One of the problems that I’ve noticed these last couple of weeks and particularly the last couple of days as regards Syria’s attack on its own citizens (supposedly, anyway) is a total lack of information about who was being attacked. This seems to me a crucial lack.
We are dealing, it seems to me, with a number of players who were not as they seem. My feeling is that our sense of humanity is being manipulated here as it has so often been in the past.
Examples:
* Remember, the United States government was all for Morsi in Egypt, despite the early reports that he was seriously tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. what’s called is what it is we removed Hosni Mubarak from power and ultimately put into his place someone who was an enemy of both peace and western interests. Certainly, an enemy of Israel… Morsi.
*Back in the days of Carter, and his outright abysmal foreign policy, were told repeatedly of abuses by the Shah of Iran, and yet, look what he got replaced with, once the Mullahs had their way. Can anyone now honestly say that the removal of the Shah resulted in the end, in a more peaceful world?
In the light of those events, and many more which could be named in the region, and outside it, I can’t help but wonder if the chemical attacks currently being reported in Syria, weren’t on Islamic extremists. It would certainly be one reason we’ve not seen any evidence on the point.
Certainly, the argument can be made that most of the movements to overthrow standing governments in the Middle East are backed by Islamic extremists, such as the Mullahs in Iran. I can’t recall is this is written as to whether or not Iran has a history of trying to overthrow Assad, but I’m willing to bet they have.
Yes, they recruit children.
As I’ve said previously, the Middle East as a region filled with a ruthless people who are willing to commit all kinds of atrocities in the name of Islam. If and I say again, if, what we have here is ruthlessness responding to ruthlessness in order to preserve the larger peace in the region and in fact the world, I can’t help but wonder if taking out Assad is genuinely in the interests of that peace. If it’s true, by take is that Assad being in power is in the interests of peace.
And yes, I’m quite aware of the cries about human rights, war crimes, etc.. I’m not blind to that aspect of it. I’m quite sure Assad is not what we would call a “White Hat”.
But still…. even with that in mind, is it logical to operate in a vacuum as regards the larger picture here? Giving Islamic extremists a toehold under the guise of human rights etc., seems to me counterproductive to that end. We are dealing with a group of people who do not think as we do. Golda Meir knew this difference well, when she said…
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”
We still see Arab children being sent to their deaths, and other unspeakable atrocities to support an extremist Islam. Are we really sure that’s not what we’re dealing with here? Are we sure that’s not what Assad is trying to fight off?
The word “decide” has a root word meaning “to kill”. I suggest that when decisions are made, opportunities die. As regards Syria and seeking to overthrow it’s government for our perception of human rights, We should be careful what we kill.
Print This Post
Call Colin Powell the Toeless Wonder. Powell keeps opening his mouth, without bothering to engage his brain, and in the process keeps shooting his toes off:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell called the jury verdict that cleared the killer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin “questionable” and urged President Barack Obama to speak more on issues of race during an interview that aired Sunday.
[…]
“I think that it will be seen as a questionable judgment on the part of the judicial system down there, but I don’t know if it will have staying power,” Powell said. “These cases come along and they blaze across the midnight sky and then after a period of time, they’re forgotten.”
Does Powell mean to suggest that his feeling that the result of Florida v. Zimmerman was a “questionable judgment” meant to preclude the existence of reasonable doubt in the case? Powell seems to trying to arguing at the same time that the outcome of the case was both right and wrong. Then, I used to think Powell was a republican.
Good news for Powell, we, the nation, survived the verdicts in California v. Simpson.
What happens when a televisions producer mixes, or better mangles together, Trayvon, Martin, George Zimmerman, Paula Deen and racial profiling, from Tina Nguyen, Braiser:
Law & Order: SVU just announced an episode that combines both the Paula Deen scandal, and the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting (and subsequent trial of George Zimmerman). We can’t even begin to describe it for you, so let’s allow Entertainment Weekly to do it for us:
What could go wrong? Nearly everything You can not mangle together so many hot button issues into one fiction television show and expect a sober examination of any of them.
The main stream media wants to control the narrative. They only want to report the news that fits their narrative and only the selected facts that fit their narrative, from Brian Beutler , Salon:
So let’s review: George Zimmerman wouldn’t have shot Trayvon Martin if he hadn’t been profiling by race. And even if he had been, the shooting feasibly wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t been legally allowed to carry a handgun and didn’t think he was empowered by law to take matters into his own hands. The monstrous killing of Chris Lane has no such back story. The killers apparently had no motive whatsoever, were armed illegally, and certainly weren’t trailing Lane because they believed, based on his race, that he might be a criminal. They are, however, likely to face serious prison time for their crimes. Zimmerman walked.
