The coming war

I’ll try to talk less about politics on the blog in the future (that is, let’s be real, if I get around to writing much at all), but what I am about talk about is of perennial importance.

This week, it was announced that in light of a chemical attack in Syria, and the unverified accusation that it was caused by Bashar al-Assad, America looks set to engage a military campaign in Syria to “punish” Assad for allegedly killing civilians in Douma. Basically, Trump has gone from punitively striking Syria once and saying America won’t invade Syria again, to sending military forces to attack Syria in spite of this position, to openly suggesting a military response to Assad. Remember when people like me supported him instead of Hillary Clinton partly on the grounds that her proposal for a no-fly zone would lead to war with Russia because Russia’s interests are aligned with Syria’s? Well now it appears we’re likely to be involved in conflict with Russia anyway. Thanks a lot Trump.

And it looks like my country, the UK, is going to be in on it as well, as the Prime Minister Theresa May joined Donald Trump and French president Emmanuel Macron in calling for military intervention, without a vote from the House of Commons. Because of that, I’ve officially gone from hating Jeremy Corbyn (even as a recently converted socialist) to supporting him just because he might be the only viable alternative to the decidedly pro-startting World War 3 agenda of the Conservatives. Of course, Theresa May did say on Wednesday that she would be making our participation in the Syrian war conditional depending on if we have more evidence of Assad’s role in the chemcial attack in Douma. Only for her to send submarines to Syria anyway.

So why am I so appalled by this development, you might ask? After all, muh North Korea! Kim Jong-un is a mad man, right? Well, considering that denuclearization is actually on the table with North Korea, and the North Korean state is shedding is Songun (military first) policy, you would frankly have to be a sheep if you still believe by this point that North Korea is the biggest threat to world peace. Not to mention, even I didn’t believe that North Korea was even capable of blowing everyone up. With Syria, however, if NATO presses against Syria long enough, if they depose Bashar al-Assad, and if they consequently encroach upon Russia for long enough, they will not be able to defeat NATO in a straight fight, and so the only option left for Russia will be to use its nuclear weapons against the West. The difference in the level of threat involved is quite clear. We knew this when the American people were making their choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but for some Trump himself isn’t aware of this and even many of his supporters seem to be lining up like dogs to support his actions, although some of them are outright condemning him (of all people, Alex Jones has outright said “fuck Trump” on the issue).

We are on our way to World War 3 any moment now, and it could well end with nuclear fire, and I wish I were being hyperbolic, and I don’t even know how many people care because people still think North Korea is the one that will destroy us all, even as all pretense of that idea fades slowly and Syria and Russia (and Turkey to some extent) become much more relevant. Just goes to show you that despite all insistence from conservatives that the media is left-wing, they still want you to be threatened by the more communist nations out there (despite the fact that the North Korean state technically no longer positions itself as communist).

I, for one, will oppose my country’s involvement in Syria to the last. I do not want to have any part in this carnival of greed, unjust violence and needless human suffering just so the congloms can make money off of developing missiles to lob at Syria and so that the political establishment can take out anyone who poses a threat to their global economic interests. Even if the Douma attack was Assad’s fault, for which there hasn’t been any investigation, it is not our business to oust him from power in Syria – America already tried that bullshit in Iraq and Libya in recent memory, and it ended up getting taken over by Islamist regimes who proved to be even worse than the dictators that were removed by military intervention. When the time comes, I will do what is necessary to avoid participating in the abomination of a war that is to come, perhaps agitate against it.

If it comes to war and either I drafted (which I hope can be avoided somehow) or bombs drop where I live before I have the chance to get a bunker then, well, it was nice knowing you guys.

(PS: Don’t take the last comment to hard, I do still intend to write some posts, though the pace will likely be as slow as it’s been recently; at any rate, I’ll try not to let my readers think that the worst has happened)

What are they thinking?

There’s an issue I’ve been hearing about that’s been dividing the government in the UK: the issue of whether or not to conduct air strikes in Syria to fight ISIL. This has resulted in the Labour party being divided by their leader’s refusal to support air strikes, even as much of his cabinet wants to agree with the prime minister David Cameron and the French president Francois Hollande. At first I thought it was more of the same old war issue, bickering over whether or not we should keep fighting even while ISIL was gunning for our heads no matter what we think of them, but I learned that it’s all just bickering over whether or not we should strike them from the air.

My question to the leaders of the Western world is this: why are you still thinking of dropping bombs on Syria?

Surely we are already familiar with the devastation in Syria that was caused by previous air strikes against the country in hopes of flushing out ISIL. Not only has ISIL not been significantly pushed back by these air strikes, but innocent people have been injured or killed by those strikes, and have undoubtedly had their lives shattered by the whole affair, and our air strikes against Syria have exacerbated the migrant crisis. Our leaders just have to be aware of all this, yet I still here them suggesting a continuation of dropping bombs in Syria as though nothing had happened.

Pictured: Devastation in Syria caused by air strikes

If the West is serious about fighting ISIL, why don’t they just stop dropping bombs on Syria and just start fighting on the ground? And with a plan no less? Because seriously, I am convinced that just dropping bombs on a country in order to get rid of the likes of ISIL is just not a viable plan. Not when it results in innocent casualties and the while ISIL has not been held back by it. That we don’t realize this and still intend on just dropping bombs on a country thinking that will solve the problem worries me because it bespeaks a kind of laziness and shortsightedness, and it even makes me wonder if these world leaders even want to fight at all.

Something I find laughable

I happened to chance upon a news story today about young Muslims in the UK who are going to Syria in order to participate in what has been called jihad, presumably with the likes of ISIL, and I heard the reporter say that people are still trying to understand why young people feel the urge to go out and join Islamic extremists. I found that kind of laughable. The older people really don’t get why young people are deciding to go to the Middle East to join with Islamic extremists?

The answer is almost staring us in the face! You only have to look ISIL themselves: they’re a vicious Islamic terrorist group who goes around killing (well not merely killing so much as executing) anyone they can who doesn’t believe the same as they are, and upload footage on the Internet of hostages being killed, they destroy historical architecture from far into the history of human civilization because they believe it’s idolatrous, not to mention other mosques, they’ve threatened to nuke Rome, they want to curbstomp the Middle East and likely the world and establish a state of shariah law under a single ruler, and they’ll go to any lengths of outrage and terror to do it. Not only that, but even as ISIL is being opposed in the Middle East, they make it seem like they’re practically winning. ISIL’s actions have likely already given confidence to other Islamic extremists wanting to fill the rest of the world with fear, and anyone who’s interested in extremist activity (whether because they really believed in it or because they were just unstable people looking for a palpable excuse for violence) are also likely to be inspired. And the thing you have to remember about adolescent people is that they’re likely to be interested in anything that seems radical to them, but they can also be pretty gullible.

It’s probably not unreasonable to say that most of us want to put some action in our lives when we’re young, and I myself have felt the same way and still do (although I never felt inclined to join a terrorist organization at all and still don’t). We want exciting possibilities to open up in our lives, no matter how extreme they are. So, when a radical and militant organization does what they do and claim a righteous cause for their actions, or when an extreme organization proclaims that the beliefs of the majority are false and offer up something totally different, even if it’s all full of crap in both morals and sense, there’s a chance young people will fall for it. And no wonder they do, because they don’t believe it when older people tell them why they shouldn’t. They won’t listen, because to them the older people just don’t get it.

That’s why I find the idea that older people still don’t understand why the young can be drawn to terrorism laughable. Because the answer is so obvious. And in the case of British young Muslims, they are probably excited by the prospect of going out to fight for what they think is going to be a war for Allah and their faith. They see all this and it captures their interest, but they have no idea of the reality of what they’re doing. I think that all people have to do is convince them that people like ISIL offers no true salvation, particularly by telling of the reality of what happens to those who do decide to join, and of what has happened to those who tried to leave.

No peace until tyranny is destroyed

The situation in Syria is still going on, even though the majority of people don’t remember it. Hell, the new pope is busy trying to tell everyone to end the conflict peacefully. And some say the situation is going to get worse this year.

Personally, I think we should be helping the rebels overthrow the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. Not by invading Syria, but by supplying weapons to the rebels to help them win against Assad. Further more, I think Western countries should stop propping dictators like Assad, if they really value freedom.

Forget about all this talk about peace and breaking up conflict. There’s a dictator out there. A man who used sarin on his own people and continues his oppression, and trying to look like a darling on top of that (he’s even on Instagram apparently). There should be no peace until the tyranny is destroyed.