Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Slings and Arrows

Yes, I understand that. Both sides are against us. If we were to make any military move, it should be to crush both “sides”, which is possible without too much harm to our military. Won’t happen with the squeamish “leadership” we currently have, as well as the restrictive rules of engagement that our enemy laughs at.

I’m only saying the result will be just that one “side” will win the power struggle versus both “sides” annihilating each other, and the victor’s backers will make Syria an even tougher bastion of terrorism and a bigger threat to not only Israel, but the USA.


14 posted on 06/15/2013 11:38:57 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Olog-hai

Then we should make sure the war never ends.

Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter who wins. The winner will hate us, the loser will hate us. If we intervene, they’ll both still hate us. The longer the war goes on, though, the less of them there will be to hate us. Let the savages be savages.


17 posted on 06/16/2013 12:00:45 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai; Slings and Arrows; wardaddy

The financial oligarchy long ago adopted a (typical hegelian dialectic) strategy for the middle east which results in the political instability we see today; the strategy was the establishment of the modern state of Israel. The strategy dovetails well for the financial oligarchy with the errant American Christian eschatology of a literal new Jerusalem. This idea first surfaced in the 19th century - during which time most American denominations gradually apostasized - and by the mid 20th century was quite widespread in America, along with all sorts of other unscriptural theological innovations. Given the connection between this modern eschatological view and the modern state of Israel, and the efforts of another British creation, the Muslim Brotherhood, there is basically constant potential for turmoil in the region. Turmoil, of course, is one of the standard tools employed by the financial oligarchy in achieving political changes. Having the thesis and antithesis constantly in effect, the oligarchs need only ever pull the simplest of triggers to produce their desired synthesis. American military involvement in the middle east is always only one news article away.

A key figure to study in developing an understanding of efforts of the financial oligarchy in the region nominally under the flag of Great Britain is Haj Amin al-Husseini. Familiarity with al-Husseini’s resume is essential to understanding the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, and is just one example of Anglo-American private financial interests pulling the strings in their respective governments to achieve the goals of the financial oligarchy in the middle east.

IMHO, all Americans should familiarize themselves with Haj Amin al-Husseini and his influences, and more importantly what influenced him.


21 posted on 06/16/2013 12:55:26 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson