Today is the 12th anniversary of the trajectory changing Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
How interesting that our president, secretary of state and myriad members of Congress stand ready to unleash bombs on a Middle Eastern nation.
Even more interesting that said nation has not perpetrated any offensive acts against our nation itself.
Their reasoning is simple: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons and killed 1,400 people with said weapons.
Though the United Nations’ investigators have not reported their findings as to the truth of this assessment, the Obama Administration is ready to launch an air strike on Syria.
In their mind, this would help the rebels known as the Syrian Free Army, thus promoting freedom from Assad’s supposedly repressive regime. (For why I use the would ‘supposedly’, read my article from Friday, Sept. 6, 2013)
New York University political scientist Alastair Smith spoke with Slate magazine, giving a detailed analysis of Assad’s reason for use of chemical weapons.
Smith said in his assessment, Assad used chemical weapons to force the U.S. government’s hand. Such a move, according to Smith, allows the Russian-backed Syrian government to set up Pres. Barack Obama, and thus show his indecisiveness.
It’s my opinion that such indecision shows the global community that Obama is lacking in diplomacy skills necessary during times of military crisis. In turn, this demonstrates that our military and related civilian sectors will be slow to act in other situations.
A terrible situation, made worse by other overarching factors like the violent actions of the Syrian rebels.
In fact, for all of the terror doled out by Bashar al-Assad’s forces, some of the rebel groups are equally guilty of causing as much terror.
One is particular is al-Qaida itself, which in Syria takes form as the Al-Nusra Front, an organization formally created in 2012. They espouse a Jihadist variation of Sunni Islam.
In 2012, David Ignatius of the Washington Post called the Al-Nusra Front “the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force.”
In their first public statement, the terrorists’ organizations claimed responsibility for the rebel bombing of al-Midan, the March 2012 bombing of Damascus, as well as bombings there in May. Also on the list of perpetrations is the suicide bombing in Aleppo and the murder of journalist Mohammed al-Saeed.
During these insurrections many civilians were wounded or killed. In al-Midan, when the suicide bomb went off, 26 people were killed and 60 were wounded, most of the individuals were civilians.
In March 2012 in Damascus, 27 people were killed and 140 injured when two car bombs went off.
Their ultimate goal, as described in an interview with a United Arabs Emirates newspaper, is deposing Assad and creating a theocracy based on Sharia law and what some Muslims would consider a strict interpretation of the Koran.
Funny how the very organization that killed almost 3,000 (mostly civilian) Americans, will be very nicely aided should the U.S. strike Syria.
Sure, it would dismantle some of the Syrian government’s forces, however wouldn’t it also wreck havoc on the lives of Syrian civilians living in Damascus?
So far 100,000 people have died in Syria due to the fighting. Should the U.S. bomb the Levantine nation, even more civilians would be killed, injured and dispossessed of homes and belongings.
Furthermore, wouldn’t cause damage and/or destroy various historical and religious sites?
According to a report from Durham University in the United Kingdom, six World Heritage Sites have already been damaged. Indeed, the Great Mosque at Aleppo has been damaged by shelling, and is now missing its famous minaret.
In light of all this, it’s strangely, grotesquely poetic that our president and his people would be calling for attacks on behalf of the very Jihadist organization that murdered 3,000 innocent Americans and have killed thousands more in the Middle East.