Of course Assad is an evil guy, no one is disputing that, but whoever replaces him is going to be worse. Assad is one of the last atheist/agnostic dictators in the Middle East, like Saddam Hussein and Ghadaffi. He’s not at all a nice guy, but as he doesn’t really believe in any of the major religions he’s not really concerned with promoting the interests of one over the other, and rules more like a nationalist than an Islamofascist. Christians don’t have to worry (as much) about random killings, forced conversions, etc., under such dictatorships. Really I could not care less if a secular dictator is killing people who want to kill me. How is it a loss for me? It’s not. I don’t lose any more sleep over a fascist killing an Islamofascist then the allies during WWII lost over the USSR killing Nazis, which was actually far more questionable than this.
That being said, I found this article, “War on IS a focus of UN General Assembly amid stalemate.”
First of all, what use is the UN, and how serious can they be about fighting ISIS when Saudi Arabia is in charge of their human rights council? ISIS was propped up by Saudi Arabia and, unfortunately, the US government. Answer: Not serious at all.
Politicians are talking about putting troops on the ground to fight ISIS. I find it interesting how a bunch of fat middle aged and old people who live off of tax money, and have not served in the military, are so eager and quick to risk the lives of other people’s kids to clean up a mess they helped make, when there is actually a much simpler solution that is not even being looked at: Nukes.
Why not nuke ISIS? The fact that nukes are not on the table during this discussion shows how non-serious and uncommitted those discussing the problem are to solving it. ISIS is far more brutal, rapine, and ideologically driven than Japan was during WWII. There are no Christians or religious minorities in ISIS, and they have systematically been destroying all the ancient sites. So in other words, there is nothing in ISIS to hit but ISIS. We could obliterate ISIS without killing any innocent people or destroying anything of value. If nukes aren’t going to be on the table, then the UN may as well give ISIS a seat on the council. Why not? Saudi Arabia has a seat.
There is no way a bunch of inbred, low-IQ, towel heads are causing so much consternation for so many countries, and yet nothing is done to definitively stop them.
U.S.-led airstrikes helped Syrian Kurds hold the strategic border town of Kobani in January, and seize another key border town, Tal Abyad, this summer.
While our government supposedly supports the Kurds with air strikes, Turkey is launching air strikes on the Kurds with Obama’s blessing. Obama gave them permission to do this knowing full well that US citizens were serving with the Kurdish troops to help protect Christians in the Middle East.
At the same time, growing concern about the Syrian refugee crisis and reports that IS may be planning attacks against Europe may spur some countries to get more involved in the anti-IS coalition.
ISIS wouldn’t have a foot in Europe if not for the insane and treasonous immigration policies, which are 100% against the interest of native Europeans. Really it’s not hard to have a sane immigration policy. You can start with some simple questions:
- Are the countries these people come from similar to the country where they are going (in terms of living conditions, technological development, treatment of minorities, rule of law, etc.)? If not, then that’s one bar.
- Do they think in a way similar to the people in the country to which they are going? If not, then that’s another bar.
- Are they capable of supporting themselves and contributing positively to the economy? If no then we really need to reconsider letting them in.
- Is there room in the economy for them, or are native workers going to lose their jobs?
In the case of these Muslim “migrants” (actually invaders), the answer to each question would be no. So they don’t get to come in, plain and simple. They are violent, subversive, cultural incompatibles who will only undermine the quality of life for Native Europeans/Europeans. Whether or not the quality of life for the immigrant or invader will be raised is not a matter of concern, and cannot be part of the equation. It’s not relevant.
Most of those invaders coming into Europe are not Syrians, they’re an assortment of random durkas from all across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Actual Syrians don’t look that different from Europeans, but here we see a lot of immigrants who look like they are from Egypt, Pakistan, and the Arabian Penninsula. But in any case, it does not much matter how they look when they all act pretty much the same, thanks to Islam. The fact is this is a huge scam, taking advantage of the treason/stupidity of European governments in order to further the cause of Islam.
In short, if the governments of Europe were not cuckolds and traitors then this so-called migrant crisis could be solved with bullets to spare.
