The headline in the February 6, 2016 edition of The World Post said it all: “Geneva III: The Stillborn Conference and the Endemic Failure of the International Community.”
And just what was it that the international community had failed to achieve?
“While approaching the fifth anniversary of the Syrian civil war on March 15 — which claimed more than 300,000 lives, approximately 700,000 wounded, 4 million fled the country, and another 6 million displaced within Syria — the international community has failed to put an end to bloodshed in this war-torn country.”
Put another way: More than 300,000 potential or actual Islamic terrorists will never pose a threat to the United States or Western Europe.
The Syrian conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights–which is safely located in Great Britain–the total number of dead is now more than 310,000.
And who does the Observatory–and The World Post–blame for this Islamic self-slaughter?
Why, the West, of course.
According to the Observatory:
“The silence of the International community for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria encourages the criminals to kill more and more Syrian people because they have not found anyone that deter them from continuing their crimes that cause to wound more than 1500000 people; some of them with permanent disabilities, make hundreds of thousands children without parents, displace more than half of Syrian people and destroy infrastructure, private and public properties.”
And according to the Post:
“It is disgraceful that the international community has successfully concluded an agreement with the regime in a very short period of time to remove its chemical weapons while completely failed to save the lives of millions of innocent children, women, and elderly people throughout Syria in the past five years!”
Got that? It’s the duty of non-Muslims to bring civilized behavior to Islamics.
And why are all these murderers eagerly slaughtering one another?
Because of a Muslim religious dispute that traces back to the fourth century.
Yes, it’s Sunni Muslims, who make up a majority of Islamics, versus Shiite Muslims, who comprise a minority. Each group considers the other takfirs–that is, “apostates.”
And, in Islam, being labeled an apostate can easily get you murdered.
There is, however, an optimistic way to view this conflict:
- At least 310,000 actual or potential enemies of Western civilization–and especially the United States–have chosen to slaughter one another.
- Additional thousands are certain to follow their example.
- And the United States cannot be held in any way responsible for it.
Yet, Left-wing do-gooders and Right-wing militarists demand that the United States thrust itself into a conflict that doesn’t threaten America in any way.
In fact, it’s in America’s best interests that this conflict last as long as possible and spread as widely as possible throughout the Islamic community.
Here’s why:
First: In Syria, two of America’s most deadly enemies are waging war on each other.
Yes, it’s Hizbollah (Party of God) vs. Al-Qaeda (The Base).
Hizbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.
Flag of Hezbollah
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. It is intolerant of Shiites and has instigated violence against them. It denounces them as takfirs–“apostates”–and thus worthy of extermination.
Flag of Al-Qaeda
Al Qaeda has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shiites, Suffis and other non-Sunnis. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.
On one side of this conflict is the Ba’ath regime of Bashar al-Assad, whose allies include Russia, Iran, Hizbollah and elements of the Iraqi government.
On the other side are a host of Syrians and thousands of foreign Sunni fighters, some of whom are affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Second: The United States has been at war in the Middle East for 14 years–since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
In October, 2011, America first committed its forces to Afghanistan, in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 mastermind. Failing to find him, its forces nevertheless stayed on in that country, hoping–and failing–to bring civilization to its barbaric population.
Then, in March, 2003, President George W. Bush invaded Iraq to settle a personal score with its dictator, Saddam Hussein.
After Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, launched the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein had had the bad grace to not topple from power. When the elder Bush lost a second term as President to Bill Clinton in 1992, his son blamed Hussein.
Third, the United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan.
America originally intended to withdraw all but a small embassy-based force of 1,000 troops by the end of 2016.
But as the Taliban re-emerged as a threat, President Barack Obama announced he would maintain 9,800 troops there for most of 2016. About 5,500 troops will still be in Afghanistan by 2017.
2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ANN COULTER, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMMUNISM, EDWARD R. MURROW, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE W. BUSH, GLENN BECK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, IRVING WALLACE, JOHN MCCAIN, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, OSAMA BIN LADEN, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD NIXON, RUSH LIMBAUGH, Sarah Palin, SEAN HANNITY, SPIRO AGNEW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE MAN, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TREASON
BLACK IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on January 18, 2016 at 12:35 amIn 1964, bestselling novelist irving Wallace dared to imagine the then-unthinkable: The elevation of the first black President of the United States.
Wallace’s hero is Douglas Dilman, a moderate who tries to rule as a color-blind President. But he is repeatedly confronted with the brutal truth about himself–and his critics: He is black, and they cannot forgive him for it.
Southern Senator Watson, upon learning that Dilman has succeeded to the Presidency, says: “The White House isn’t going to be white enough from now on.”
And Kay Eaton, who lusts for her husband, the Secretary of State, to become President, blames him for not pushing hard enough for it: “You’re just a kingmaker to a jigaboo.”
Dilman’s fictional Presidency is marked by white racists, black political activists, and an attempted assassination. Later, he is impeached on false charges for firing the racist Secretary of State.
The novel was turned into a 1972 movie starring James Earl Jones as President Dillman.
Click here: The Man (1972) – IMDb
Wallace’s 1964 novel, The Man, appeared 44 years before Barack Obama’s election.
Fast-forward to the Presidency of Barack Obama and you find:
Perhaps Irving Wallace believed that, by the millennium, America would be ready for a black President. If so, he sadly proved to be a far better author than prophet.
Share this: