Tuesday, September 09, 2014

War drums

A few weeks ago, I would not have called this bad news...
Americans overwhelmingly view Islamic State terrorists as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests and, in a significant shift, widely support airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
I once published a post arguing that, since we created ISIS, we have an obligation to clean up the mess.

But I now think that anything this Administration tries to do in that part of the world will only lead to a larger mess. What bugs me is this propaganda campaign designed to convey the lie that Bashar Assad of Syria created ISIS. Men and women of good will must keep hammering home the truth:

Assad did not create ISIS. We created ISIS as a weapon against Assad.

The current propaganda barrage reminds me of the 2002 effort to convince the public that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That particular triumph of mendacity truly inspired awe: A CBS New poll published (if memory serves) on September 17, 2001 held that only three percent of the American public blamed the tragedy on Saddam. A year later, the vast majority of the American populace accepted the "Saddam did it" lie.

Have Americans wised up since then? Not really.

To the best of my knowledge, no polling exists to tell us whether the public believes the lie that Assad created ISIS. The neo-neocons are relying on America's continual inability to sort out who is who in that part of the world.

Most Americans would be stunned to learn that Bashar Assad is a secular dictator who has protected Syria's Christians. Most Americans simply will not believe you if you tell them that we have armed, trained and funded the Islamic whackadoodless who have burned churches and viciously murdered all non-Sunnis.

We are the jihadis. There would not be a powerful jihadist movement in Syria right now if we had not wanted one to materialize. ISIS is our baby.

And quite an evil baby it is. It certainly seems to have gotten out of our control -- just as Osama Bin Laden, a former American ally, got out of our control.

I would support any action to bring ISIS down -- if I felt that we could trust this administration to do the right thing in the right way. But how can we?

The fact that this administration (and its allies in Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia) created ISIS is bad enough. What is worse is the fact that the responsible parties now refuse to admit that they did what they did. This administration still pushes the false narrative that ISIS somehow created itself, that it was not funded by nations allied with the US, that ISIS is financed purely by petty theft and bank robbery, and that ISIS came by all that made-in-America weaponry "by accident."

The more we hear such fabrications, the more convinced I become that any actions we take will only create more heartache.

In the all-important question of war and peace, how can we place our trust in people who continually lie?

If you want to get closer to the truth, I suggest listening to Syrian Girl. She is featured in the video above (recorded some six months ago) and in the interview embedded below (recorded more recently). This blog will have a lot more to say about her.

At this point, I must make an embarrassing confession.

When I first tried to watch the very important video embedded at the bottom of this post, her words didn't really register -- for the same reason that so many people couldn't follow what Virginia Madsen said in the prologue to Dune. The sight of certain faces can interfere with the proper functioning of one's ears. Odd how that happens.

So I converted this interview to an MP3 file and followed her argument without any distracting visuals. You know what? She's brilliant.

And she's right. Perhaps not about everything, but about most things. 

Yes, I know that she has been getting a lot of publicity from Alex Jones, whom I detest. To be honest, that irritating alliance is the main reason why I've hesitated to mention her in these pages before. But in the end, the AJ factor simply doesn't matter: Syrian Girl is still brilliant, and still right.

(Yes, I know her real name. Right now, let's use her nomme-de-YouTube.)

In the video below, she makes many good points, including this one: In the Bush era, America did everything it could to foment a Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq. The reason for that strategy should be obvious: A house divided against itself cannot stand -- and cannot unite against an invading army. The American people went into that war in the naive belief that we were going to create a secular democracy; in fact, we encouraged sectarianism, fundamentalism and religious violence.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we created it. Inadvertently or intentionally, we gave birth to that monster.

ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The proposed war against ISIS would be supportable if it were, in fact, a war against ISIS -- and nothing more. But the only way to prosecute such a war would be to form a temporary partnership with both Iran and Assad's government, much as we had to form a temporary partnership with Stalin in order to combat Hitler. Alas, that is simply not going to happen.

It seems likely that a war against ISIS is going to be used as a pretext for a war to bring down Assad. Obama's war against ISIS will serve the very end that ISIS wants.

Love Syrian Girl and Yes very bright and has a great way with words.
Love Syrian Girl and yes very bright and a great way with word play.
I’m caught in a quandary, Mr. C. On one hand, I’m not a bible believing literalist per se, but rather a believer in metaphorical and allegorical theological expressions for the most part, that can give rise to distinct translations of literal deity-thought. Sometimes, though, I am inclined to believe in certain literal translations of religious texts; such as, Corinthians 10:13: “ There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

So, here is my quandary: I am tempted to make some comments about the similarity of the genetic makeup of Paul Joseph Watson and the Syrian Girl; in particular, the thickness of their lips and how such a distinct feature is shared by two of Alex Jones’ commentators. Further, I would like to embroider and embellish my thoughts and make another comments; i.e., How did such a feature become manifest?: Kissing windows? Fat injections, and if so from where – whose buttocks were used? Is such a feature a prerequisite for employment with Mr. Jones? Al-licks Jones? The Syrian Girl is quite attractive, beautiful even. As far as Paul Joseph Watson is concerned, well, he does an excellent job in his reviews – but Alex Jones can comment on his sex appeal. No doubt Jones likes him. But I shouldn’t use caustic comments to cut a cretinous carcass – or should I? What a quandary…..

Ok, the Lord was faithful and now the temptation is gone. It’s only satire, Mr. Jones – just like the kind you claimed to have used when you made comments about the First Lady.

Alex Jones is a nut. With the possible exceptions of Jim Fetzer and Milton "Bill" Cooper, no individual has done more to de-credibilize anyone who attempts to mount a responsible dissent from mainstream notions.

But Syrian Girl...

Well, part of me wants to say "Syrian Girl ha sempre ragione." But that might be considered excessive.

I do consider her credible, and her occasional youthful mistakes only adds to her humanity, and thus to her credibility. If Syrian Girl were to tell me "Godzilla is real" and Barack Obama were to tell me "Actually, our latest intelligence indicates that Godzilla is fictional" -- I'd have to tell the President: "Sorry, dude. You're wrong and she's right. Y'know why? Because LOOK AT HER, that's why!"

If I were the young man I once was, I'd probably drop everything and devote my life to the task of making her Queen of Syria. Or, like, any other place she wanted to be queen of. It's all good.
I wasn't going to comment because Syria is a serious issue. But those lips. She's really smart and articulate, but I have difficulty focusing on what she's saying. Her being close to a computer's camera lens it magnifies those lips. I just keep watching those lips.
When I read " Rebels sold Steven Sotloff's location to ISIS for thousands" it pretty much said CIA involvement to me right out loud.
Intelligent, sexy and adorable at the same time. Took a few tries to snap out of it and really listen.

That said, there was a video on the side as a recommendation. It's an interview on ISIS with Eric Margolis back in mid July. He's been reporting about that area since the 80s probably even the 70s, and cuts through the crud consistently:


I tried watching the video with the sound off and was able to concentrate.
Perhaps she would prefer if you concentrated on her words, C.
Her day job is being a chemist.
I know, C. I've been doing the detective work too. (And I have a cyber-friend in that part of the world.) But let's be careful as to which details are printed on this blog, shall we? Because I think that some of the information one finds online was placed there by her enemies.

In other words, let's you and I agree to call her Mimi. Capice?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?