Jihad Obama's hands

She has flogged herself

In the Syrian Civil War, two of the equally disgusting forces fight each other.

One is a bloody dictator Assad.

During this civil war, Assad bombed the cities, cut out without analysis of children and women (as in Boyne in a blasphemy in May 2012) and used chemical weapons. The last and most loud (but far from the first) of chemical attacks in the suburbs of Damascus carried away the lives of at least 1429 people. In all these cases, including the massacre in blasphemy, the regime claimed that the rebels killed themselves in order to substitute a peaceful Assad.

The other side is the fanatics-Islamists who are going to build the kingdom of Allah in Syria, use suicide bombers and devour the liver of killed enemies. Each time after the next terrorist attack, they report that the bloody regime blew himself up to compromise the peaceful opposition.

What to do in these conditions to a civilized world? Answer: make rebranding. Stop calling those who are fighting with Assad, “opposition”, and call them “al-Qaeda”. Two enemies of Western civilization clashed with each other. What to wish for these conditions to the West? Answer: A cup of coffee.

A year ago, President Obama said that if Assad applies chemical weapons, the United States will strike a blow to Syria. Now Obama has no good exit. If the blow of the Americans is inflicted only for the Promise, then this is unlikely to frighten the dictator, which is already spitting on subjects. If the blow of the Americans leads to the fall of Assad, then he will lead to power “al-Qaeda”, in the hands of which, by the way, the very chemical weapons will fall.

In any case, what the Islamists dream of: jihad with the wrong hands of the infidels. “The destruction and destruction of Western civilization from the inside, both the hands of the infidels themselves and the hands of believers,” as the secret instruction “Muslim Brothers”, presented by Congress and Pentagon in 2005, reads. It is hardly possible to imagine a more striking example of “jihad’s hands of infidels” than American missiles that strike in the name of Shariah in order to preserve the face of Obama who gave the stupid promise.

A new type of discourse

Great civilizations collapse because the ideology providing them collapses.

Nowhere is it visible better than on the example of the war in Syria, where it is the left -barn discourse, dominated by Western universities, Western media and Western interstate and human rights bureaucracy, and became the main cause of the trap into which the Western civilization has driven itself.

Actually, no one, except adherents and accomplices of Assad, has no doubt about who nevertheless applied chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus. Blows were inflicted on the territories controlled by the opponents of Assad. The missiles with which the strikes were inflicted took off from the territories controlled by Assad. American satellites spotted their launch. The Americans also intercepted the negotiations of the Syrian military responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

Within four days after the chemical attack, Assad’s troops, instead of allowing the UN inspectors to conduct it, washed the suburbs from the face of the earth to destroy evidence. The Americans intercepted the negotiations about it.

They made public part of the documents in an unprecedented attempt to convince those who support Assad from geopolitical or selfish considerations. US intelligence may be mistaken, as in the case of chemical weapon in Iraq, but it will not intentionally lie. I’m not saying that if a chemical weapon fell into the hands of al-Qaeda, then it would not use it in a suburb of Damascus. And in the center of New York.

This is the actual side of the matter.

However, there is another.

“Al-Nusra”-the Syrian division of Al-Qaeda-did not poison with the gas of its supporters to compromise the poor Assad. However, Al-Nusra more than once exploded suicide bombers in the center of Damascus, and then stated that Assad blew himself up to compromise the poor opposition.

This thesis - “they kill themselves in order to compromise their enemies” - there is a new ideological reality of the 21st century. This is such a new - and very important - type of discourse.

Your humble servant is very sensitive to the new types of military discourse, which have now been applied to the enemy. I emphasize - we are talking about the types of discourse. Not about military technologies. Namely, about the ways of describing the enemy, which were not used, for example, 1000 or 500 years ago and suddenly began to be used everywhere now.

In particular, the ideologue “my opponent killed himself in order to compromise me, innocent” was inconceivable for many centuries, because strength was respected.

It is impossible to imagine that a long list of peoples was knocked out on the Behistun plate, which they stabbed themselves in order to compromise peaceful Daria. Or so that the Egyptian pharaohs list, who and how wanted to substitute them. Pharaohs and Darius listed their victories. If someone killed the enemy, they were proud of it.

Anarchists at the end of the XIX proudly took responsibility for terrorist attacks. They did not say that the regime blew himself up in order to compromise peaceful anarchists.