“Quite simply, the countries best-placed to contribute meaningfully to the anti-ISIS effort do not share the same interests in Syria,” said Faysal Itani, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, using an alternate acronym for the Islamic State group.
What is this “Atlantic Council” and why is it relevant? How about this, we have no interests in Syria, and the only people in the Middle East we have common ground with are those who aren’t Muslims, like Christians and Jews?
The Russian military buildup of aircraft, missiles, tanks and other equipment is complicating the fight against IS militants in Syria.
It’s not possible to complicate something which doesn’t exist. Some people are just upset because someone is actually going to do something about ISIS. And why does Obama hate Assad while he sucks up to the Iranian government? If he loves the Iranian government so much then shouldn’t he also like their allies? Assad is far less extreme than those Islamofascists ruling Iran.
Russia’s declared purpose is helping the government of President Bashar Assad battle the Islamic extremists, and Moscow has urged the West to go along. In an interview broadcast ahead of his meeting on Monday with President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticized U.S. military support for Syrian rebels, describing it as illegal and useless.
Putin is right. Because of Obama’s actions in bolstering Islamic terrorists, a lot of Christians have died, which (aside from Israel and the Kurds) are the only real allies the US has in that part of the world.
The Obama administration is concerned that Russia’s real intention is to shore up Assad and strike at other factions seeking to topple him under the pretext of fighting international terrorism.
And yet Obama will support actual terrorists in order to take down Assad.
Some analysts say the Russian deployment is likely to make Assad even less inclined to engage in meaningful negotiations for a political settlement to the civil war, which has allowed IS to flourish over the past four years.
This complaint is coming from the same people who want to remove Confederate memorials and Rebel flags from the South. Imagine if some foreign power had interfered on behalf of the Confederacy during the War Between the States. Will Obama reopen discussion about Southern Secession? No? Then why should Assad? BTW, I do not believe there is any moral equivalency between the Confederacy (which wanted freedom) and the “rebels” in Syria (who want more Islam). The former was fighting for less government, and the latter is fighting for more. I just bring it up as an example to illustrate the brazen hypocrisy of our rubbish politicians.
“Barring either regime victory over the insurgency, which is unlikely, or a U.S. policy shift toward political transition away from Assad — which would bring regional allies and insurgents on board against ISIS — I don’t see any prospect of defeating ISIS,” Itani said.
What regional allies? There are no regional allies except for Israel, the Kurds, and the Christian minorities. The Christians in the Middle East have no country, and no power. The Kurds did not have a country until recently, and the Obozo administration has not exactly been friendly toward Israel. It’s a mistake to think that Saudi Arabia is an ally. The main goal of Saudi Arabia is to make the Middle East fully Islamic, like Saudi Arabia. They aren’t an ally, they are an enemy which just happens to sell us oil. There will be no help from any Islamofascist regimes when dealing with ISIS. They won’t team up with infidels to fight a cause they support and agree with. Why are people so stupid as to actually believe this?
The U.S. military said this month that about 70 newly trained rebels have returned to Syria from Turkey. Still, the number is nowhere near the U.S. goal to train and equip 5,400 rebels a year at a cost of $500 million.
Why are we wasting tax money to train terrorists? Training the Taliban went so well for us, right? All these people are going to do is kill and terrorize Christians and Jews, and create more of a mess in the region. It’s time for a does of reality.
The Obama administration is adamant that it will commit no U.S. ground troops despite calls from some in Congress to do so.
I actually agree with Obama that we ought to avoid putting troops on the ground. But, since we have nukes, there is no reason to risk the lives of any of our people. I would bring in all the Christian refugees, nuke ISIS, and call it a day. Christian Middle Easterners are OK as immigrants. They aren’t violent, don’t have low IQ, and tend to vote Republican (maybe that’s why Obama won’t save them?). Muslims need to just stay there in the crap stew they created. I would only put troops on the ground to help evacuate the Christians, if necessary.
The other alternative is to just let Russia deal with it, which may be best as Russia is led by an actual man.