Let me explain it as I understand it.
George Bush took out Saddam Hussein.
Mouthy affirmative action man-child felt that he would Top what George Bush did by taking out Morsi (Egypt) Ghadaffi (Lybia) and Assad (Syria.) (See? Three to George Bush's one.)
This was all about Obama looking more glorious than George Bush. The US Foreign policy was nothing more than the deliberate Vanity play of an arrogant little narcissistic bastard.
If you look at the whole thing as Obama attempting to portray himself as better than Bush, every bit of this fiasco starts to make sense.
Plus he hates white Christians and likes to advance Muslim causes anyway.
This is the best explanation I seen, from; DJ Taylor. :-)
A briefing on Syria:
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they’re good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
I hope that this clears it all up for you.
I disagree. The first ME uprising was in Iran. This was a legitimate uprising to topple a Muslim theocracy. They weren’t “rebels” and armed militants. They were, essentially, large segments of Iranian society that wanted western freedoms.
The demonstrations were massive and the people unarmed. They begged for foreign aid, especially from the US. Obama turned his back on them. Whether or not the U.S. should have gotten involved is open for debate. They were brutally put down by the mullahs.
Next was Egypt. Egypt was one of the few U.S. allies in the region. They even acknowledged Israel. They posed no national security risk to the U.S. The militants were Muslim Brotherhood and allied with the Palestinians. That was known. Obama supported them. The Muslim Brotherhood toppled the government and began a reign of corruption and terror. The military eventually had to take over.
Then there was Libya. Colonel Madman Mo was a nasty piece of work and a terrorist. After they pulled Saddam Hussein out of his hidey hole Mad Mo was scared to death and began fully cooperating with the west and was no longer a danger. When he started dealing with Islamic militants, guess who Obama supported? Yep. The Islamic militants.
Then there was Assad. He is another bad dude but he never posed an existential threat to the United States. He is also a rational player. Israel could keep him in check for the most part, even with Iranian support and both of them funding Hezbollah. Who does Obama support? Islamic militants and rebels of unknown ideology. We call them ISIS. He calls them ISIL.
Obama is only interested in watching the world burn, expanding Islam and his fundamental transformation of the United States. He is one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history. Unfortunately.
Great analyses! Obama is a Muslim sympathizer 100%
Hosni Mubarack was removed from office in Egypt.