It looks as though Assad’s days as ruler of Syria are numbered. Islamic extremists are one step closer to restoring the Caliphate, with help from the United States.There is little doubt left that, for whatever reason, our executive branch has a stake in the Arab Spring.
Our state department has expressed concern over civilian casualties in the region, while voicing support for the rebel fighters. In other words, we are aiding islamic extremists to turn Syria into a war zone, while trying to appear to be worried about collateral damage. On Dec. 7, rebel fighters made it clear they were targeting the main civilian airport in Damascus, and warned “civilians who approach it now do so at their own risk.” Our government offered no objection or condemnation.
Somehow, no one is calling these terrorist acts. I have no idea why. Now, in Obama’s America, Islamic extremists who overthrow governments are “rebels” or “revolutionary fighters” who need our support. Few in the media are questioning this new foreign policy strategy — how convenient.
If we are to believe the U.S. wants peace in the region at all costs, why is Hillary Clinton making the claim that Syria’s future “cannot possibly contain Assad”? It seems our priority is the toppling of the regime, not peace. If we wanted the fighting to cease, wouldn’t it have been much easier and less bloody on both sides to reign in the uprising, rather than support it?
Our government cites Assad’s human rights record as the reason he has to go, which is a flimsy argument at best. The human toll of the conflict on the nation alone should be proof enough the well-being of the Syrian people is not a concern of ours. As for proof that it is radical Islamists and not some other innocuous armed group who spontaneously decided to overthrow a nation’s government, the burden of proof should be on the fighters to prove they are not radical Islamists. Islamists — the radical, Jihadist Islamists — are inherently violent. Military coups are their specialty, in case you’ve lived in a cave (or a country ruled by Islamists) for the past 40 years. It’s what they do, in spite of our government’s efforts to prove otherwise.
Then there’s the latest development with NBC correspondent Richard Engel. Since his release, it has been reported that an “unknown group” was responsible. Apparently, the press has forgotten that kidnapping is a favorite tactic of Islamic extremists. Once again, it appears there’s not enough evidence to draw that conclusion. Engel insists the men were pro-government fighters but hasn’t been able to find any evidence of Assad’s forces kidnapping anyone during this crisis. However, there have been kidnappings by the rebels. That’s strange, because the rebels are supposed to be the good guys. Maybe it was the IRA.
Whether you agree with my point of view or not, three things are certain: Syria will soon have a new government; the governing body will be Islamic, most likely Sunni; and, they will receive money and arms from our president. In another time, that would be all the evidence needed to confirm my assertions. What does that tell you?
- As Syrian rebels close in, Assad has cards to play (dailystar.com.lb)
- Sunni Syrian rebels burn Shiite mosque: video (dailystar.com.lb)
- As Syrian rebels close in to capital, Assad has cards to play (foxnews.com)
- Syrian Jihadists Get Obama’s Blessing (frontpagemag.com)
- 99% of Syrian Rebels Are Islamic Extremists And Jihadist Terrorists (blacklistednews.com)