The media is obsessed with white on black crime, while being blind to black on black and black on white crime. Case in point, Beutler cites George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, as an example of a white predator. Further Zimmerman did not shoot the late Trayvon Martin because of racial profiling. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, because Zimmerman was being mugged, mixed martial arts style, by the thug Martin. The late Mr. Martin was a thug, anybody purporting to call himself a journalist, should know this by now, from Jack Cashill, American Thinker:
They knew that Martin’s savage attack on Zimmerman was hardly out of character. Had they shared this information with the public, they would have helped dispel the widespread illusion about innocence of this seventeen-year-old “child,” a word they and the prosecutors used repeatedly, and helped prepare the nation, black America in particular, for the eventual outcome of the trial. Although not allowed to know it, Edwards had a lot in common with brother Trayvon. He too boasted of his drug use, his affection for violence, his disdain for bitches. He too even took a photo of his hand on a pistol. Though only fifteen, Edwards was on a slightly faster track than Martin. “With my niggas when it’s time to start taken life’s,” he tweeted three days before the shooting. Apparently, he was not kidding.
The lame stream media is unwilling to hold blacks morally accountable. Pretending black violence does not exist is not a means to reduce it.
File under, I like Ike. It is only one theater in one town, but I do applaud the idea that traitors should be held accountable, at least in some small way:
ELIZABETHTOWN, Ky. (AP) — A central Kentucky theater owner who trained pilots during the Vietnam War is refusing to show the nation’s top movie, “The Butler” because one of the stars is Jane Fonda who was an outspoken opponent of the conflict. Ike Boutwell owns MoviePalace and Showtime Cinemas in Elizabethtown. He tells The News-Enterprise he won’t show the popular flick about a butler who served eight U.S. presidents because it has Fonda starring as former first lady Nancy Reagan
It is not my preferred method to deal with Fonda, but for the time being, it will just have to do. Bravo Zulu, Mr. Boutwell.
From a biologically confused Ryan Kearney, New Republic:
He Is Not Bradley Manning. She Is Chelsea Manning. Deal With It. Bradley Manning, the Army private sentenced Wednesday to 35 years in prison for leaking government files to WikiLeaks, announced Thursday in a statement to NBC’s “Today” that he is, as of now, a she
Private Bradley Manning is free to asked to be called Chelsea, or anything he may darn well please. However, Manning was born a male and he will die a male. Manning is hopelessly confused. He should have never been granted a security clearance nor give access to classified information.
Four minus four is zero, and zero is exactly what the Obama administration has done hold any government official responsible for the Benghazi murder of four Americans. Nearly a year after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, nobody has been held accountable, from Useless Toady:
The State Department has cleared four employees who had been suspended for their role in lax security leading up to last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, but Republican lawmakers say their investigation will go on.
[…]
Secretary of State John Kerry had his staff look at the actions of four employees singled out for rebuke as a result of an Accountability Review Board investigation ordered by Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kerry’s analysis of their actions, however, found that “There was no breach of duty by these four employees,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters Tuesday. “The right answer for these four is reassignment.”
Mrs. Clinton tried to pin the Benghazi bombing on four mid-level State Department flunkees. Kerry nixed Mrs. Clinton’s move. Now nearly a year after the episode we still have four dead Americans, twenty-nine identified deficiencies, but no one held accountable. All the Clinton administration did was to persecute one innocent film maker, who nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
Karen, the Lonely Conservative asks:
Christopher Lane, an Australian college baseball player, was out for a run in Duncan, Oklahoma minding his own business when three teens gunned him down to cure their boredom, according to authorities. Lane, who was a catcher for East Central University, was white. The suspects in the case are black. Have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey or any of the other race baiters spoken out about this senseless act of violence? Has President Obama weighed in? If so, I haven’t heard about it
I say, these three yewts sure look a lot like Barack Obama’s three sons.
Scott Brown to test presidential waters, from Boston Herald:
Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown told the Herald he is looking at a possible 2016 presidential bid today as he hit a well-worn stomping ground for Oval Office hopefuls – the Iowa State Fair – See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2013/08/scott_brown_in_iowa_tests_presidential_waters#sthash.cu2OKknM.dpuf
Not only no, but hell no. Former northeast governors, especially from Massachusetts, see Michael Dukasis and Willard Romney, have proven to be horrible candidates. Failed senators, see Rich Santorum are no gems either, and unlike Brown, Santorum is a real conservative.
If Brown wants to establish his political credentials, let him challenge, and beat, Duval Patrick. Then we can talk.
Call Barack Obama what you will, just do not call him smart. The Moron-in-Chief, babbled, from Neo-Neocon, Legal Insurrection:
So I’m going to keep doing everything in my power to make sure [Obamacare] works as it’s supposed to. Because in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right. And we’re going to keep it that way
Healthcare is not a right. Rather, it is a commodity, a product of human endeavor. No healthcare exist, unless it is first created by moral man. .
Oprah Winfrey presented a post-racial façade to make herself into a celebrity and a business empire. Now it appears that Winfrey is just another racist, from Blaze:
Glenn Beck skewered the billionaire [Oprah Winfrey] on his Friday radio show for doubling down on her comparison of Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till. In an appearance on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Winfrey said “the truth of the matter is Emmett Till became a symbol for those times, as Trayvon Martin has become a symbol for this time.” Beck responded in a passionate monologue Friday. “Here’s what Oprah Winfrey doesn’t understand,” said Beck. “That is a made-up symbol. All of the facts, all of the facts show that Trayvon Martin is not Emmett Till. All of the facts show that race played no role in this… at all,”
Say it is not so Oprah. If you apply the Martin Luther King standard, and judge Winfrey not by the color of her skin but rather by the content of her character, Winfrey comes up short.
Hat tip and reax, Maggie, Lonely Conservative:
Oprah Fully Outed: Racist – Willing To Do Most Anything to Promote New Movie
Sadly it looks like Winfrey is using the ilk of the Al Sharpton as her role models.
It has been suggested that Republican primary debates should not be moderated by liberals, but rather by conservative, such as say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. This suggest has the lame stream media knickers in a twist The lame stream media evidently feels they not only have the right to pick the democrat nominee, but the republican one as well, from Jamelle Bouie, Daily Beast:
To choose any of these men to moderate a Republican presidential debate is to completely disregard this analysis of where the party went wrong. If given a chance to question the presidential candidates, figures like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity will almost certainly use the opportunity to enforce conservative orthodoxy. They’ll “vet” the candidates, demanding allegiance to the unpopular, right-wing beliefs of their audiences. You can easily imagine a Limbaugh-hosted debate where “winning” requires a candidate to declare his undying hatred of Barack Obama and announce his opposition to all reproductive-health services, the federal government, and Muslims. In which case, it will be all the problems of last year’s primaries, amplified, and turned to 11.
For some strange reason, the republican established has believed that the republican candidate should be selected by the liberal media. and for some strange reason, republican keep losing elections, go figure.
For the record, I do not think Rush Limbaugh should moderate the republican debates, Rush should moderate the democrat debates. It is the only way Mrs. Clinton will have to field any real questions. Just imagine, /Rush asks Mrs. Clinton about Benghazi. I can hear her scream now.
I can see only two explanations for this. One, Michael Savage is delusional; or two, Cumulus Media wants to commit ratings suicide, from Pat Dollard:
Excerpted from Mediaite – Conservative radio host Michael Savage teased a “major announcement” on his website earlier today, and tonight, he delivered. Savage predicted that he will be replacing Sean Hannity’s time slot on Cumulus Media’s network of stations. While Hannity’s fate appeared to be tied to that of Rush Limbaugh in the initial reports on the Cumulus move, Mediaite has learned from a talk radio source Limbaugh is likely to stay.
The good and the bad with respect to Savage, I like the theme of borders, language and culture, what conservative would not, however, once you have heard Savage’s opening, you have heard his entire show.
The liberal establishment, political and media, likes to depict Mrs. B.J Clinton as if she were a strong woman, from Ed Morrissey, Hot Air:
The view that America’s choice of leaders amounts to a global didactic seems more than a little self-centered and arrogant. Frankly, I think the idea that the world would reform itself if only a woman led the most powerful nation on Earth probably was disproven by Queen Elizabeth I about four hundred years ago. It should be noted that the English were among the more reluctant monarchies to allow queens regnant at that time, too, which is why her father was so desperate to have a legitimate son as heir.
The most humorous part about the scrum is Mike Barnicle putting Hillary Clinton on a pedestal in answer to Deutsch’s use of a generic woman leader. “No one is ever going to confuse her (Hillary) of being weak,” Barnicle says. Why not, after Benghazi, the flabby US foreign policy during her time as Secretary of State to the dangers of the Arab Spring in general (and perhaps specifically in Egypt), and the toadiness of the “reset button” with Russia? While one shouldn’t assume any woman in general would be a weak leader, isn’t it acceptable to reach that conclusion based on past performance — or is that a violation of some code as well?
Any woman who refused to protect her marriage, a Secretary of State who refused to protect her ambassador, can not be expect to protect her country. After all it was the so-called Smartest Women in the World, who gave the Russian her “reset button” which the Russian used to restart the Cold War.
Much like Leona Helmsley, Barack Obama thinks laws for the little people, by Matthew Daly Associated Press
In a rebuke to the Obama administration, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been violating federal law by delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada.
By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the commission to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department’s application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.
It not merely a matter of Yucca Mountain, it is about an arrogant president who feels he is above the law. The president both claims that Obamacare is the law of the land and yet routinely ignores it. Obama has ignore the law on immigration, and welfare, and his attorney general is planning on ignoring federal minimum sentencing guidelines. In a representative republic, it the president doesn’t like a law, he should work to change . By contrast, in the Obama banana, if Obama does not personally like law, he merely ignores it.
It is well past time to hold Barack Obama accountable to the law. In a nation of laws, no man should be above the law.
