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.
And it came to pass the football match wanted by Francis to end the atrocities in the Middle East took place. It must have worked, because when I woke up this morning the birds were chirping with unusual energy, and, clearly, Love Was In The Air. Or not, as the case may be.
The Match To End All Wars took, then, place, and the stadium was half-empty.
How can this be, when Francis The Humble Black Shod Peacemaker was behind the initiative?
Where were all the non-judgmental Catholics so inspired by the “fresh, new approach” of the Unholy Father? The lovers of peace? The Sons Of The Age Of Mercy?
They were, apparently…. everywhere else.
The brutal truth is that the world does not care a straw for Francis, and never was disinterest more deserved. To them, Francis is light entertainment: a short headline on the morning paper, a momentary titillation of their most superficial feelings, a popular “celebrity” among thousands of others, somewhere between Rihanna and Simon Cowell, and in the end with no better standing than them.
The “F” factor is simply not there. What is there is a clown dressed in white, wearing a red nose even when he doesn’t, and riding a wave of popularity that is there only as long as it satisfies the desire of the urban masses to feel excited, and good with themselves. But let this alleged “Francismania” cost the price of a ticket, and all the interest will remain where the plauding masses were yesterday: outside.
Not only is Francis a third-class Pope; he appears well on his way to becoming a third-class “celebrity”, too. As the novelty of the “humble Pope who talks refreshing rubbish” wears out, what remains is a stupid old man who has divested his office of the authority and respect due to it, and now stands there, with a red nose on his face, begging you to look at him as he embraces a wheelchair.
Francis as Great Novelty is getting old fast. Unless he causes graver and graver scandal, even his present antics will soon look like the new normality, causing damage to the Church as they become unable to further the cause of the Destroyer.
At that point it will be probably be wisest to abdicate, playing the new game of Pope Cincinnatus.
The Obama administration wants to bomb the Syrian regime, and in that way unavoidably help its enemies to go to power. For the Obama administration the Government are the baddies, and the Muslim militants the “freedom fighters”. Happily, the military action does not take place; but the stupidity of a Middle East policy based on populism shows to every sensible person that a real idiot sits in the Oval Office.
Not too many months go by, and even the US administration is forced to realise what kind of mistake they were about to make.
It astonishes me that there is no huge uproar exposing the immense stupidity of this administration not only in Syria, but in countries like Libya and Egypt, where they have acted with the same immense stupidity. This US administration proved so stupid that the Egyptian government – a military regime born out of the sense of the Egyptian army and the exasperation of the Egyptian people, and against the will of Golfing Cretin – openly mocked them calling the US to “restraint” in Ferguson. And this, even if Egypt still receives help from the US to the tune of several billion bucks a year.
I would love to read more and harsher criticism of this bunch of amateurs. Only a systematically realistic approach, aimed at bringing all of the Middle East under the control of Western-friendly dictators willing to leave Christians in peace, can bring lasting peace to the region; and be it the peace of a bloody dictator, if the native do not – as they have abundantly showed – deserve anything better.
As it is now, the West will, in time, contain or destroy – more likely destroy at some point – the threat of the ISIS. But without a serious strategic intent of putting a solid lid over that boiling pot of madness that is the Arab world the Western powers will end up playing fire brigades as violent insurrections develop elsewhere, or keep reappearing at some point in those realities – like Iraq – where a democratic solution is stubbornly pursued after now many years of evidence that the recipe does not work.
The US must now start to actively look for a candidate that will – with their approval, support, and bribe money – take control of army and country, arrange things between Iraqi ethnic groups in a way considered fair by his Western masters, and start kicking a few ISIS asses.
The time for this parody of democracy is up, as the suffering of countless Christians abundantly proves. Now that high officers of the US armed forces start to officially expose the immense stupidity of a Middle East policy by popularity poll, the way might in time be opened for a more realistic approach to all things Arab; though I doubt that the current administration will ever see the light on this, rather preferring to continue to be very stupid first, and timidly right when it’s already very late.
Every time you read or hear news about Syria, think that Obama wanted to bomb Assad’s regime. And pray that 2016 may come in time to reverse the course in the Middle East.
Well, this is good news.
A giant statue of Christ has been erected on top of a 2,000 high mountain on the traditional pilgrimage route between old Constatinople and Jerusalem. From what I could see, the look is very traditional.
The initiative is from the local monastery. The money comes from a Moscow association.
The statue can be seen from Lebanon and Israel.
I have already reported about the giant Christ of the Pacific in Lima; this one is another beautiful addition, perhaps even more symbolic because of its unique position. The operation also shows some robust faith at work, as if the Islsmist mob should come to power in Syria the life of this monument could prove rather short.
I can't avoid thinking someone would have preferred to give the money to the nearby oh so poor Palestinians, who are so much in love with peace and pacific co-existence; particularly considering the twenty-one Arab States are clearly too poor to help them.
The Russian benefactors clearly thought differently.
It's good to see for some people the priority is Christ.
Yours truly cannot but look with some concern at the views and the mentality with which many of those opposed to a US intervention in Syria present their argument. Let me describe some of them, and add my two Catholic cents on them.
1. The US might become involved in a new war.
I do not know you, but I always thought that with power comes responsibility, and a superpower should have correspondent responsibilities. If we look at the past, it was the richest and most powerful who were asked to make the biggest effort – be it concerning the Crusades, the feeding of the poor, or the building of the next cathedral -. To be a superpower involves the continuous risk of being involved in undesired conflicts; the obvious counterpart, by the by, of the possibility of influencing each one of them.
2. War is bad/no more war/make love,not war/give peace a chance (and similar rubbish).
This kindergarten pacifism (a favourite pastime not only of hippies and assorted potheads, but also of Pope Paul VI, and Bishop Francis) has the consequence that Neville Chamberlain must be considered an excellent man at least until September 1939, and Winston Churchill a war-thirsty bastard who led countless young lives to a useless death. Every wholesale expression of war as a never acceptable option not only does not take account of reality, but positively helps evil fanatics the world over. At times, evil regimes must simply be kicked/bombed out of existence, and again to deny this means to be a Chamberlain of a particularly obtuse sort. Unfortunately, the bishop of Rome cannot escape this kindergarten logic; a logic which makes him look good with the kindergarten masses, and which he must therefore think very smart.
3. Violence must make way for negotiation.
The continuous calls for peace where peace is clearly not in the cards is, if we are honest, another piece of kindergarten stuff; whilst I expect calls to peace from a Pontiff, when it is the only plan of action this is what we hear from people who wants to look good on the cheap, and without taking risks. Wars – most of all, civil wars and/or religious wars – aren’t fought because the parts aren’t aware that there is the option of negotiations. As long as the military option seems more promising to at least one of the fighting parties, an armed confrontation is what you will get. Actually, in the presence of an extremely ideologically motivated side – say, Al Qaeda-near fighters; or the Vietcong – any ceasefire will only be used to regroup and go better prepared into the next military campaign, which is why in this situation any ceasefire now is probably going to be paid with more violence later. More in general, to ask what is clearly unrealistic merely in order to look good and please the crowds – yes, I am thinking of Francis again – is nothing to do with a serious analysis of the problem or an intelligent proposal for its solution. It is merely what Francis does all the time: pleasing the crowds.
4. Every Syrian was born equal.
This is very un-PC, but I think that it must be said. I am sick and tired of those appeals to peace who are generically addressed to the Syrian people as if its Christian population were not the most endangered part of it, and those who have most to fear from the collapse of the Syrian regime. It is the height of ecumenical stupidity not to have the interest of the poor Christians in Syria on a higher plane than the one of the Muslim population. If it were so, we should welcome a new regime merely because, say, deemed more honest, efficient, democratic, or near to the needs of the people. It is not so. One regime would treat Christians much, much worse than the other, and I see it as the duty of every Christian to put their safety before other consideration like “freedom” or “democracy”. When Bishop Francis manages to put Christians and Muslims in the same basket without addressing in a compelling way the special dangers of the Christians in Syria, I shudder.
“Well then, Mundabor” – you will say – “what is it, then, that you propose?”
What I propose is that we sensible Catholics stop the easy slogans – which lead nowhere and are only useful to let us feel good with ourselves – and start acting, in our own little sphere of influence (we aren’t Popes, are we…) according to well-probed principles of realism.
Personally, I consider the condition of Christians in Syria as far more important than the increase of prestige and power for Hizbollah if the Syrian government wins this war. Similarly, I consider the danger coming from mad Islamist militants – ready to uncork the fanatical madness that must be present in every prevalently Muslim country in virtue of its being… prevalently Muslim – as a far greater menace than the Assad regime they want to overthrow. A menace, I mean, immediate and all too evident for the Syrian Christians, but certainly very concrete for all Western Countries, as every child – bar Obama – must certainly see.
Therefore, I do not think that the usual empty calls for a “peaceful solution” should be supported. You won’t have any peace until Muslim fundamentalists are around in forces. What you will have is either violence now, or a ceasefire now in preparation of more violence tomorrow.
The sensible behaviour here, if you ask me, is not a generic call to “peace”, much less a “humanitarian” help to the destruction of Assad’s regime as the “help” pushed by the First Gay President. The solution is, on the contrary, massive military support for the Syrian government. There are many ways to do this avoiding both a painful loss of life from Western countries – say, with massive air strikes, and/or an extensive use of drones – and a massive re-armament of Hizbollah. The Syrian army isn’t the South Vietnamese one: the Syrian soldiers have been fighting rather well for years, and they well know what might happen to them if the other side wins. In no way can be said that the rebels have won the “hearts and minds” of the Syrians; actually the contrary is more probably the case.
The British Government, the Vatican and the other big and little powers should let the White House know that they have picked the wrong side, and the smart thing to do is: a) to help Assad’s regime to survive and b) to use its army to give the rebels a lesson that those of them who manage to survive will remember for a while. I never thought I’d see the day where Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are de facto on the same side and the US are, to all intents and purposes, on the other, helping Al Qaeda and the persecutors of Christians. Many European countries are, behind the peace rhetoric, seeing the light, and are now listening to the likes of Israel rather than to an idiot in Washington only worried to look good and appear “concerned for the welfare of humanity”.
A pacific attitude is a beautiful, Christian thing. Pacifism, on the other hand, is the mother of holocausts, world wars, communist dictatorships and other horrible calamities.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. He who loves peace will have to be ready for war; he who does not want war will attract it, and his empty slogans will be of no use in the end.
I fear much for the destiny of the Syrian people, but most of all I fear for the destiny of the Syrian Christians. They should be, I think, our first concern, and we will not address this concern with generic calls for peace.
Two sides. One must lose.
Draw your conclusions.
The Gay President used to make a good show of his Christian credentials, something absolutely necessary to avoid the nation believing he is a Muslim.
In order to do so, he also staged a TV walk on Easter: look, look at your oh so Christian President going to Church and listen to the über-liberal preaching of the “progressive” proddie pastor!
It appears now, though, that the Gay President feels he does not need the alibi anymore.
He hasn’t been seen in Church for more than five months now . One wonders what excuse will the White House find for him, then five months is a darn long time even for a Proddie.
Security, perhaps? Ehy, by golfing this does not seem to be a problem? Is he afraid to hurt the sensitivity of atheists? This is more probable. Is he atheist himself, and having to choose would he rather pop in in a mosque, for purely cultural and sentimental reasons? Ah, I think we have it here.
In the meantime, “hope ‘n change” appears more and more isolated on Syria. A completely different picture from G.W. Bush, who in 2002 was called “isolated” when a dozen or more countries were ready not only to support the US military effort, but to put their soldiers where their mouth is and directly participate to the military effort after the invasion. I wonder how all those Democrats who called Bush “isolated” then should call Obama now.
The things you have time for clearly show where your priorities lie. The Gay President’s priorities seem to be so ordered that Golf is more important than religion; or golf is his religion; or, most probably, Obama is his religion.
From yesterday, “backpedaling” is officially called “making a second decision”; or so does the Gay President believe.
Methinks, the evidence of the Syrian government having carried out the attack is rather thin; and the Gay President, being, erm, gay, has decided to
back make a second decision. It appears after the defeat of the Gay PM in the UK other allies have become more cautious, or more probably a sustained bombing campaign without the support of the still special ally wouldn't look very much “hope and change”.
What a Christian notices is that the dangers for the Syrian Christians have not played any role. It is probable that attacks will be carried out in the end, and the Syrian regime (our sons of a bitch, remember…) will be more or less weakened, and perhaps crushed, by way of the attacks. Or it can be that Obama will only order “cosmetic” attacks to show he really cares for humaniteee, but these attacks will result in nothing more than an embarrassment for the Syrian government. In all cases, Christians in the area will not play any role. Obama calls himself a Christian only for reasons of political convenience, but is a fully secularised atheist with an emotional link to the Islam he grew up with.
I can only imagine that here two interests have converged: Obama's desire to appear the human rights angel, and the desire of the Pentagon to give a sound thrashing to Hizbollah and, indirectly, Iran. If this is so, the British stance has not changed anything in the second motive but it has radically changed the first: you can't play “hope and change” and the humanitarian paladin when your closest ally clearly indicates you are a cowboy.
Still, I wanted to share with you my discovery of the new way of saying “backpedaling”.
It is rumoured the first Western bombs might fall on Syrian target as early as tomorrow, Thursday, though I think the Western public opinion will need some day more to digest the news.
One wonders if the same zeal would have been put on display had it been discovered that the rebels are the authors of the chemical weapons deployment.
As every one of us, I remember that day as if it were yesterday. I thought life as we know it would change. No safe flying anymore, periodic announcements of the next aeroplane gone down, things like that. It may seem stupid to say it now, but it wasn’t so much at the time.
I remembered the terrorist years in Italy: they had started slow and then had become a truly dramatic phase in the life of the Republic. I really thought it would get worse before it gets better.
Nine years later I pray, like everyone else, for the victims of this heinous act.
But I would also like to share some reflections:
1) Huge, huge kudos to the security services and information agencies of all Western countries. It is now nine years and Nine Eleven never repeated. This is a stunning success. Perhaps this was achieved at the price of some rendition flights, some harsh prison conditions and some waterboarding to boot. Fine with me. We’ll never know how many lives have been saved.
2) The declared aim of the terrorists was to change the way we live. To make us feel afraid of living our free way of life. The mission is, emphatically, not accomplished.
3) That terrible day has brought on the Arab world a series of humiliations. Two countries invaded as a result of the attack, several others (like Syria and Jordan) told to choose the right side, sharpish, or face war. The Arab/Mulsim history is full of humiliations from the West (from the First Crusade to the Reconquista, from Lepanto to the European colonisation), but this was a sudden awakening to their utter military and social inferiority, (the religious one goes without saying) on their own ground.
Every Arab now knows that a strike to the West brings back humiliations on a multiple scale of the offence caused. Not a good investment. I wonder how many of them admire those idiots. A very tiny minority, I think.
4) From 9/11, paradoxically, hope also sprang. In Afghanistan, things might become less savage in the next years and in Iraq a most cruel and dangerous dictatorship has been replaced by an uncertain democracy now trying to walk unassisted. If it works in Iraq, democracy might spread to other countries. It will depend on the locals of course, but even from the humiliation of a foreign invasion a new dawn and a new hope has arisen.
As an Italian, I see in this what has happened in my own Country.
5) Bin Laden is just ignored. Forgotten. More dead than Disco for the media, probably truly dead since 2001 or 2002 anyway. Nine years later, he doesn’t even help to sell newspapers anymore. In the meantime, his people continue to die like flies, hunted down all over the planet.
6) Nine years later, the West discovers that it is stronger than ever. Iraq is on the way to trying to become a half-decent country; Afghanistan trying not to become a Taliban state; people in the West are flying, holidaying, living as they did before.
Nine years later, Ronald Reagan’s slogan remains more valid than ever: we win, they lose.