Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-06-10 12:37||
E-Mail||
Front Page|| [204 views ]
Top
#1 More from the article on rebel twofers:
Already at the beginning of April, Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery warned of rebel atrocities' being repackaged in both Arab and Western media accounts as regime atrocities. She cited the case of a massacre in the Khalidiya neighborhood in Homs. According to an account published in French on the monastery's website, rebels gathered Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in Khalidiya and blew up the building with dynamite. They then attributed the crime to the regular Syrian army. "Even though this act has been attributed to regular army forces . . . the evidence and testimony are irrefutable: It was an operation undertaken by armed groups affiliated with the opposition," Mother Agnès-Mariam wrote.
It looks like the one thing that you can rely on Sunni Arabs to do is kill the infidel remorselessly and then joyously blame the killings on the infidels themselves. And why not? A good chunk of the world believes that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, thanks to Sunni Arab propagandists like Thierry Meyssan.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-06-10 13:37||
2012-06-10 13:37||
Front PageTop
#2 The problems with believing that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks are manifold. For example, you can't believe that Bush was both amazingly competent in pulling off such an attack yet supremely incompetent in everything else. Also, those attacks were in the works long before Bush was elected. You would also have to assume that Bush knew he was going to be elected. If you believe he only started "plotting" after election, then you would have to believe that the entire thing was done within 9 months of taking office.
It is more likely that the plotting for 9/11 started during the Clinton administration immediately after the first WTC attack failed.
Posted by crosspatch 2012-06-10 14:21||
2012-06-10 14:21||
Front PageTop
#3 It's more complicated than that.
There are too many Sunni Arabs to have one voice. Not all are anti-American.
The Syrian regime stills backs Hezbollah/Iran and I still blame them as the masterminds behind the 1983 Beirut bombing of 299 Americans and French and the liquidation of PM Harari.
Posted by Uleatch Dribble8106 2012-06-10 14:59||
2012-06-10 14:59||
Front PageTop
#4 There are too many Sunni Arabs to have one voice. Not all are anti-American.
There are probably 100x more anti-American Sunnis in the world than there are Alawites combined. Some Sunni Arab regimes are pro-American. But the vast majority of the Sunni Arab populace does not simply hate the US - it would pay good money to watch our nuclear destruction on pay-per-view (in the areas where this is available). The Saudi royal family doesn't have a problem with us - the Saudi people do. And that's the problem with encouraging the Sunni Arab troglodyte-on-the-street to take power via democracy. The neo-conservative view that hostile foreigners have been duped into their hostility by their leaders is wrong - in reality, the Arab rulers resemble the Roman consuls and emperors - they must make some concessions towards anti-American popular opinion or be defenestrated. The rapid spread of democracy throughout the Arab world is bad for American interests because it will lead to a dozen Irans. Except the Sunni Arab Islamist masses (a redundant phrase, really) did not need a single Iran to bring down the World Trade Center. Imagine what they could do with the resources of entire countries.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-06-10 15:22||
2012-06-10 15:22||
Front PageTop
#5 >Imagine what they could do with the resources of entire countries.
They will mostly just destroy those resources.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-06-10 16:39||
2012-06-10 16:39||
Front PageTop
#6 Unfortunately there have been several Houla Massacres; the latest of which was the May 25 2012 massacre. The massacre was not just one killing event but several. It's possible that the Syria army was responsible for an early event, then the pro Assad Shabiba did their thing, then the Sunni Shabiba did their thing.
Posted by lord garth 2012-06-10 17:03||
2012-06-10 17:03||
Front PageTop
#7 The rebels in Syria aren't probably any better than the government forces. Just like Libya.
Posted by European Conservative 2012-06-10 18:01||
2012-06-10 18:01||
Front PageTop
#8 They will mostly just destroy those resources.
The worry is that they'll take down a few of our cities in the process of doing so. Why give these troglodytes the equivalent of doomsday buttons, when we already know that the vast majority of the Sunni Arab masses share the views of people like bin Laden and Zawahiri, thanks to Pew surveys on global attitudes?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-06-10 19:06||
2012-06-10 19:06||
Front PageTop
#9 The problems with believing that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks are manifold.
My point exactly. And yet Sunni Arabs not only accept these lies and advertise their acceptance of the lies, they spread them on an ongoing basis. Thierry Meyssan is merely the most famous Sunni Arab to do so. Why would we believe the word of a Sunni Arab on anything at all?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-06-10 19:13||
2012-06-10 19:13||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
