Bombing Our Bastard


This little effort has maintained on several occasions that the experiences of the past 15 years have shown that it is not the job of the United States to “impose democracy” on less civilised nations. Particularly then, when the less civilised nations are, well, prevalently Muslim and therefore unlikely to behave in a civilised manner unless some strong ruler keeps the Muslim mob in check. 

I have, therefore, always praised Trump’s change of policy compared to Gay Mulatto concerning Syria. If you ask me, our card in the region is the Government, not any group of Islamic present or future fundamentalist (note to the reader: whenever a Muslim government is in power, sooner or later fanatic Islamists seize control of it. Therefore, the allegedly “moderate” Muslims of today are the troublemakers of tomorrow).

However, this does not mean that Assad can do whatever he wants. He must understand that his freedom to be a bastard is limited to internal matters of his. No one expects him to be a retiring wallflower, but it is clear that if he resorts to a) genocide or b) chemical weapons then this is something that cannot be tolerated. The only remaining superpower has the means, and I would add a moral duty, to act on this whenever reasonably feasible. 

It is, therefore, not true that Trump has changed his policy on Syria. Firstly, because he hasn’t (the American Government has still chosen Assad’s government to retake control of Syria and put an end to the war). Secondly, because a new situation required an appropriate reaction.

Notice the intelligence of the guy: 1) He shows Assad that the fact that the POTUS wants his regime to survive does not mean he is free to do what he wants; 2) He kicks him in the balls, but does not cut his regime’s throat; 3) He clearly indicates that Assad’s regime will be helped to win the conflict, but Assad himself will have to make place – before or after dying – to a more reliable bastard; 4) He looks good. Yep, he just looks damn good in front of the entire Western world after 8 years of LGBT presidential effeminacy; 5) He gives a kick in the backside to all those Libtards who maintain he is in bed with Putin. And yes, let them say this is all a ruse. They will look even more lunatic than they do already. 6) Dulcis in fundo,  he sends a very strong signal to Iran, China and North Korea: there is a new sheriff in town, and woe to the one who think he can mess with him.

If I were a US taxpayer I would not want my money and the life of US soldiers to be wasted on useless attempts to teach Muslims to avoid massacring each other, which is and will remain their favourite sport. But I would still want this money and those lives to be used to avoid genocides and use of weapons of mass destruction, and – not a bit less important – to be used to have reliable bastards in power in all places that counts. Ubi honor, ibi onus. 

Lastly, the matter of Assad’s responsibility. I do not buy the theory of the faked attack, or of the plot to oust Assad himself. I trust Trump and the US intelligence enough not to be fooled, and to act only when they are reasonably sure of what has happened. It would be counterproductive for Trump if it became known that he was deceived. Please give him some credit, the man has shown already that he is very smart. I also have a certain allergy for conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are the best way to persuade oneself of the contrary of what reality shows. 

The simplest explanation is the most credible: Assad became cocky once reasonably sure of the US support, and thought that he could afford the attack and strengthen his position inside the regime (you will have noticed that in the Arab culture the more ruthless you are, the more you are respected).

Assad is not fit to stay in power, is all. My pint goes on his side eventually winning the conflict with Russian and American help, and on Assad being removed, or killed, at some point during or soon after the end of it.

We need useful bastards to run Muslim Countries. But they must know when the West will draw a line in the sand. 

Sons of dictators, who inherited power, are rarely as smart as their fathers who took it. 





Posted on April 8, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. Mundabor thank you! I must say I’ve been disheartened by the reactions of the conservatives towards Trumps actions. Unlike Obama and Hillary Trump is not advocating a change of leadership in Syria. He is simply keeping this Assad in line and letting him know what happens when the line is crossed. Bravo Trump

  2. Agreed, Mr. M! A little fraternal correction was in order here. Even though we do have a common enemy in ISIS, the US cannot be allied with a government who targets civilians, many of them children, with chemical weapons. No doubt Assad thought he could do so with impunity because he is backed by the Russian government. Our bombing of the jets which transported the chemicals (with minimum military casualties) was necessary to warn Assad against gassing his own citizens again. So in that respect, we have saved innocent lives. I support President Trump for taking action. This action doesn’t mean we are preparing to engage in another Middle Eastern war, which is how some people interpret it. The president understands the impact of limited strategic airstrikes. He’s a tough guy, but his moral compass points in the right direction. I’m still thanking God for his election.

  3. ilovevictoriasbows

    1) He shows Assad that the fact that the POTUS wants his regime to survive does not mean he is free to do what he wants; 2) He kicks him in the balls, but does not cut his regime’s throat; 3) He clearly indicates that Assad’s regime will be helped to win the conflict,

    Good call.

  4. I don’t like what I see. Assad handled his chemical weapons to the Russians (in a process supervised by the US) back in 2013. Assad has nothing to win, and everything to lose, by using such weapons (his situation is far from desperate now, thanks to Russian help). The pictures of the attack are at least suspicious: White Helmets (a “humanitarian” NGO affiliate with Al Qaeda) rescues survivers not using gloves, when sarin is extremely toxic with contact. Everything points to two possiblities:
    1- Assad bombed a rebel depot which stored some kind of chemical weapons (like chlorine, much less toxic than sarin. We know that the Ghouta attack back in 2013 was made by the rebels with chemical weapons handled to them by the Turks);
    2- everything was staged.
    US intelligence is not to be trusted, except for very few individuals (like the ousted Michael Flynn), almost all of them are full agents of the NWO.
    So now Trump is saying that Assad “has crossed many lines”, Tillerson confirmed that steps to remove Assad “are in place”, and Nikki Halley says in the UN that Russia should be held responsible too. It seems that Trump failed to drain the swamp, and is changing sides.

    • It seems to me that Trump had more robust information than your unverified suspicions. The symptoms of the victims point to the use of Sarin. Sarin burns when bombed , and is a two-component substance that cannot go of unless it’s elements are mixed at the moment of use. The Russians would have no interest in staging such action and watch as they lose.

      Everything points to Assad being a ruthless bastard eager to consolidate his power, show he is the tough guy and scare the hell out of his enemies.

      It cannot, and it was not, tolerated.

      Reagan bombed Gaddafi. No war ensued.


    • Exactly. And sarin is extremely toxic when touched, so how come our White Helmets friends are touching the victims with their bare hands? Have a look at pictures of a real sarin attack (the 1995 attack on the Tokyo metro), and you will see rescuers fully covered in chemical-protective suits.
      I fully agree with two guys’ analysis, both of whom supported Trump. One is a military/geopolitical analyst who goes by the name of “The Saker”:
      The other is Paul Joseph Watson from “InfoWars”:

      Even if you don’t agree, it is worth reading/watching what they have to say. Both are strongly conservative and had hopes on Trump. I do agree and am myself very disappointed, and seeing the comments here I am not the only one.

    • I do not improvise myself a Sarin expert. I also never knew a sarin victim cannot be touched hours later. Actually they can and they do, as happened in Tokio.
      The brand of conservatism you suggest is the wrong kind. It is an isolationist mentality that refuses to accept responsibility for the role as suporpower. I do not know the first site, I found “Infowars” brilliant at times, but over the top on many occasions.

  5. I think Trump has made his first serious error. The chemical attack was without doubt not Assad’s work but is being instrumentalised for political ends. Assad, being a member of a minority group himself, is a noted protector of Christians and has gained their support as a result. Whenever the US has gone into middle east conflicts the results have been an increase in the support for Jihadis and salafism. Let’s hope that Russia can persuade Trump to stay his hand in Syria.

  6. I don’t believe Assad is responsible for the chemical attack. He would have to be an idiot.
    The “conspiracy theory”, as you call it, seems far more likely.

    • No.
      He would have to be an Arab.
      Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 with the same kind of bold move that looks stupid only when the other side wants to see the bluff.

%d bloggers like this: