When a troubled vet jumped the White House Fence and ran into the East Wing of the White House the President wasn't home and neither was security. One can imagine a suicide bomber jumping the fence-maybe they already brought packages of C-4 from the Middle East over the Mexican border. Illegal boundary jumpers aren't supposed to be troubling to the rich or politicians generally. The President has been on vacation at securing the Mexican border from illegal entry as well and that keeps the value of labor down.
Perhaps the President was getting in another of hundreds of rounds of golf or considering an exit strategy for the Syrian guerrilla war and terror training field training exercise though the Pentagon has said the bombing will go on for years. Like reading tea leaves there is an art to drawing inferences from Obama administration Middle East facts from which inferences about policy could be read.
The President in a speech about the spat of head-choppings by ISIS said that no god would like that, or work that, or something like that. I do not think the President is a polytheist at all, however one knows that the mostly Reformed Christian Cromwell administration benefited from the first regicide in modern European history. God is fairly tough and able too tolerate his Son being cruicified-arguably worse than a head chopping-Jesus was no pansy.
President Obama's statement that no god-not Thor or Moloch or other pretenders that are stone or wood would condone chopping-and one knows that insentient beings cannot vote much less order head chops. It seems like another lawyerly language trick-like what the meaning of is is only with a larger topic.
God is certainly for justice and the end of sin yet one accomplishes that through the sacrifice of the Lord, not with more causal series bombings. If head chopping seems like sin, remember that Islam has no paradigm for sin as do Christians. Instead they have the goal of theocratic world-conquest as an article of faith. Politically speaking even atheists believe generally that ends justify means or at least that there are no moral values that are valid moral criteria for judging ends or means. Instead they simply are.
The Quran has lots of stuff about war and chopping off of hands for thieving is fairly common. The Middle East has a history of low-budget corrections-even the Iranians had a tow truck with a hoist for a mobile scaffold during the Amahdinijab era I believe it was, cruising around Tehran for swift justice. The revolutionary Jacobeans and the Directorate brought a mobile guillotine to Haiti and elsewhere. ISIS as wicked and silly as it is about forming a government through blood that won't work, is not unique in the application of biased justice to political opponents. There is no question that the broadcast media is a tool of the rich and that airwaves ought to be given over to the public to restore a semblance of democracy in the U.S.A. Wealthy corporations pay money to other corporations that own broadcast networks for political advertising through PACS and the poor and middle class public slurps it up. Add together the collected political works of Republicrat parties and one find pure corporatism concentrating wealth. The media are their tools and PR mouthpieces.
If ISIS will exist for years as a credible terrorist-military force in the region then that must mean the Syrian civil war will continue too and the President will continue to support rebel efforts to depose the lawful Assad government. At the same time that the Saudis will be training 5000 moderates to either attack ISIS with sandals or boots on the ground or sand the Friends of Syria will be sending arms (well weapons rather than arms or heads) and continuing pay outs for rebel and terror salaries to the warriors that may be honest killers seeking to attack Assadites but may have sympathy toward expanding the Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam as well. Keeping a foot on the gas peddle to the metal and another on the brake simultaneously while spinning a Broddie or reverse one and a half end-over-end seems the exciting prospect.
If the Syrian Civil war is protracted and the battle against ISIS presumes a stable foe as if it were an invading horde of Mongols led by Tamerlane or Genghis that can be clearly identified and not just slip out and disappear into the local populace perhaps to reform like a cancer in other cells tat will assure continuing Syrian civilian suffering.
There are some that right-wingly call for boots on the ground to pacify the populace and bring peace until the boots march somewhere else. It is probably worth considering what a division or two of tankers or Marines might mean to the area. First though the exist strategy and clear goals to accomplish that might stabilize the presently ISIS-claimed regions might be adumbrated. If ISIS is dispersed won't another succeeding rebel & terror organization draw upon the remaining available resources to war and claim land? Isn't that sort of an occupation of many terror organizations in the area generally that has increased because of U.S. support for war on the lawful Syrian government?
Some might hypothesize a lasting American special forces troop presence in the Kurdistan district of Iraq as a kind of foreign legion able to reinforce Kurdish led military and security activities. A stronger Kurdistan reinforced by Iraq might be a way to keep a frontier post able to defrappe the formation of ad hoc terror ventures precipitated by the dubiously helpful war upon Basher Assad.
Some sort of stability as an ad hoc and continuing political fact that permits a certain measure of economic activity and environmental conservation development would be better than an ongoing ad hoc chaos with conflict effort.
Perhaps the President was getting in another of hundreds of rounds of golf or considering an exit strategy for the Syrian guerrilla war and terror training field training exercise though the Pentagon has said the bombing will go on for years. Like reading tea leaves there is an art to drawing inferences from Obama administration Middle East facts from which inferences about policy could be read.
The President in a speech about the spat of head-choppings by ISIS said that no god would like that, or work that, or something like that. I do not think the President is a polytheist at all, however one knows that the mostly Reformed Christian Cromwell administration benefited from the first regicide in modern European history. God is fairly tough and able too tolerate his Son being cruicified-arguably worse than a head chopping-Jesus was no pansy.
President Obama's statement that no god-not Thor or Moloch or other pretenders that are stone or wood would condone chopping-and one knows that insentient beings cannot vote much less order head chops. It seems like another lawyerly language trick-like what the meaning of is is only with a larger topic.
God is certainly for justice and the end of sin yet one accomplishes that through the sacrifice of the Lord, not with more causal series bombings. If head chopping seems like sin, remember that Islam has no paradigm for sin as do Christians. Instead they have the goal of theocratic world-conquest as an article of faith. Politically speaking even atheists believe generally that ends justify means or at least that there are no moral values that are valid moral criteria for judging ends or means. Instead they simply are.
The Quran has lots of stuff about war and chopping off of hands for thieving is fairly common. The Middle East has a history of low-budget corrections-even the Iranians had a tow truck with a hoist for a mobile scaffold during the Amahdinijab era I believe it was, cruising around Tehran for swift justice. The revolutionary Jacobeans and the Directorate brought a mobile guillotine to Haiti and elsewhere. ISIS as wicked and silly as it is about forming a government through blood that won't work, is not unique in the application of biased justice to political opponents. There is no question that the broadcast media is a tool of the rich and that airwaves ought to be given over to the public to restore a semblance of democracy in the U.S.A. Wealthy corporations pay money to other corporations that own broadcast networks for political advertising through PACS and the poor and middle class public slurps it up. Add together the collected political works of Republicrat parties and one find pure corporatism concentrating wealth. The media are their tools and PR mouthpieces.
If ISIS will exist for years as a credible terrorist-military force in the region then that must mean the Syrian civil war will continue too and the President will continue to support rebel efforts to depose the lawful Assad government. At the same time that the Saudis will be training 5000 moderates to either attack ISIS with sandals or boots on the ground or sand the Friends of Syria will be sending arms (well weapons rather than arms or heads) and continuing pay outs for rebel and terror salaries to the warriors that may be honest killers seeking to attack Assadites but may have sympathy toward expanding the Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam as well. Keeping a foot on the gas peddle to the metal and another on the brake simultaneously while spinning a Broddie or reverse one and a half end-over-end seems the exciting prospect.
If the Syrian Civil war is protracted and the battle against ISIS presumes a stable foe as if it were an invading horde of Mongols led by Tamerlane or Genghis that can be clearly identified and not just slip out and disappear into the local populace perhaps to reform like a cancer in other cells tat will assure continuing Syrian civilian suffering.
There are some that right-wingly call for boots on the ground to pacify the populace and bring peace until the boots march somewhere else. It is probably worth considering what a division or two of tankers or Marines might mean to the area. First though the exist strategy and clear goals to accomplish that might stabilize the presently ISIS-claimed regions might be adumbrated. If ISIS is dispersed won't another succeeding rebel & terror organization draw upon the remaining available resources to war and claim land? Isn't that sort of an occupation of many terror organizations in the area generally that has increased because of U.S. support for war on the lawful Syrian government?
Some might hypothesize a lasting American special forces troop presence in the Kurdistan district of Iraq as a kind of foreign legion able to reinforce Kurdish led military and security activities. A stronger Kurdistan reinforced by Iraq might be a way to keep a frontier post able to defrappe the formation of ad hoc terror ventures precipitated by the dubiously helpful war upon Basher Assad.
Some sort of stability as an ad hoc and continuing political fact that permits a certain measure of economic activity and environmental conservation development would be better than an ongoing ad hoc chaos with conflict effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment