Establishing a timeline to determine the origins of Washington's support for the
Jihadist terrorists in Syria is difficult because of its covert nature. But, what we do know for certain is that leading neoconservative figures in the Bush administration such as Paul Wolfowitz had their eye on Syria since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.
General Wesley Clark confirmed Washington's anti-Syria agenda in numerous media interviews and lectures that he gave in the mid to late 2000's.
"Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us,"
said Gen. Clark in October 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, adding, "This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control."
A year or so ago,
USrael's alliance with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria was kept off the public radar. It just didn't look good from a public relations perspective. But, with
Israel bombing Syria in the last couple of weeks to help out its Jihadist comrades who are in trouble, the narrative is rapidly changing.
It is no longer taboo to praise Al-Qaeda or raise the flag of Jihad in the capitals of Tel Aviv, Washington, Paris, and other European capitals. Jihadists are romanticized by the mainstream media. They are referred to as
"rebels" and "revolutionaries." Never mind that all they do is destroy, rape, burn, and pillage.
One of these days an ambitious author will write a novel about the heroics of Al-Qaeda terrorists in their holy war against Assad, and it will probably sell millions. But what about Al-Qaeda's past? Who cares, says Obama. "We must look forward," he said. 9/11 was so yesterday. Three thousand innocent people were killed on 9/11? That's so old news.
The supporters of Al-Qaeda's campaign of terror against Syria in Washington don't dwell on little things like victims of terrorism, whether they be Syrian or American. It's a new day. Now, Al-Qaeda is officially on the side of America and Israel. Islamic radicals are even cheered on by Fox News and company.
What are the consequences of Washington's cold-blooded policy towards Syria? Instability and sectarian conflict for decades. Coincidentally, these are also the aims. Why? Because current American leaders are insane and evil.
It is a mistake to describe them as American because they do not reflect the American character or stand up for American values. I don't know what they are, but what's clear is that they have turned their backs on humanity, peace, law, justice, God, and everything good. They believe that if you can't rule the Middle East then the next best thing to do is to destroy it and ruin it. And this also goes for the majority of European and Gulf Arab leaders, who understand that the political awakening in the Arab world means the end of their dreaded rule.
At least there are some countries left where the leaders are sane and humane, such as Russia. They are not crazy with power. Read this excerpt from the article by Julia Ioffe called,
"The Cold War Heats Up in Syria: Why Russia won't allow an intervention":
“Moscow understands that something has to be done because the war has
been going on for two years and it has to stop,” he explains. “But if
Assad’s opponents win, there will be a bloodbath. Shiites and Alawites
will be slaughtered.” Moreover, he adds, echoing the official Russian
position, that the successors to Assad will likely be the ones flying
the black flag of jihad and sponsoring terrorism outside Syria’s
borders. Lukyanov points out that Syria has long been home to those
displaced by the upheavals in the Caucasus, which has become a hotbed of
terrorism and Islamist insurrection. “Getting rid of a dictatorial but
secular regime, and replacing it with an Islamist regime creates yet
another support network for the terrorists in our backyard,” Lukyanov
explains. Yusin makes a starker analogy. “Assad does not want to target
America, but these guys do,” he says. “These are thousands of potential
Tsarnaevs, and France and Britain want to arm them!”
The biggest difference between America and Russia at this moment in time is that Russia doesn't want instability near its borders because it is sane and America does want instability near its borders because it is insane.
Funding Jihadist terrorist groups in Syria can at least be explained on a strategic level. But U.S. leaders are also funding Mexican drug cartels in their backyard for the sole purpose of creating instability on the border with Mexico in order to create a greater demand for Homeland Security and other U.S. government agencies. That's why people are saying that U.S. leaders have gone insane. They create instability not just on the other side of the world but even inside their own borders. It's completely crazy. U.S. leaders need therapy or pain medications or something. They are making America crazy along with the rest of world.
