What’s Wrong with Going into Syria


syrian-rebels-2-600x350American military intervention in Syria is likely to begin this week, and one thing we know amid the general confusion is that the objective is not to oust Bashar Assad: White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday: “I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.” How the Obama Administration plans to deal with Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons without challenging his grip on power is unclear, but then again, so is everything else about this misadventure.

Epitomizing the muddle surrounding the likely attack on Syria was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In endorsing his country’s likely participation in a strike on Syria, Blair said that it was necessary to prevent the country from becoming a “breeding ground for extremism.”

Blair is several months too late. Syria is already a breeding ground for “extremism.” The New York Times reported no less than four months ago, on April 28, that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” And a month ago, Israeli Major General Aviv Kochavi said that Syria now “attracts thousands of global jihad activists and Muslim extremists from the region and around the world, who base themselves in the country, not only to bring down Assad, but to promote the vision of a state based on Islamic law.”

Kochavi added that “before our very eyes, at our doorstep, a large-scale center of the global jihad is developing, which may affect not only Syria and not just the borders of Israel, but Lebanon, Jordan, Sinai, and can radiate onto the entire region.”

And this week, the United States and Great Britain are about to intervene militarily on the same side as those “global jihad activists and Muslim extremists.” They’re poised to do so because they assume that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, although there is no proof that it was actually Assad, and not the jihadi rebels we are going to aid, who unleashed the chemical attacks. And UN inspectors in Syria have no mandate to determine exactly who used the chemical weapons, but only the fact that they were used – despite the fact that the key question is who used them, and no one has a clear or definite answer, least of all Barack Obama.

Then again, Barack Obama has aided jihadists and Islamic supremacists before, in Libya and Egypt – and that is exactly what he is about to do again. Bill Roggio reported in the Long War Journal on June 29 that the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, which is “al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria,” is “willing to work with Syrian rebel groups such as the Free Syrian Army, and in its official statements has admitted to doing so.” What’s more, “the Al Nusrah Front has also cooperated with Free Syrian Army units to establish sharia, or Islamic law, in Aleppo and in eastern Syria.” Nonetheless, “the US government is backing the Free Syrian Army despite the group’s known ties to the Al Nusrah Front.”

Blair complained that Syria is “mired in carnage between the brutality of Assad and various affiliates of al Qaida.” That is indeed true. But he did not explain how American and British intervention would change that fact, or aid in the establishment of a secular fighting force that after Assad’s fall might establish a secular, pluralistic republic that guaranteed equality of rights for all its citizens.

Given the fact that both the American and the British governments are dedicated to denying the reality of Islamic jihad and ignoring how Islamic jihadis use core texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that U.S. or British forces will be able to tell the difference between Sharia supremacists and secularists, or act effectively in favor of the latter, if indeed there are any significant secularist forces left in Syria.

After all, the U.S. and Britain presided over the establishment of Sharia constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why will Syria be different? Bashar Assad is unquestionably a bloody tyrant; so also are many other rulers around the world whom the U.S. and Britain have not yet determined to dislodge – and a general worldwide War on Tyranny would likely sap the remaining resources of both in short order. But his regime has been far more hospitable to Christians, Alawites (of which he is, of course, one) and other religious minorities in Syria than a Sharia state could or will ever be. Nor is there any reason to think that a Sharia state in Syria, even one established by the United States, will be any more grateful to the United States than are the current regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And finally, there is the possibility of escalation. Syria under Assad is a client state of Iran, which is allied with Russia. Alexander Lukashevich of the Russian foreign ministry said Tuesday that “attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.” He added: “We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence (and) strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.”

But prudence is in short supply in Washington (and London) these days. Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin had it right when he said that “the West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade.” The monkey, in the form of U.S. and British forces, is about to throw the grenade into Syria; we can only hope that other forces in the world that are far more powerful and sinister than Bashar Assad will not take advantage of this new depletion of already-depleted U.S. forces to give our tottering economy and weakened military a final push over the edge. But Barack Obama and David Cameron will ultimately discover that they can’t tempt fate forever.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Assad or Al-Qaeda in Syria, who is worse? If it were only Assad then I would prefer he stay. However, since Assad is supported by Iran and if Iran gets nuclear weapons they would use it, anything that weakens Iran and helps Israel destroy the Iranian nuclear threat should be supported. It is from this angle that many Israelis see the intervention in Syria.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Deal with Iran and leave Assad.

      • Mladen_Andrijasevic

        Syria is an ally of Iran along with Hezbollah and until recently Hamas. When you have hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah , Syrian and Hamas rockets, in addition to the Iranian ones, aimed at your cities it is impossible to deal with Iran without considering the impact on Syria , and vice versa

        • objectivefactsmatter

          That’s part of my point. The best way to deal with them as a whole is to start with taking care of Iran’s nuclear program. Then perform additional mop up as needed.

          That’s the most merciful and effective way to deal with the region and it’s players. Which means of course that we can’t even consider that option.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            You write “The best way to deal with them as a whole is to start with taking care of Iran’s nuclear program. “

            Yes, I agree, but that is exactly what Obama, the sheep in sheep’s clothing, refuses to do, so it is up to Israel.

            Netanyahu vs. Obama… Whom do you trust more on Iran?
            http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/netanyahu-vs-obama-whom-do-you-trust.html

          • EarlyBird

            “Netanyahu vs. Obama… Whom do you trust more on Iran?”

            Obama.

          • Gee

            Tells us how stupid you are

          • EarlyBird

            Hm, let’s see: Israel is the tail that has been wagging the dog of America’s Middle East policy for at least 40 years. I wonder who I trust most to look after US interests regarding Iran, the US president or the Israeli Prime Minister?

            Tell us how much of a Zionist tool you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Hm, let’s see: Israel is the tail that has been wagging the dog of America’s Middle East policy for at least 40 years.”

            Your promotion of this fallacy tells us that your entire calibration is fundamentally flawed.

          • EarlyBird

            Your entire sentence construction tells us you’re an insufferable blow hard.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Use a dictionary when you get confused.

          • iluvisrael

            Your Jew hatred is showing early turd.

          • EarlyBird

            No that’s my America loving showing through. I don’t owe Israel s**t.

          • iluvisrael

            dingbat, I’ll try to use small words so even a dunce like you will get it – anyone who singles out Israel for demonization or screeches about how Israel runs the world is a Jew hater – you’ve been outed many times

          • EarlyBird

            Fuck you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Back at you, loser.

          • defcon 4

            But he’s not a Shiite is he?

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • EarlyBird

            “That’s part of my point. The best way to deal with them as a whole is to start with taking care of Iran’s nuclear program. Then perform additional mop up as needed.”

            My God, what a fantasist! Yeah, taking on the entire Arab Middle East is just a mere “mop up” operation.

            Because see, annhilating the Assad regime would be quick ‘n’ easy, and wouldn’t spill over into other countries, or destablize other regimes, or increase the amount of Islamists in the world or spark a wider regional war. If only we had a real American in the White House who could see so clearly! Step 1.) Wipe out Iran. Step 2.) Mop up in Syria. Step 3.) Declare another American Century and Pax Americana!

            Professor, there’s a reason you hide behind long-winded philosophical abstractions: because you are incapable of thinking your ideas through in the real world.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…any attempt at practical thinking exposes you as a fool.”

            Coming from you, that’s somewhere between meaningless and a compliment.

          • defcon 4

            Gee hasn’t the entire islam0fascist Mid-East (and maybe even N. Africa) tried to mop up Israel on more than one occasion? Or do you think we’ve all forgotten?

      • victoryman

        Right on target. However, with the current “Team” of Obambi, Kerry, Hagel, Rice, Power, and the quisling, Brennan, Iran is home free. Instead, Obambi and his merry men will aid and abet the “Rebels” – made up of Al Queda and other assorted bad guys in Syria. After all, these “Rebels,” and especially the “Brotherhood” are Obama’s “Bro’s”

        • EarlyBird

          Obama has put together a crippling sanctions regime against Iran. The next steps are a blockade of Iran’s ports, or war.

          If you want to go to war against Iran now, explain how, when, what happens after the shots are fired, how we win, what happens if we win, what cost you expect there to be, what might happen that we can’t control. Think past the end of your first sentence, in other words.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Obama has put together a crippling sanctions regime against Iran. The next steps are a blockade of Iran’s ports, or war.”

            Talking points memo. Moveon.org. We’ve heard this BS before, silly bird.

            “…explain how, when, what happens after the shots are fired…”

            You strike the nuke sites, numb nuts. No need for more than that. Everyone else will get the point. Then again, that’s delusional thinking because of who occupies the Whitehouse at this moment. It can’t happen that way. But we’re offering advice on what should happen if we had a loyal and competent POTUS.

          • EarlyBird

            “You strike the nuke sites…”

            Even the IDF admits that it may know the location of up to one third of all or Iran’s nuke sites, that they are too far underground to “strike.” Because they are serious men engaged with reality as it exists, not some foolish ideologue on a chat board throwing rocks from the cheap seats, they understand that a simple “strike” is the very first act in what could be a very, very difficult, deadly and long war.

            Former IDF Maj General: “An attack is not a single strike and once it happens we are in a whole other world,” he said. Surely he’s a radical leftist.

            Gee, it seems that all the experts are stupid, disloyal and in thrall to the left. Why ELSE hasn’t both Obama and Netanyahu opened the gates of hell to “strike” Iran and then “mop up” Syria? Marxists!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Even the IDF admits that it may know the location of up to one third of all or Iran’s nuke sites, that they are too far underground to “strike.”"

            That’s Israel’s perspective because they don’t have the same capabilities that we have, plus they’re speaking in terms of an Israeli strike that does not involve the USA. There is no such thing as an American strike in the Middle East that does not involve Israel from the perspective of any Muslim nation.

            “Former IDF Maj General: “An attack is not a single strike and once it happens we are in a whole other world,” he said. Surely he’s a radical leftist.”

            Well, he is an Israeli.

            “Gee, it seems that all the experts are stupid, disloyal and in thrall to the left. Why ELSE hasn’t both Obama and Netanyahu opened the gates of hell to “strike” Iran and then “mop up” Syria? Marxists!”

            It seems that you still can’t put together a rational statement to save your life.

            I’m an American. I’m advocating for our policies, not Israeli policies in this case. Israel will be affected, no doubt. For us, showing consistent toughness and determination will deflate most of the jihadis, We mop up the rest as needed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Even the IDF admits that it may know the location of up to one third of all or Iran’s nuke sites, that they are too far underground to “strike.”"

            That’s Israel’s perspective because they don’t have the same capabilities that we have, plus they’re speaking in terms of an Israeli strike that does not involve the USA. There is no such thing as an American strike in the Middle East that does not involve Israel from the
            perspective of any Muslim nation.

            “Former IDF Maj General: “An attack is not a single strike and once it happens we are in a whole other world,” he said. Surely he’s a radical leftist.”

            Well, he is an Israeli. That means he’s talking about the
            Israeli perspective of a strike, and probably the Israeli perspective of an Israeli strike rather than an American strike.

            “Gee, it seems that all the experts are stupid, disloyal
            and in thrall to the left. Why ELSE hasn’t both Obama and Netanyahu opened the gates of hell to “strike” Iran
            and then “mop up” Syria? Marxists!”

            It seems that you still can’t put together a rational statement to save your life.

            I’m an American. I’m advocating for our policies, not Israeli policies in this case. Israel will be affected, no doubt. For us, showing consistent toughness and determination will deflate most of the jihadis around the globe, We mop up the rest as needed.

            From Israel’s perspective that might indeed seem like another world because that’s where the mopping up will be required. It might be big for them, but not for us.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, yeah it’s so “crippling” that Hezbollah doesn’t seem to be having any problems being supplied w/ammunition and weapons to continue their endless jihad.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “After all, these “Rebels,” and especially the “Brotherhood” are Obama’s “Bro’s”"

          He doesn’t even really try to hide it. He simply won’t announce it in clear terms to burst the bubble of his idiotic dupe supporters.

          “Let me be clear…” means…not.

          • victoryman

            Maybe he was saying, “Let me be Claire?”

          • EarlyBird

            “Maybe he was saying, “Let me be Claire?”"
            Hah! Cuz see, what you do is to question someone’s manhood and call him some kind of a sissy, because we’re 11 year olds on the playground.

          • defcon 4

            Or perhaps Jew hating muslimes in our mosque?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re a pathetic overwrought hypocrite. But you still make us laugh.

      • Bamaguje

        Agreed!!
        Assad is secular, while the tyrannical Iranian Mullahs are intolerant Islamists. So they are actually strange bedfellows.

        In a region dominated by hegemonic Sunni Islamists, Assad aligns with Iran because he has to, not because he wants to.

        May be if the West offers Assad something better, he might actually dump his Iranian partners… and may even become Israel friendly.

        • Mladen_Andrijasevic

          Assad may even become Israel friendly? You need a crash course on the Middle East.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think he could move in that direction without projecting this to hostile Muslim factions.

          • defcon 4

            Hmmm, almost an irrelevant point now. Sadat was never what you would call Israel friendly (he instigated the ’73′ Yom Kippur War, yet his signing of a peace treaty w/Israel also signed his own death warrant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sadat was never what you would call Israel friendly (he instigated the ’73′ Yom Kippur War, yet his signing of a peace treaty w/Israel also signed his own death warrant.”
            I agree with your views on Sadat, but he was easier to deal with than Nasser. OTOH, Nasser might have been more malleable had he lived to open his ideas because I think in spirit Sadat was closest to a jihadi between the 3 of them (including Mubarak).
            The point I’m making is that you can keep your ideals pure, but your actions must be molded to the realities of the time. Not forgetting your ideals but looking for the best possible outcomes.
            As for Assad, he might be the most pragmatic of all the modern Arab leaders. His father was a tyrant and a clear enemy of the West, and naturally of Israel. But I think his son is less of a jihadi than he is a man leading a modern Islamic nation with a tradition of tyrannical leaders.
            But I could be wrong. Just saying, something to consider. Not that we can act on that right now, but it’s always something to keep in mind until it’s too late. And I only point it out because it should be part of the metrics when we ask, does it make sense to attack Syria rather than Iran? Hell no it does not. Because Assad is quite a bit more rational and easier to deal with than a sea of clearly deranged mullahs in a culture where the deranged ones will always be followed first,
            Hitting Syria to punish or warn Iran is stupid unless there are other important factors. And I don’t see any. I only see grave factors that should warn us against hurting Assad because we want a weak Iran, we don’t want a Sunni Iran. Nor do we want a nuclear Iran that has yet another reason to build its arsenal now that we’ve helped to remove a buffer state between it and the Sunni caliphate players. We want the buffer state, especially if it’s hot enough to keep jihadi eyes focused there. And we want Iran weak. Scaring Iran probably isn’t possible short of attacking them, or attacking a nation of comparable size for similar reasons.
            That’s really my point here.

        • Gee

          He’s an Muslim and an Arab. Friendly like an viper

      • EarlyBird

        Hurting Assad hurts Hezbollah and hurts Iran. It also makes it more likely that we will go to war against Iran. You should therefore be thrilled. And some how I’m sure you would be 100% behind this if a Republican was doing exactly the same thing and expounding on the moral clarity of doing so.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Hurting Assad hurts Hezbollah and hurts Iran.”

          So do sanctions, so does “insulting the prophet of Islam.” We want to roll them back, not hurt their feelings or give them mere headaches.

          “And some how I’m sure you would be 100% behind this if a Republican was doing exactly the same thing and expounding on the moral clarity of doing so.”

          You’re a complete more-on that can’t learn anything he hasn’t read from moveon.org. I’m not even a Republican. And my advice would not change in any way. Period. Zero.

        • defcon 4

          I’m sure you would rather see the Iranian nukes flying towards Israel.

  • medlaw

    To paraphrase Dmitry Rogozin:

    “The US has a monkey in the White House who behaves towards the Islamic world like the Islamic monkey he is – with missiles.”

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Obama is an evolutionist so calling him a “monkey” is not racist since he believes his ancestry swung from trees. That being said, we have an illegal President sitting right next to the Nuclear Football and it seems Congress isn’t concerned about the biggest sleeper cell in America being operated right out of the Oval Office. Our Conservative Congress are spineless. They have been hand delivered enough evidence to prove Barry is a FRAUD and they choose to remain silent. We are in deep doo doo my friend.

      • medlaw

        “Monkey” was here used in the same sense as Rogozin employed it.

        I agree with your conclusion that Congress is “spineless” – it is well to remember that the Republicans have long ago ceased to be “conservative” – if they ever were.

        With the possible exceptions of Barry Goldwater in 1960 and less so Ronald Reagan, there have been no true “conservatives” in American politics during the last century through to this one.

        To fathom how very far American politics – and Republicans in particular – have descended, it is emblematic that after his retirement from the Senate in 1986, Goldwater was succeeded as Senator from Arizona by none other than John McCain.

        Republicans have been a “nationalist” party – not a true conservative one, in contrast with the Democrats who truly are and have been socialists.

        If the Republicans didn’t exist, the Democrats would have to invent them, and vice versa. – The two “parties” are far more alike than different insofar as they represent themselves and their funders and not their constituents.

        This has long been known also – See, for example, the works of Frank Richardson Kent in his 1923 work The Great Game of Politics and later works such as his Political Behavior, published in 1928.

        America has been in sharp decline, compliments of the well-known ills of both human nature and “political democracy” for generations.

        • cynthia curran

          Reagan was less conservative than you think.as governor of California he rise some taxes. People are way too romantic about him, he allowed lots of legal and illegal immigration during his presidency. In fact I live in Southern California at that time and illegal and legal immigration triple during his presidency. In fact, the Iranians who tended to be Muslim came to Orange County during his presidency, so in the long run he helped thee US become more sympathetic to Muslims since he let in Perisans and others that were muslim also people here that scream Rinos and like Reagan and Goldwater that were even worst than Romeny on on iimmirgation are too blame as well. Goldwater was a libertarian that believe that big and small business should have a lot of guest workers to drive wages down but his guest worker idea was better than Reagan’s IRCA act that legalized millions and helped Obama eventually become president.

          • medlaw

            You are right – and that was my point: that the Republicans are and have been in no sense “conservative” – including the sainted Reagan and Goldwater.

            You have correctly fleshed out several areas, including pro-Muslim, particularly pro-Iranian policies and weakness on illegal immigration, which were part of the Reagan legacy.

            Goldwater, as you correctly indicated, was “nationalist” or “libertarian” – and also not “conservative”.

            The notion that Republicans are “conservative”, including historically, is an unfortunate illusion with still more unfortunate consequences for the present day.

            Both “parties” are more alike than they are different. Both play and have played the same “game”, so well described in Frank Kent’s work over 90 years ago.

            George Mason of Virginia foresaw the potential evils of “political democracy” and the potential for an all-encompassing, ever-expanding central federal government at the expense of the subscribing States. Sadly, he and his fellow “Founding Fathers” failed to adequately provide a means to rein it in.

            It didn’t take long before central government expansion was blessed by the US Supreme Court in its early decisions including the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316.

            The rest, as they say, is history. The seeds of destruction were sown early.

          • EarlyBird

            Today’s right wingers, who dominate the Republican Party, right wing media, the Tea Party and chat boards like this one, have confused “conservative” with absolute adherence to a list of specific policies historically associated with conservatives.

            No matter what is going on in the economy and the world, for instance, the right wingers’ economic platform MUST ALWAYS BE, “lower taxes, fewer regulations, cut all spending but raise military spending.” If times are good, bad or otherwise, if we are at war or at peace, that must be the “conservative” answer. Period.

            Since Reagan, with the exception of Ron Paul on the military spending, there has not been a single GOP candidate for president who’s economic agenda hasn’t been exactly that. “Lower taxes, fewer regulations, cut all spending but raise military spending.” Strict adherence to these or any specific policies – regardless of circumstances – is not conservative; it’s a cult.

            Instead, conservatism is a temperament which trusts and empowers the individual, is skeptical of government, moves slowly and respects traditional institutions and practices, and works towards maintaining social stability and individual freedom so that individuals can thrive.

            It first seeks to understand reality as it exists, and then applies a set of basic and immutable principles as its guiding lights in an ever-changing world. Given its sympathy towards individuals over government, it often expresses itself in a preference for lower taxes, fewer regulations, lower spending, and spending to maintain an adequate defense TO THE GREATEST DEGREE THAT IT IS PRACTICAL and supportive of the underlying goals of these policies. (Gov. Reagan put in tax increases in California to beat back a threatening deficit, e.g.)

            That conservatives would have voted for lowering taxes on the very top brackets in the midst of two major wars, as George W. Bush did and which today’s “conservatives” applauded, would have simply dumb-founded past generations of conservatives, let alone our Founding Fathers.

            We are living through the ugly rump-end of a once great conservatism. What was once a vibrant and inviting intellectual movement marked by healthy internal debate has degraded into an angry, vindictive, populist cult of self-styled victims, led by demagogic runts like Palin and Limbaugh, sour simpletons forever looking to ex-communicate the ideologically impure.

            The parallels between today’s conservatives and liberal dead-enders of the late ’70s is startling. My only hope is that we’re finally starting to see some cracks.

          • medlaw

            Thank you for your cogent and insightful analysis – it is admirable, inspiring and set forth well. I heartily agree with your diagnosis and with your conclusions.

            This sad state of affairs – which, as you ably and rightfully note, has been in evolution for what is now generations – it has become astoundingly and increasingly manifest, particularly in light of recent events on both the domestic and world stages.

            It is lamentable, too, that you are spot-on with respect to demagogues who parade as “conservatives” – those who you so correctly, colorfully and well-deservedly characterized as such.

            May I hasten to add “John McCain” to your list?

            We are indeed “on the same page”.

            It should be noted that even those on the public stage who might even passably be said to be “conservative”, those who would stand up for and who would protect our values, our civil liberties and our freedoms are but a distinct and small minority. We are at grave risk – not only from the ever-widening and deepening incursions and surveillance of an overbearing and increasingly powerful and burdensome central government – but clearly also by state government.

            In this regard, I call to your attention the recently enacted Texas bill HB 1606 which became effective on September 1, 2013. This bill is portentous – it hands to police and prosecutors immensely extended latitude to arrest and prosecute, potentially reaching and criminalizing conduct which encompasses a wide range of ordinary every day activities and encounters.

            It is remarkably easy to list the everyday scenarios, the “tussles” and encounters that ordinary people and their family members might have – at Wal-Mart, with a neighbor, at the Post Office, on the road, in a restaurant – which easily could result in being arrested, jailed and prosecuted – with all the risk to their person at the time of arrest and while in custody, and with the considerable expense and consequences that could ensue – all in the wake of HB 1606.

            These same ordinary, commonplace and routine activities of daily life are protected and not subject to prosecution in other jurisdictions, for example, in the State of Florida.

            It is of comparable importance to note that HB 1606 was passed by huge margins in both the Texas House and Senate – with only one true Republican Senator of 31 Texas Senators opposing it – and that it was signed into law by the “Republican” Governor Rick Perry – This was indeed a seminal event of signal importance to all who live, work or visit Texas.

            HB 1606 will have the predictably profound effect of placing persons at-risk – by criminalizing ordinary, commonplace and routine activities of daily life which are protected and not subject to prosecution in other jurisdictions, for example, in the State of Florida.

            Indeed, and emphatically, Texas has been accumulating major “minuses” in the individual liberty and personal freedom arena – it is barely still a “red” state and demographically is likely to turn decidedly “blue” in short order.
            Sic transit Gloria mundi

          • EarlyBird

            I just read that HB1606 bill, and it’s astonishing. What action is NOT illegal?! Yikes.

          • medlaw

            HB 1606 vastly enlarges the scope and reach of proscribed activities which are commonly encountered in the rough-and-tumble of ordinary life – in Texas and elsewhere.

            Unlike in other jurisdictions, including Florida, as previously noted, this nasty piece of work can criminalize and subject to arrest and prosecution for single, isolated acts – as opposed to requiring a course of conduct. Worse, it fails to take account that the solitary act it proscribes can have a “legitimate purpose”; indeed, Florida requires that there be NO legitimate purpose for there to be a predicate for arrest and prosecution.

            Texas law enforcement and prosecutors state-wide are cognizant of these changes to the Texas Penal Code. Unwary Texans are still to learn of it.

          • Daviddickinson

            Which party is “The Stupid Party”?

          • knowshistory

            reagan wasn’t even close to being a conservative. the reason he was a good president was that, deep in the throes of altzheimers dementia, he still was not as stupid as the liberal alternatives.

          • EarlyBird

            Reagan promoted individual freedom, responsibility, creativity and social stability, wished to limit government where practical, and respected moving slowly and working within established institutions, practices and norms. That’s conservative.

            Today he’d be condemned as RINO and would be a pariah of the so-called “conservative” right wing radical nutjobs on this idiotic board. “No taxes ever, under any circumstances!” is not only not conservative, it’s not responsible for coherent. GW Bush refused to raise taxes while we were fighting two enormously expensive wars, and buried us in calamitous debt – much to the Chinese. You know why? Because he had to bow down to the radical absolutist whack jobs who took over the Republican Party and refused to budge on taxes for anyone for any reason.

            Reagan raised taxes while governor because he inherited a massive state budget deficit from Governor Brown that threatened the fiscal viability of the state. Reagan was a deficit hawk (something conservatives used to care about even when conservatives were in office) and decided the best thing to do to get us out of the hole was raise taxes. He also cut spending. It was tough medicine but he knew it was the only reasonable course of action.

            Now, he was either right or wrong for doing that, but he was conservative to respond to reality as it existed in regard to the state budget.

            Would he have been a “real conservative” to you if he had let the state collapse while refusing to budge on taxes? Probably.

          • Daviddickinson

            Reagan was a brain-damaged drunk. The only intelligent thing he ever did was a television commercial for Grecian Formula. Lest we forget.

        • bleedinell

          The last true conservative, and the last administration to shrink government was Calvin Coolidge.

          • medlaw

            That is so. Of interest, before Coolidge died at age 60, on 5 January 1933, he was reported to have said, “I feel I no longer fit in with these times”

            One can only imagine what his horror might be on witnessing the present state of America, now 80 years later.

      • chess

        Why dont you DO SOMETHING?

  • Alvaro

    The timing of this chemical attack was suspect at best – it happened three days after the UN sent a delegation to investigate use of chemical weapons. Assad would have been retarded to order such a thing.

    Secondly, regime forces have had the upper hand the last months, so this could not have been some last ditch defense of the government. There was simply no need to.

    In my opinion this whole thing smells of provocation from the FSA to make the USA step in as the muscle and useful idiots of Al-Qaeda and their FSA cohorts.

    A proper investigation is needed – not conclusions first and evidence later.

    • Chubby Freen

      Don’t worry–Boehner’s on it…

      • glpage

        Gee, thanks for the encouraging words.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      We have a much bigger problem than Syria, we have a fraud and criminal sitting in the Oval Office. He is the most dangerous security threat ever bestowed upon this country. We are in the midst of the biggest scandal ever committed against this country and there is not one main stream conservative media outlet or blog that is writing about it or talking about it. Prayerfully, the lead investigator in the 22 month long criminal investigation of Obama is making headway with some Congresspersons and some VIPS in Washington DC over the past two months. It remains to be seen if they will demand an investigation. We have a whole boat load of cowards sitting in DC.

      • William

        With Obama the criminal in the White House how can one expect him not to commit further crimes. It is in a criminal’s nature. America deserves all the misfortune that is coming our way. I did not put the fraud in office, but the majority of Americans did. Therefore we will all suffer the consequence. I include myself, for being an American, I must suffer for our collective sin.

        • jillosophy

          Speak for yourself. Blame yourself for being an American, go ahead. Frankly, it is pathetic.
          There was rampant voter fraud, intimidation of b.o. (stinks) political opponents by the IRS and other gvt agencies and blatant disinformation being spread by demoncrats. There was massive cover up perpetrated by the MSM and God only knows what else – all to insure b.o. (stinks) won a second term and carried on with the wanton destruction of American and all she stands for – truth, justice, freedom etc.
          Many of us warned all who would listen, and those who wouldn’t, of the huge mistake it would be to elect him back in 2008. I personally feel absolutely no responsibility for this mess. Not one bit.
          And your self flagellation does not make you more likable to our enemies or a more noble martyr. You must therefore simply be a self-hating, girly-man masochist.

      • Rosasolis

        I hope that Obama does not drag North-America, Europe,
        Australia, and other Western countries into WW 111….because
        he is such a stubborn, conceited dictator, who is supported by
        a very corrupt government! He (and Kelly) believe they know it better
        than intelligent experts from the UN, and representatves from
        other countries such as Russia.
        Today is a special day here in Netherlands.
        It is 100 years ago that Queen Wilhelmina opened the
        Peace Palace in The Hague, which had been built to bring
        countries with problems together, to try to find a peaceful
        sollution to their conflicts. The great American, Carnegie,
        also supported this wonderful initiative for peace. But, 2 years
        later WW 1 began, and 30 years later it was WW 11.
        I hope that Obama and Kerry will at last wait for the rapports
        and conclusions from the UN observers, before they start
        bombing Syria. Haven’t the people from this country suffered
        enough? Obama seems to be supporting the rebels from
        El Qaira. Doesn’t he realize that if Syria is attacked, they will
        get help from Hezbollah and Iran…..and then this war will
        spead all over the Middle-east and Africa.
        And then it will continue onwards to Europe and North and
        South America.
        Perhaps Sarah Palin is right with her recent comment:
        “let the Islamists fight it out between themselves”.

      • chess

        Let’s go!

  • http://www.facebook.com/melvin.polatnick Melvin Polatnick

    The conflict in Syria was designed to stimulate the tightening budget of the US and Russian defense industries. Congress will speak about the need for a stronger military and the urgency for 6th generation weapons. Putin will build more submarines.

  • Thomas J.Stratford

    “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” …Syria now “attracts thousands of global jihad activists…”Including the feral idiot in the White House!

    • wildjew

      Funny. One more in a long line of ‘closet’ jihadists.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    Obama’s goal with intervention, is to get Israel drawn into a war with Syria, so that Israel can’t, or won’t, strike Iran. I don’t think even Obama himself believes that US presence in Syria will result in that country turning into a secular democratic republic.

    • Lanna

      Very True…How convenient…the US attacks Syria, and Israel gets attacked for it,….Looks like the Islamic world has found a way to get into a war with Israel, so they can try to destroy them as a state, Satan is behind this just like he was behind Hitler.

      • EarlyBird

        “…and Israel gets attacked for it,….”

        “Attacked”? How? By whom? Hezbollah and their rockets which can’t hit the side of a barn? Israel is HOPING Hezbollah will fire its near-usless rockets into Israel, so Israel has the cassus belli to annihilate Hezbollah and any Syrian military assets it feels it needs to. It may be that God Himself may behind this, not satan.

        • Gee

          Have you ever experienced a rocket attack? You have made the same sort of moronic claims whenever Israel is attacked.

          You are one sick racist.

          • EarlyBird

            You’re an idiot. The rockets do nothing but kick up dust and give the IDF an excuse to wipe out Hezbollah, which they should. Pull your head out.

          • defcon 4

            An AT rocket was fired into an Israeli school bus from the Gaza Strip. The rockets have been killing people and destroying property. Of course, islamofascist terrorism isn’t only about killing people and destroying property, it’s about terrifying a populace and wearing down their will to resist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’ve always got some dust on my driveway. Let’s test out those rockets on your place and see if we can use them to clean up some neighborhoods.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Police are trained and generally much better at hitting targets. They go around praying for criminals to shoot at them so that they can “murder” the poor victim-criminals who just want to get along in spite of the oppression of capitalism.

          • EarlyBird

            Are you daft? What don’t you get about my post? I WANT Hezbollah to fire rockets because I WANT Israel to annhilate them. It is not “murder” to attack and kill a terror-army which is attempting to kill one’s countrymen and destroy one’s country.

          • defcon 4

            What about Hamas? They’ve fired quite a few more rockets into Israel than Hezbollah. Or your problem w/Hezbollah the fact they are a Shia backed islamofascist terrorist group?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It is not “murder” to attack and kill a terror-army which is attempting to kill one’s countrymen and destroy one’s country.”

            It is “murder” in the eyes of your cohorts and allies when Israel responds to “mere” rocket attacks. Your support of their views about these rockets means you’re undermining a cause you occasionally claim to support. Which nobody really believes.

            But maybe I’m just confused. I need to sit at your feet and learn more about the world.

          • EarlyBird

            My “cohorts” are the sane, decent and fair individuals who deal in reality as it exists to try to get to truth as best as it can be ascertained. I don’t ascribe to any ideology. Try it out.

            “But maybe I’m just confused. I need to sit at your feet and learn more about the world.”

            That might help.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My “cohorts” are the sane, decent and fair individuals who deal in reality as it exists to try to get to truth as best as it can be ascertained.”

            You and Barack are so much smarter than the rest of us, it’s intimidating.

            “I don’t ascribe to any ideology.”

            That’s theoretically scary that you think so. But it’s also just the confession anyone could hope to hear because you’ve affirmed that you’re just a big fat duped blowhard.

          • defcon 4

            NOthing to say about the ten thousand rocket and mortar rounds fired from Gaza into Israel though — how strange.

          • EarlyBird

            Since you assume everyone who isn’t in absolute lock step with you is thefore a hard left, God, America and Israel-hating, pro-Islamist Marxist(!), you didn’t get my point:

            I WANT the IDF to use any Hezbollah rockets attacks on Israel as the LEGITIMATE cassus belli it would be to wipe out Hezbollah, and I believe that any US strike on Syria could create this scenario.

            Lanna is terrified of Hezbollah and its rockets. I’m saying it’s an opportunity for Israel – and I bet Netanyahu and the IDF generals see it that way too – not a threat.

            Try to follow along, okay?

          • defcon 4

            What a strange comment from you — considering your evaluation of Hamas rockets and mortar rounds as harmless fireworks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I WANT the IDF to use any Hezbollah rockets attacks on Israel as the LEGITIMATE cassus belli it would be to wipe out Hezbollah, and I believe that any US strike on Syria could create this scenario.”

            If I were to believe you, I’d tell you that your leftist rhetoric undermines this cause you claim to support.

            But in addition to that, look at what happened during the Gulf War when Hussein sent rockets at Israel. The reality is that unless we prosecute the war rationally, which we won’t, it will only help the Sunni Caliphate jihad. It will hurt everyone else, even maniacal leftists like you. That part seems to have gone over your head. Not that anyone is surprised.

          • defcon 4

            Maybe you wouldn’t mind one hitting your residence then?

        • Lanna

          The threats are that Russia will attack Saudi Arabia, and Iran will attack Telaviv if the US attacks Syria. Don’t you watch the news? Are you kidding me, Hezbollah and Hamas have all fired rockets at Israel’s cities in the past, they are waiting for the go ahead from Iran. Putin does not want the US in Syria either! All the over zealous Islamic nations would love to fire at Israel and the US attack would give them an excuse to do so!

        • TheOrdinaryMan

          Hezbollah’s Grad rockets have hit residential neighborhoods in Haifa, knocking big holes(several feet in diameter) in apartment buildings, and demolishing public commuter buses. These rockets are not harmless, as you think. They’re also responsible for numerous cases of post traumatic stress disorder in many Israeli children. Israel SHOULD annihilate Hezbollah…maybe this time they will. “It may be that God Himself may behind(?) this, not satan.” So you’re an Islamist, after all? I thought so.

          • defcon 4

            I always figured Erlyturd for a closet islam0fascist…

    • EarlyBird

      Not only are you paranoid about Obama (and giving him too much credit), but you’ve got it completely wrong: a strike on Syria weakens Assad, Iran and Hezbollah, and Israel would welcome the chance to be “drawn” into an (air) war against Syria. Israel is the region’s 800 lb gorilla. You’ll notice they are not complaining. Champagne is going to be opened over the next fews days in Tel Aviv.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You are already on record as opposing a Syrian intervention. You are either a paid 0′Bama troll, or your mental health is truly as bad as we some times mockingly suggest.

    • defcon 4

      Who would believe Obama wants a secular democractic republic in Syria?
      After all, he supports the theocratic tyranny called the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • pennant8

    Here once again we find ourselves in the same old quandary. Who do we expend our blood and treasure for, the Muslims or the Muslims?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Instead of going to war in Syria because the Assad regime allegedly used chemical weapons, the Obama administration should provide chemical weapons to both sides of the jihad, since the more Muslims killed on either side in that conflict, the better off all infidels will be.

    • knowshistory

      there’s an idea with appeal. one caveat, though. if you must hand your enemy a bomb, light the 5 minute fuse first, and make sure he is 10 minutes from your home, then run like hell.

  • wildjew

    What is the expression? Cut off the head of the snake? If folks want to punish Iran’s satellites and proxies (Syria, Hezbollah, etc.) go after the head of the snake. Iran is arming, training, funding Hezbollah, etc., all the while enriching uranium so they can make good on their threats to wipe this cancer (Israel) off the face of the earth. Destroy Iran’s nascent nuclear sites. That’s best way to send a sure a sure message to jihadists and criminals.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      There is only one SNAKES head that needs to be cut off and that is the one sitting on the shoulders of Barry Soetoro, the Usurper in Chief. That SNAKE is the leader of the biggest sleeper cell in America.

      • wildjew

        He is very dangerous indeed. We had an opportunity last year but Republican “Establishment” figures convinced the base Mitt Romney was the man to do it; the same guy who told his PACs not to expose Obama’s dangerous adult associations, the same guy who told reporter Dan Gilgoff, ‘Jihadism is not (has nothing to do with) Islam’, the same guy who fought for the Palestinian jihadists in the December 10, 2011 debate and on our national platform writing committee. My guess is these geniuses will try to convince the base in 2016,Chris (Suhail Muhammed) Christie is the only one who can win.

        • 1Indioviejo1

          I know I won’t support the fat guy. The RINO’s are on their last legs but are still doing damage to the nation. I think if we don’t get Cruz or Paul, or West, we will go home and forfeit the game. We will stick to the smaller candidates until we cleanse the party, Amen.

          • wildjew

            If Ted Cruz can be educated (brought up to speed) on the global jihad, I think from what I’ve seen, I might support Cruz over Sen. Paul. I like West. I like his outspokenness on the global jihad. When he was in Jerusalem, I thought he dropped the ball on a question about a Palestinian state. I was disappointed when he ran radio spots for my pro-Palestinian Congressman who was defeated in the last elections by a Tea Party supported Republican. I called West’s office. Maybe he did not know. Both Cruz and Paul want to punish Egypt’s military for the recent coup which deposed Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi. As I say, I hope we can bring Republicans up to speed. I wonder why none of them consult with R. Spencer on Islam.

  • knowshistory

    the most compelling reason to stay out of Syria is that both sides are muslim, both hate us, and no matter how the conflict resolves, the winner and the loser will still hate us. so, result is the same no matter what we do. why expend one cent or one drop of sweat to achieve a bad result? the best policy is to stand back and cheer for both sides. yea, murderers. yea pedophiles. go genocidists. hit them again, harder. this is exactly why the muslim in chief will order intervention in Syria.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      No the most compelling reason to stay out of Syria is the fact that we have an illegal President sitting in the biggest and best protected sleeper cell in America.

      • knowshistory

        true, but not useful. our muslim in chief’s black ancestors insure that he will never be held accountable for his crimes, and he will not be removed from office. we must endure the entire 8 years.

        • ThisObamaNation

          YT out numbers the Muslim and Chief’s black ancestors 10 to 1. But YT insists on acting like a frightened little bitch. We don’t have to endure one more minute of this BS if we don’t want to! We could band together and march on Washington DC by the hundreds of thousands and demand Hussien Obama’s impeachment and arrest. But alasYT has no balls.

          • Babyu21

            You do realize the people voted him in office that means the majority of folks back him. Why is there so much hate on this board? Grow up and realize he is in office and isn’t going anywhere.

          • knowshistory

            do you realize that the majority of voters are on the dole and will vote for a mangy dog if he is the welfare party candidate? grow up and realize that the political process has been perverted by voters bought for the welfare party with the taxpayer’s money, and we will not have another meaningful election until the welfare money runs out. it was obligatory to have a “black” president. next we must punch the female ticket. then we will be obliged to elect a lesbian. then a transsexual. with a little luck, we will elect Chelsea/Bradley manning, and punch 3 tickets at once. at some point investors will refuse to extend any more credit to the welfare country, and then the gravy train comes to a halt.

          • Daviddickinson

            But all the welfare states voted for Romney. He was overwhelmingly popular in states like Mississippi and Arkansas — which have the highest numbers of citizens who don’t pay taxes. The welfare states voted for the welfare party.

          • chess

            Let’s do it. Why are you waiting?

      • chess

        you are so right.
        This is a SHIITE war.
        obama is an aleVITE SHIITE as was his father.
        obama’s goal is to wipe out the alaWITES in syria as Assad’s father wiped out the aleVITES 40 years ago.
        Later for the Sunni/Shiite war.
        Retribution is KING in the middle east.
        AND o. hates America.

    • Mortimer Post

      Correct on all counts

    • myrna652

      My Uncle Chase recently got an awesome month old Mercedes-Benz C-Class Coupe by working parttime off of a laptop… page w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • Lanna

    Major General Bob Scales, Lt.Col David Hunt, and Lt. Col Ralph Peters are 100% right, our enemies are attacking one another in Syria, let them destroy theirselves!
    Obama has to boast that he did something about the red line and without the approval of Congress! What the heck, he does everything he wants without adhering to the laws, why should this be any different!

  • 1Indioviejo1

    The war in Syria is a civil war amongst bad people. Any intervention will be unproductive to us except for one, if we go to the source of the region’s instability, the mother of all terrorism Iran and destroy their nuclear and warring capabilities, then Assad will calm down and we may even see regime change, and Hezbollah without its patron will erode shortly. This is the only move that I can think of at this time.

    • EarlyBird

      I am totally against the action in Syria. It is not being thought out correctly, is reactive and stupid.
      But it leads us closer to attacking Iran, not away from it. People on this site should be thrilled, but because it’s Obama blundering into it, and not a Republican, they suddenly get all rational and prudent about war in the Middle East.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “But it leads us closer to attacking Iran, not away from it…”

        Even if that were true, it’s still a bad idea because it empowers the Sunni caliph movement to then scoot right past Syria to a weakened Iran.

        The point is to take out Iranian nukes without empowering the Sunni caliphate movement. With Syria blocking the way to a weakened Iran, we gain much without losing anything by simply striking Iran’s nuke sites.

        A 10-year-old could clearly whip you at chess because you can barely handle checkers tactics.

  • Carey J

    Give the rebels enough aid to keep them in the fight, but not enough to win. Try to turn this into a Muslim version of the Thirty Years War. When it’s over, nuke the winners.

  • Walter Sieruk

    Both sides on this conflict in Syria are bad. America need to keep out of it.

  • John Davidson

    Once again, a Democratic leader tries to appease an enemy that has no ability to be remorseful for their actions. How long was it the FDR ignored Hitler’s threats.

  • http://palestinename.com Beth

    “Given the fact that both the American and the British governments are dedicated to denying the reality of Islamic jihad and ignoring how Islamic jihadis use core texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence”

    This is a very peculiar fact. It is impossible to believe that the leaders of these two nations are not aware of it. In fact, the obama administration is, no doubt for me, advocating for such violence. The “prettiest sound on earth” is the muslim prayer call for obama – whose wedding ring bears the insignia: “There is no God but Allah”….and remember “the future must not belong to those who slander islam” – according to obama.

    The seat of the President of the United States of America (along with far too many other seats of importance) have been infiltrated by islam – a reality that is too hard for most Americans to contemplate.

    Commanded in the Koran:

    047.004 – Beheadings

    033.052 – Gang Rape of female ‘infidels’

    005.033 – Crucifixions

    008.067 – Treason

    033.061 – Genocide “without mercy”

    005.041 – Racism

    These are the teachings of the mosques that “the American and the British governments are dedicated to denying” – even though all of these facts are on the internet for the whole world to witness.

    Now what idiot truley believes that these two governments are not aware of them?…teachings that are illegal in both societies?

    And where are the voices of the so-called Christian leaders? who are supposed to be our teachers?…knowing that Islam calls the Son of God an abomination and all of His witnesses (the Apostles) liars

    Koran: 009.030 – 037.151 – 037.152 – 019.088 – 019.089 ….. by one lone accuser who wasn’t even there with those eye-witnesses at the time – offering no proof but his own say-so? And this is to be ‘tolerated’ by all of the Christians of the world? Christians are to serve no ill to their neighbors, but they certainly have the right to defend themselves. And even more important – they have a DUTY to protect their children and their future.

    So where are all of the voices of the so-called Christian leaders of this world? to condemn islam for calling the Son of God an abomination and all of His eye-witnesses liars? For when they speak up – that will be the time the defenders of murderous teachings will appear as the traitors and fools they truly are. Until then – we the people, are the fools.

    • EarlyBird

      Beth, you’re a paranoid schizophrenic. Get help. I hear electro-shock therapy has improved dramatically since the ’50s.

      • Gee

        Hasn’t helped you one bit

      • defcon 4

        Yes anyone who is frightened of islam must be mentally ill right?
        Just ask the piles of dead Christians, Hindus and Buddhists.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    Despite the fact that the subject is depressing, it is good medicine to read a rare, well informed, intelligent summation that brings perspective – as can always be expected from Robert Spencer. If only he could be cloned repeatedly to fill our House of Representatives and, of course, the White House.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melvin.polatnick Melvin Polatnick

    Few
    outsiders care how many gets gassed in Syria, Western powers are only concerned
    with establishing a chaotic state and removing Russian influence.

  • bigjulie

    We now have more-than-ample evidence that the planet is much, much better off without Islam. Wherever there exists a situation where Muslim factions are happy to destroy each other we should be doing everything we can to encourage and foster it. “Virgin Factories” in their world should be running on double overtime.
    There is no such thing as an “innocent Muslim”. They are all subscribers to a virulent 7th century atavism that ultimately requires the submission or the death of non-Muslims. Their philosophical undergirding specifies that they are not to be trusted as it is perfectly acceptable to lie to and deceive non-Muslims in the pursuit of a completely Muslim planet. There is simply no way to negotiate “peace” or anything else with beliefs such as these extant on the other side of the negotiation table.
    We need to stay out of Syria and any other Muslim nation, isolate them from Civil Society and allow them to sort themselves out, then attempt to deal with the results… with Mothers of Fat Man and Little Boy, if need be, both of which are proven to make offers that cannot be refused.

    • jon doe

      The problem with the idea of isolating them and leaving them to sort this out is this… They are building nukes as fast as they can. And they will use they the first chance they get. That means the potential of a nuclear WWIII and the end of all life on earth. We have to do whatever we need to to keep these religious lunatics from getting nukes. They are insane beyond the point of caring if they destroy the entire planet. To them, that would be just wonderful as it would hasten the return of the mahdi and fulfill the prophecy on the Koran. They do not fear death as a deterrent and they want to destoy us. Not a very good combination. WE cannot let them get nukes. Unfortunately, we have leadership that thinks they hate us because of our “imperialist” past, and nothing whatsoever to do with their religion. So we are not trying to defeat them. NO!!! we are “winning their hearts and minds”. So when a shoulder fire missile takes down a commercial plane, or when a suitcase nuke goes off in Manhattan, be sure to thank your multicultural, progressive college professor for making sure we are all discussing “islamaphobia” and focusing on conservative tea party groups while muslims waltz right into our country by the thousands.

      • bigjulie

        Jon…my point (not well made, apparently) is that there is no further reason to try to deal with these people on any available level. They mean to kill us!! We either convert or die… end of story!!
        What our government is doing right now is a form of insanity! Long term Islamist doctrine is EASY to discover and understand!
        THEY MEAN TO KILL US ALL IF WE DO NOT SUBMIT!!
        We elected a President that is good looking, mellifluous, and narrow-mindedly STUPID! The vast majority of voters stop at “mellifluous and good-looking”. Just like in Hollywood, how could such a being be “STUPID” as well?? “NO MOVIE I EVER SAW EVER SHOWED A GOOD-LOOKING AND WELL-SPOKEN PERSON AS ANYTHING BUT…REALLY SMART!…and I know that President Barky is REALLY SMART, ’cause he is so GOOD LOOKING!!!”
        Anyone with a basic understanding of “Washington DC 101″ knows that such is the stuff as “low-information” voters deal in, nowadays. Barky’s handlers work continually to have him appear publically as this “Clockwork Orange” politician, because he is able to fool so many, as long as his exposure time is short!
        Meanwhile, he is, in my opinion, attempting to prepare us all for our part in the “worldwide caliphate”.
        Attempting to negotiate a long-term settlement with people whose attitudes are firmly ensconced in the 7th century is beyond stupid for the negotiatees as well as the negotiators.
        This is a seriously failed experiment in human endeavor. We need to end it now, no matter what it takes to end it…and move on!

  • Sussex Girl

    So . . . all that talk during the ’08 campaign about McCain being Bush’s third term was a lot of hooey. Obama has served Bush’s third and fourth terms: boots still on the ground in Iraq, war still being waged in Afghanistan, Gitmo still open, drones still bombing citizens of foreign countries on foreign soil. Wait. Add in the IRS targeting conservative groups, the AP and NSA and drone spying scandals, the Benghazi debacle where a US ambassador was tortured and killed, the bombing of Libya to the tune of $100 million a week (100 cruise missiles a week at $1 million each), and Obama has been far worse than Bush (don’t get me wrong; I like George W, always have, and the man has had the good grace to retire quietly, unlike Carter and Clinton, who can’t seem to keep their mouths shut). Where’s that hope and change we were promised?

    Now. Where did Syria get these chemical weapons? An AP article late last fall said that Syria has one of the largest store of chemical weapons in the world. Really? Little, old Syria? Georges Sada, Saddam Hussein’s former Air Vice Marshall, wrote in his book “Saddam’s Secrets” that all of Iraq’s chemical weapons were moved to Syria before we attacked in 2003 (Bush did, after all, give Saddam nine month’s advanced warning). Hmmm.

  • Veracious_one

    it’s a trap..

  • kate5778b

    The OIC need to make all the decisions and take all the action, leaving the West out of it, so the West can’t be blamed.

  • tagalog

    No significant national interest of the United States is at stake in the Syrian conflict.

    Intervention by the United States could cause even greater de-stabilization, or perhaps even provide the rebels and the Assadists with a reason to join together to make war on the United States.

    Aiding either side will simply add to the chaos currently on the rise in the Middle East, and will not aid either the Syrian people or the United States.

    What in the name of Heaven possesses our President and his cabinet to consider military action in Syria?

    Even the leftists can be expected to say that the Syrian crisis is a civil conflict best left to the people of Syria to resolve for themselves, as they said beginning with Vietnam and continuing to the present.

  • Gee

    I would like to quote two former United States Senators and what they said less than 6 years ago.

    “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Barak Obama – Junior Senator for Illinois 2008

    “I want to make it clear to you,” Biden said speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa, in December 2007. “I’ve drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or the ranking member. Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the constitutional limits have on the president in over the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafteda treatise for me, and it’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president, if he takes
    this nation to war in Iran, without congressional approval — I will make it my business to impeach him.” Senator Joseph Biden – Senior Senator for Maryland.

    I want to thank both of them and want to know when the impeachment hearings start.

  • Steve Sherrill

    Obama must immediately call Congress back into session for their approval to comply with the Constitution.

    Assad…like Saddam, Mubarak, Gadhafi, Morsi, the Ayatollah and all other Muslim tyrants…must be terminated, forthwith…covert no footprints – CIA.

    Also, it’s vital that the US and it allies maintain a military presence in the Middle East and not exit as Obama did in Iraq and plans to do in Afghanistan.

    “All the power in the world is useless without the will to use it.”

    Terminating global al-Qaida killers is another and never ending problem.

    I miss Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush

    Steve Sherrill

  • EarlyBird

    Psychopaths,

    You’re missing the forest for the trees. Yes, a missile strike on Syria is a terrible, idiotic idea that is ultimately going to hurt America. Which is exactly why you should love it. And you WOULD love it if you gave it any real consideration. It fits your feverish fantasies to a tee for these reasons:

    1.) it weakens Iran’s biggest ally;

    2.) it destroys any glimmer of a chance to improve US-Iran relations which may have existed since the election of the new Iranian president;

    3.) it greatly improves the chances of the US going to war against Iran on behalf of Israel;

    4.) it could lead Hezbollah to fire rockets ineffectually into Israel;

    5.) which gives Israel the reason to attack Hezbollah without mercy;

    6.) it could escalate into another full scale US-led war on the ground – hurray!;

    7.) which could lead to another big terror attack on US soil and you can wonder if they hate us “because of our freedom,” or “because they’re Muslims”;

    8.) which just further incites the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims to fight the West;

    9.) thereby creating the Clash of Civilizations that Osama bin Laden so hoped for and you desire;

    10.) which allows you to whip up further anti-Muslim hysteria and put every Muslim American into concentration camps;

    11.) and hey, if we’re really lucky, lead to the Hiroshima Solution you dream about;

    12.) and maybe create a state of emergency in America whereby a “temporary” military government can oust and imprison Obama, come in and “restore America” for terrified, white, “Christian” fascists;

    13.) don’t miss the obvious: any dead Muslim is a good Muslim;

    14.) Bonus: when your fantasies all go to hell and the world is aflame, you can pin it on Obama for starting it all!

  • doruss03

    Obame is learning an other stupid lesson to invade Seria. That could be an other Vietnam. He should be worrying to get the country out of the red. There is also a possibility that it is an accident what is happening in Damascus.

  • Aeffesstoo

    Everyone that doesn’t think this is about regime change (as in handing Syria over to the muslim brotherhood), raise their hand.

    Thought so.

  • LindaRivera

    We are in desperate need of ethical Western leaders who are NOT pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-sharia and pro-world caliphate.

    Stop sending our military to fight and DIE for ISLAM! ONLY Muslims should fight. NOT a single Non-Muslim! Hundreds, even many thousands of our courageous military could end up being KILLED for ISLAM.

    Every time Western powers intervene militarily in a Muslim country, Muslim HATE for non-Muslims greatly intensifies. As a direct result of Western military intervention in Muslim countries, Muslims increase their terror attacks inside our Western countries.

    EVERY Western military intervention has radically destabilized Muslim countries
    creating extreme violence, enormous killings; death and destruction
    which CONTINUES to this day.

    Cameron and Obama’s goal is to replace secular Syria with the hardline Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic sharia law.

    U.S. forces are arming and training Muslim terrorists to take over the government in Syria. Stop the immoral, illegal wars! Warnings are being given that this could start World War Three. Ruthless Western leaders DON’T care!

    • Marina Martsinkevich

      Although I agree with you that the US, as well as other Western countries should not fight for or in Islamic countries, I have to add that this will not eliminate the reason for Islamic hatred toward the West. Non-intervention also intensifies hatred (just one example – muslims felt insulted that the West didn’t defend Yugoslavian muslims in time, they themselves asked the westerners to attack Serbs). Non-intervention will not diminish atrocities (up to 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda war, and 5,4 mln (!) people in the Great African War 1998- 2008 and afterwards). If they can’t speak about intervention or non-intervention, then a picture of Mohammed intensifies their hatred, If not a picture, then critical words about Islam intensify their hatred. Whatever you do or do not, their hatred is intensified.

      • LindaRivera

        Exactly. Muslims will always HATE Non-Muslims whatever we do or don’t do.

  • bluffcreek1967

    This will not work out well for the U.S. We have no real vital interests to get involved in what is essentially an Islamic war. We will be caught in the middle, our soldiers will be killed, the costs will again overburden the American taxpayer, and the conflicting sides will eventually unite to rid Syria of the ‘crusaders.’

    “Should the U.S. Militarily Intervene in Syria?” http://www.ambrosekane.com

  • bluffcreek1967

    We should stay out of this one. Think about it: The more the muslims are busy slaughtering each other, the less time and energy will they have to scheme in murdering westerners.

    I don’t want to see any Syrian children gassed. At the same time, what kind of terrorists will they align with once they mature to adulthood? How many westerners will they murder in the future? What part will they play in the West’s destruction? I don’t revel in their suffering or death, but I also recognize the likelihood of who they will be and what they will do once they reach adulthood.

    “Should the U.S. Intervene in Syria?” http://www.ambrosekane.com

    • bill reitzes

      As this is a Holy War, all the dead who died in defense of Islam, are martyrs and are guaranteed ascension to paradise and all it’s gifts.
      This includes children and you as a Westerner are horrified, but they who are battling Muslims are worshiping allah and so what if a child is martyred.
      Don’t be sucked in because you are a Westerner with your values. They think different than you or I.
      One side will tell you this and the other will tell you that. They both will do their best to win your sympathies. They know we are suckers, as we have in the past.
      It’s a Holy Sunni – Shi’ite War and we should encourage their allah worship and even continue arming them.
      May I suggest swords, camels and donkeys, just like in the days of the prophet(PBUH).
      These dudes haven’t progressed a day since 632. Just their weapons have progressed. Now they can sacrifice even more infidels to that allah god

  • rebaaron

    This is a war between the Persian Islamists and the Arab Islamists. I say let it run. Let the world see how Islamists do battle, and just how peaceful a religion Islam is. It will provide a bracing blueprint of what is in store for the rest of us if we do not take these monsters seriously. If we don’t subdue them while we can, they will tear us limb from limb, literally. If we, God forbid, let them get their hands on nuclear weapons, millions will die before we can defeat them, if we are brave enough to defeat them at all. So, we stand today at the edge of the abyss. Stop Iran now, or perhaps never. Limb from limb.

    • defcon 4

      Pakistan has had nukes for roughly a decade.

  • rebaaron

    Syria is a distraction. Iran is the enemy.

  • John G. Gault

    WHen you enemies are killing each other, let them!!!!! Even worse is would be like a cop going into a marital dispute, both sides are likely to forget eachother while they both attack you. But then that would require a brain which is not to be found at 1600 Penn Ave. Nero fiddled while Rome burned, OZero played spades….

  • chess

    This is a SHIITE war.
    obama is an aleVITE SHIITE as was his father.
    obama’s goal is to wipe out the alaWITES in syria as Assad’s father wiped out the aleVITES 40 years ago.
    Later for the Sunni/Shiite war.
    Retribution is KING in the middle east.

  • LindaRivera

    Based on a PHONY massacre US/NATO KNEW never took place, in 1999,
    US/NATO waged ruthless war for the KLA Muslim terrorist organization
    against Kosovo Christian Serbs, winning the war for global Islam.

    During
    the Second World War, the Serb Christians were our wonderful allies and
    performed the biggest rescue of downed U.S. military and other allies,
    behind enemy lines.

    An entire Christian Serb village was horribly put to death because they
    refused to divulge the hiding place of the Americans. This is how
    US/NATO paid back our wonderful allies. US/NATO ACHIEVED their GOAL: A
    MUSLIM TERROR STATE in the HEART of EUROPE.

    Many Muslims have
    left Britain and Europe to fight with the barbaric terrorists against
    the Syrian people. Thanks to US, UK and European leaders, the Muslims
    will return to Britain and Europe, war-experienced and combat-ready to
    wage ever-increasing barbaric jihad against Britons and Europeans. Our
    leaders HATE God and have abandoned our people and
    Western civilization.

  • defcon 4

    How about any Jew is a dead Jew? How does that grab ya Erlyturd?

    Bukhari:V4B52N177
    “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You Muslims will fight the Jews till some of them hide behind stones. The stones will betray them saying, “O Abdullah (slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.”‘”

    Ishaq:441
    “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”‘”

    In Sahih Muslim: Book 041, Number 6985:
    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

    “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”
    Bukhari 4,55,547

  • thegoodsamaratin

    The world need America so they can use it as a measuring stick and say that’s where the top of the mountain is. We are the best and always will be. And i dare anybody to try to come take it away from me……i’m actually a canadian lol

  • Bobby Gordy

    I have a problem with all of this I believe we should stop communicating with all other countries get all of our troops back home and decide what to do next after that! I also believe all foreign aid should be cut off permanently and we should stop shipping in outside products and start making them ourselves! If you have a problem with someone holding a gun you dont try to “talk it out” you kill the bastard! if someone says ” I’m gonna kill you” what do you do say hey lets try to work this out wanna talk about it? NO you kill the sob right then and there! We have allowed the useless American government take over and screw everything up for us while we play n our phones and facebook and tweet blind to the fact that we no longer have any control over what is going on in this country! Lets stop playing games kill whoever challenges us the right way by blasting that ass off the face of the planet and keep our children alive and at home!!!

  • EarlyBird

    It’s neat that you suddenly get all thoughtful and prudent about military action when Obama proposes it. Surely, if he had come out with a strong declaration against US involvement there, FPM and its cheer leaders would be calling him a traitor, a weakling, a cowardly isolationist, etc., etc.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “It’s neat that you suddenly get all thoughtful and prudent about military action when Obama proposes it.”

      So you remember our conversations from the Bush era? That’s amazing. Care to quote me?

      “Surely, if he had come out with a strong declaration against US involvement there, FPM and its cheer leaders would be calling him a traitor, a weakling, a cowardly isolationist, etc., etc.”

      If, if, if. If he wasn’t a traitor, I wouldn’t call him one. It’s that simple. The analysis is slightly more complicated than what you’ve reduced it to. Start with the Cairo speech and visit any facts along the way. And stop lying. Then our analysis might start to coincide.

      He should not have threatened Syria with something that would have led to this point. He should not have empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis ever since he took office.

      That’s what makes him a traitor. He got us in to this pickle. Because of him, we were screwed the moment anyone accused Syria of using WMDs. That’s what makes him a horrible president. He was set up by the jihadis to be put in this position. That’s what makes him a traitor, not what he chooses today or next week.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    I’m getting moderated for no apparent reason. Can someone please look in to it?

    Thanks

  • objectivefactsmatter

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/gingrich-syria-obama/?hpt=us_mid

    Gingrich agrees with me about what we should focus on.