For many years now hundreds of thousands of Christians have been persecuted, massacred and ethnically cleansed predominantly by Muslims the world over. Every five minutes, it has been calculated, a Christian is killed just because of his faith and nothing else. This is in addition to all the other causes for which Christians as well as non-Christians are killed, like wars, civil wars and so on.
Does this not constitute an atrocity, in Kerry's, Cameron's, Obama's, Hague's, Hollande's estimeed opinion?
Judging from their actions it doesn't: they have hardly uttered a word about this crime of the greatest magnitude, let alone expressed the intention to go to war because of it.
If your predisposition to moral outrage is so selective as to become criminally discriminatory, if the expression "double standard" is as weak to describe your behaviour as that of a man jumping into a pond to help person A keep her hair dry while letting person B drown, you have lost any credibility in claiming ethics as the reason for your actions.
What, if not morality then, could be the motive of Kerry, Obama and their gang of interventionists?
You'll forgive me if I cannot find any without the consultation of a standard psychiatry text, which I don't have handy at the moment on my holiday in St Ives, Cornwall.
Unless the decisive reason against going to war on the side of Assad's opponents, the "Syrian" (20 percent, though: 80 percent are foreign jihadists going wherever non-Muslim infildels can be killed and Sharia states imposed) rebels dominated by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements, gives us some clue to at least Obama's desires.
The rebels have made clear their intentions of moving their jihad warfare to Europe and America when they're done with Syria. Once Syrian Christians will be dead, or have fled the country, or converted to Islam, or accepted subjugation to their Islamic masters and paid the special jizya tax imposed on non-Muslims, once all the other niceties of sharia law will be forced on Syria, the jihadists' task there will be accomplished, finished, and they'll have to find somewhere else to do their good work.
Since, thanks to our wonderful, progressive program of encouraging invasion from the Third World, celebrating diversity and welcoming Islam, many of these jihadists are European, nothing will be easier for them than coming back home and putting to use the various techniques and skills they've acquired in the Syrian war: there is nothing like hand-on experience for mastering a job to perfection.
America will be next too.
Given that Barack Hussein Obama was born and raised a Muslim and has never failed to show the strength of his ties with and admiration for his old religion, the only reason, unlikely as it might be, for the senseless act of helping Muslim terrorists in their program of Islamisation of all countries, including ours, can only be that this does not appear senseless to someone who shares the same Islamic ideals.
I'm sincerely hard-pressed to find other motivations that don't involve a study of the level and pathology of the mental faculties of the war hawks (with apologies to these magnificent birds of prey for the unflattering comparison).
Here's a phrase I don't often employ, "to be fair to Obama." Well, to be fair to Obama, this prostration of American leaders before Moslems is not a new phenomenon arising during his Administration. The studied indifference, during the American occupation(!) of Iraq, to the victimization of that unfortunate country's Christians by the Bush Administration was at least as callous as Obama's.
ReplyDeleteRetrospectively, one of the most poignant moments of the Iraq War and its aftermath was a news video sequence, taken on the night in which organized resistance by Saddam's army dissolved in Baghdad: In the nearly deserted streets, as a car full of joyful young Iraqis drove by, in front of the news camera, a strikingly beautiful young woman, beaming with happiness, hung out of one of the car windows and made the sign of the cross, showing her almost certainly to be a Chaldean Christian. At the time, I felt great vicarious happiness for her and her comrades in the car; now, whenever I recall that scene, so full of promise for Iraqi Christians' future, I feel great regret . . . and guilt as well, for having supported the invasion of Iraq, against the sage warnings of Pope John Paul II.
Obama has, admittedly, ratcheted the level of harm the U. S. is doing to Christians, from that caused by indifference to that caused by active intervention on the side of Islamists, but he had a solid foundation of callous disregard for the well-being of the unhappy Christian remnants in Moslem lands to build upon.
I agree with everything you said, including Bush's indifference to the fate of Christians, except that there is still a difference between the two. Obama does, and Bush didn't, have the benefit of hindsight: after Iraq, after Benghazi, after seeing what happens to Christians when secularist regimes fall in Muslim countries and how the "Arab Spring" has empowered Islamists and terrorists who even killed four American diplomats in the region who had paradoxically helped them, Obama deserves nothing but impeachment.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Obama's attitude toward the Christian remnants of Moslem countries contains is hard to explain without positing an element of malice that was lacking in Bush (and other American Presidents who displayed indifference to their plight).
DeleteXtians being cleansed by Muslims.... Well that sure is one-sided don't you think? I think Muslims are being cleansed elsewhere too, somewhere where media does not give attention too.
ReplyDelete