Why is the Obama administration so determined to have the U.S. military help al-Qaeda win the civil war in Syria? Why are we being told that the U.S. has "no choice" but to help rabid jihadist terrorists that are slaughtering entire Christian villages, brutally raping Christian women and joyfully beheading Christian prisoners? If you are a Christian, you should not want anything to do with these genocidal lunatics. Jabhat al-Nusra is a radical Sunni terror organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that is leading the fight against the Assad regime. If they win, life will be absolute hell for the approximately two million Christians in Syria and other religious minorities. According to Wikipedia, Jabhat al-Nusra intends "to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate." As you will see below, many members of the U.S. military understand this, and they absolutely do not want to fight on the side of al-Qaeda.
Not that we should be supporting Assad either. Assad is horrible. He should be rotting in prison somewhere. But just because a country has a bad leader does not mean that we have justification to attack them.
The U.S. military should only be put into action when there is a compelling national interest at stake. And getting involved in a bloody civil war between Assad and al-Qaeda does not qualify.
For the moment, we have a little bit of time to educate the American people about this because the Obama administration has decided to try to get the approval of Congress before striking Syria. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Unfortunately, some members of the U.S. Congress are actually trying to push Obama into even stronger action. In fact, some Senators are now saying that they will not support military intervention in Syria unless it is a part of an "overall strategy" to remove Assad from power.
If the U.S. does try to remove Assad, it will unleash hell in the Middle East. Syria has already threatened to attack Israel if the U.S. tries to remove Assad and so has Hezbollah.
As I mentioned the other day, right now there are 70,000 Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel.
When Hezbollah and Syria start sending rockets into the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond with even greater force.
And if a single one of those rockets that land in Tel Aviv have an unconventional warhead, Israel will respond by absolutely flattening Damascus.
When I say that, what I mean is that a city of 1.7 million people will be gone permanently.
Do our politicians have any idea of the hell that they are about to unleash?
Do our leaders actually want Israel to be attacked?
Do our leaders actually want major cities in the Middle East to be completely wiped out?
Do our leaders actually want millions of precious people to die?
As I mentioned above, those serving in the U.S. military understand these things better than most people, and right now many of them are expressing a very strong desire to stay out of this conflict.
According to a tweet from U.S. Representative Justin Amash, he has heard from numerous members of the U.S. military that are urging him to vote against an attack on Syria...
I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against #Syria.
— Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) August 31, 2013
Journalist Paul Szoldra says that he has also heard from a lot of service members that want nothing to do with this conflict...
I've reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.
The following is what a Marine Corps infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq named Jack Mandaville wrote to Szoldra...
The worst part about this Syria debacle, among many things, is how closely it resembles Iraq. Those Vietnam veterans who warned us about disastrous results in Iraq were doing so based off their experience in a war that, contrary to popular belief, was vastly different from our war and was separated by at least two decades. Many veterans of Iraq are still in their twenties and have a firsthand understanding of Arab political issues. The complicated things we faced with Syria's next door neighbors is freshly ingrained in our memories. How quickly the American people and our political leaders forget.
Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored. My anger over this issue has actually made me seriously comment on our foreign policy for the first time since 2006 when I was honorably discharged after three stints in Iraq and subsequently watched it continue for nearly another six years. I'm sickened that we're putting ourselves in a position for another prolonged war where the American people will quickly forget about the people fighting it.
And even an establishment mouthpiece like the Washington Post is admitting that top U.S. military officials are expressing "serious reservations" about a war with Syria...
The Obama administration's plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
One officer even told the Post that he "can't believe" that Obama is even considering a conflict with Syria...
"I can't believe the president is even considering it," said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned.
What Obama wants to do is utter insanity.
Why would we want to enter a war on the side of Christian killers?
In areas of Syria that are controlled by the rebels, Christians are being treated brutally. The following is from eyewitness testimony from a Christian missionary who recently visited the region...
"The Christian residents were offered four choices: 1. renounce the 'idolatry' of Christianity and convert to Islam; 2. pay a heavy tribute to the Muslims for the privilege of keeping their heads and their Christian faith (this tribute is known as jizya); 3. be killed; 4. flee for their lives, leaving all their belongings behind."
How would you like to be faced with those choices?
In other instances, Christians are not even given any choices. Instead, they are being summarily executed for their faith.
For example, the following is one incident that made news back in December...
Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.
The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.
She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.
How would you feel if a member of your family was beheaded and fed to the dogs?
And the rebels have continued to slaughter Christians even though they know the world is watching. The following is from an NBC News report on August 18th...
Syrian rebels killed at least 11 people, including civilians, in an attack on a checkpoint west of the city of Homs on Saturday that official state media described as a massacre.
Most of those killed were Christians, activists and residents said.
Sometimes these psychotic Syrian rebels actually round up Christian women and children and gun them down. The following is from a report about what the rebels did to the Christian village of al-Duvair when they took control...
Images obtained exclusively by Infowars show the aftermath of an alleged massacre of a Christian village in Syria during which men, women and children were slaughtered and churches desecrated by Obama-backed FSA rebels.
The photos, which were provided by a source inside the village of al-Duvair in Syria's Western province of Homs, show ruined homes, ransacked churches as well as the burned remains of what looks like an infant.
According to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) on May 29, "The armed rebels affiliated to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Reef (outskirts of) Homs near the border with Lebanon….and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children."
But sometimes women are not killed by the rebels. If they are young and lovely, they are often systematically raped. What happened to one 15-year-old Christian girl from Qusair named Mariam is a total abomination...
The commander of the battalion "Jabhat al-Nusra" in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam, became mentally unstable and was eventually killed.
This is who Obama wants to help?
We are going to shed American blood to help those monsters take over Syria?
Are we insane?
Of course one of the most prominent examples of rebel brutality was even reported on by CNN...
A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver.
"I swear to God we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. God is greater!" the man says. "Heroes of Baba Amr ... we will take out their hearts to eat them."
He then puts the heart in his mouth and takes a bite.
After reading that, can anyone out there possibly justify helping the Syrian rebels?
But the Obama administration insists that we "must" attack Syria because Assad supposedly used chemical weapons against his own people.
Secretary of State John Kerry says that samples taken by UN inspectors have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, and therefore what we must do is clear.
But is it really?
According to The Hill, the UN has had evidence that Syrian rebels have been using sarin gas against Assad forces since May...
United Nations human rights investigators said Sunday they have gathered testimony from outside Syria suggesting rebels, not Bashar Assad's regime, may have used chemical weapons.
And as I discussed the other day, Syrian rebels have admitted to an Associated Press reporter that they were the ones that used sarin gas during the incident that the Obama administration is so concerned about.
The chemical weapons were supplied to the rebels by Saudi Arabia, but the Obama administration will never, ever admit this. If the U.S. called the Saudis out on this, it would potentially endanger the status of the petrodollar.
Instead, the U.S. government is going to end up doing exactly what the Saudis want, which is to attack Syria.
But people all around the world are seeing through this charade. For example, the following is a statement that Pat Buchanan made during a recent interview with Newsmax...
"I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation."
Sadly, it doesn't really seem to matter what any of us think. According to James Rosen of Fox News, the Obama administration has apparently made the decision to go ahead with an attack on Syria no matter what Congress decides...
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president's decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president's decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president's earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
"That's going to happen, anyway," the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
Very soon, the U.S. military will be embroiled in a vicious civil war between a brutal dictator and absolutely psychotic Christian-killing jihadists.
Should American blood be spilled in such a conflict?
Of course not.
Is it worth potentially starting World War III just to teach Assad a "lesson"?
Of course not.
Hopefully this war will not happen, because if it does I fear that it is going to be very, very bloody.