian Quds force, Iranian air force jets, Syrian troops and Hezbollah into a grinding fight. The fact that many of the ISIS fighters are foreigners just means another problem gets solved for the Saudis in the long run. The fact that the Americans and NATO are acting as a de facto air wing for the Iranians is probably annoying as hell for the Saudis, but they are looking longer term here, knowing the Americans really are not willing to go for a protracted conflict, while waiting for the effects of lower oil prices to really cripple Iran's ability to carry out large scale actions. The fact it hurts the Russians too may be helpful to us, but for the Saudis it means that Russian military aid to Syria and Iran will also be curtailed, as well as limiting any possibility of direct Russian involvement in the conflict.

Once we look at the war from the Arab lens, things really fall into place,

Blogger Eric May 25, 2015 1:12 AM  

Any speculation as to why the American government is so keen to topple more-or-less secular strongmen in the middle east?

It's an overestimation of the beneficial effects of democracy. Some pretty ignorant people got into power and decided if middle eastern countries had European style democracies they'd suddenly turn passive and secular. Might even be true, but we'll never know because a government like that isn't going to survive without the underlying cultural institutions.

Blogger Thingumbobesquire May 25, 2015 8:27 AM  

This is pure British Empire geopolitics at work. The Anglophile neo-cons are their American Lilliputians. See the Bernard Lewis plan for endless war and "Clash of Civilizations."

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts