Why did the media oppose the Islamist takeover of Mali but act like we should support the Islamist takeover of Syria
It's not a choice that we have to make, but anyone backing the Sunni rebels, many of whom are actually foreign Jihadists, has to make it.
The New York Times and the Washington Post have run stories admitting that much of the country "liberated" by the rebels has fallen into the hands of Islamists enforcing the same kind of laws as Mali.
The question is why did the media oppose the Islamist takeover of Mali but act like we should support the Islamist takeover of Syria?
Assad is not nearly as secular as some of his Socialist supporters in Europe like to pretend, but he is no worse than the Islamists he is fighting and arguably he is somewhat better.
After Egypt and after the Islamist takeover of Aleppo, it is undeniably clear that an Islamist regime in Syria will not protect or promote human rights. It will allow for less freedom than Syrians have now and it will mean the complete end for the large Christian community in Syria.
A young activist, Wael Ibrahim, took the banners down and threw them into the crowd, an act that was posted on YouTube. The local Shariah Board summoned him and sentenced him to 10 lashes. Mr. Ibrahim then circulated a picture of the welts on his back.
“We did not rebel to have a caliphate,” he said afterward, objecting that foreign Islamists were involved in his sentence.
Is this something we should support? How is this any different than Mali?
Maybe we could have supported some secular military dictatorship alternative early enough in the game. But we didn't. The reason we didn't is because Obama Inc. chose to put Qatar and Turkey in charge of American foreign policy.
That is how the Muslim Brotherhood took over. And Qatar and Turkey are still in charge of our foreign policy in Syria. This is an Al Jazeera administration and all it does is endorse Muslim Brotherhood run rebel organizations and funnels aid to them while turning a blind eye to the weapons smuggling in defiance of an embargo.
Here in the war-ravaged city of Aleppo, more than half of which has been under rebel control since July, Jabhat al-Nusra is also widely identified as the leading force behind the Hayaa al-Sharia, which loosely translates as the Sharia Authority and is known simply as the Hayaa.
Based out of the city’s former Eye Hospital, which was damaged during the fighting and then occupied by Jabhat al-Nusra as its headquarters, the Hayaa is also backed by other rebel units, including the Tawhid Brigade, the city’s biggest fighting force, and the Ahrar al-Sham, a homegrown Islamist force that has played a relatively minor role in Aleppo but is powerful in several other provinces.
The Tawhid Brigade is the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are working together, which is why the so-called Free Syrian Army and Al Nusra are working together to implement Islamic law, just as they have in Egypt.
The UK and France are still pushing on to arm them and support them. Obama Inc. has opted out of that for now, but it's important to communicate clearly and distinctly what we will be supporting if the UK and France drag us into this war, just like they dragged us into the Libyan War.