The Soviet Union made a cardinal change here. This was the first to come to Stalin’s brilliant idea that you should not say that you are going to win the whole world. It is necessary to turn your country into one continuous military plant and prepare to win the whole world, but at the same time to repeat that this world is about to attack the peaceful country of workers and peasants.

The movement for civil rights, which was largely sent and coordinated by Comintern agents as the best way to destroy the bourgeois society from the inside, abusing the institutions created for its protection, grabbed with enthusiasm for a similar ideology. Starting with the process of Sakko and Vanzetti, all the revolutionaries who committed criminal offenses were automatically recorded in the innocent victims of the bloody bourgeois regime, which for some reason accuses them of murders.

Islamists quickly understood the advantages of this type of discourse. Back in 1954, after an unsuccessful attempt on Nasser, the Muslim Brothers stated that the Nasser himself arranged an attempt to compromise the peaceful “Muslim brothers”.

After the end of communism, human rights organizations and various “world fighters” who hit the Western countries to leave the peaceful Soviet Union, massively began to protect the Islamists - unfortunate Palestinians killed by bloody Israel, and trying to guantanamo prisoners.

The secret instructions of the Islamists to their supporters directly began to include recipes for the use of human rights activists (“Always tell you that you were tortured,” the Manchester textbook recommended), and Al-Qaeda identified special people, like Muazam Beg, who, with the money of Amnesty International, traveled around the countries of European countries with lectures on the suffering of prisoners Guantanamo.

As a result, an ideological technique “they-Samy-Syby-Razzhavi-To-Substitution” was brought by Islamists to automatism. “The United States exploded itself to compromise peaceful Islam,” Anvar Al-Avlaki said immediately after September 11. “My children were framed,” the mother of the Tsarnaev terrorists said after the explosion at the Boston marathon.

Unfortunately, as soon as in the war, not the one who killed more enemies wins in the war, but the one who was more killed - unprecedented opportunities open before the scum. Immediately you can kill more of your own (which is easier than killing strangers) and declare: “They kill us! We are victims. "

This is what Hamas does, whose strategy comes down to maximizing the victims among their own population - and not only fanatics Hamas, but also human rights organizations that consume a hamas, which are created by Hamas, are responsible for this strategy.

Moreover: human rights and left -handed discourse led to the fact that from the point of view of public opinion, he is not the winner, but the victim, from the point of view of public opinion. In the conflict of Israel and Palestinians there were more victims among the Palestinians, so they were “more right”. The fact that a small number of victims among the Israelis is caused by the fact that Israeli society appreciates the life of each person, and a large number of victims among the Palestinians are caused by the desire to maximize the number of victims of the conflict - the human rights community was never interested in.

Of course, the dictators of all stripes of the new discourse “My-Rebel-Blag-tobone-Consumption-Konta” liked the same.

In Syria, both sides have mastered the discourse “Help-I-A Militia” perfectly. The suicide bomber at the military intelligence building in Damascus-and al-Qaeda, were exploding with the mouth of “useful idiots” stated that the authorities themselves organized this explosion in order to compromise the opposition. The militia of the Alavites came and arranged a massacre in blasphemy - and Assad stated that the opposition cut itself itself.

Both sides were absolutely corrupted by the opportunity to do the most terrible things and naive conviction that then they could also lie. The circle is closed: the discourse “this-on-ilki-sob-sir-slaves-to-compose-tons” now serves equally terrorists and dictators, and an ideology that automatically affirms the correctness of the victim is a nutrient medium for its reproduction.

Western degradation

The civil war in Syria - even more than the war in Afghanistan or Iraq - revealed the absolute degradation of the West. His ideology, his military power, his geopolitical influence.

This degradation manifests itself, first of all, in the fact that in this conflict there is not one side that the West could support and which would be guided by it.

Throughout the twentieth century, in any conflict flashed in the third world, at least one side was guided by the West. Typically, both sides were guided by the west, because most of these conflicts occurred, roughly speaking, between the Communists and the adherents of a free society, and communism is also a Western ideology. This is a product of Western thought, which genetically inherited atheism and respect for science from the age of Enlightenment.

But worse than that: if there is not one side in this conflict that professes Western values, then there is one in it - Islamist - which actively uses them for its own purposes.

Since the beginning of the “Arab Spring”, all levoliberal media and international bureaucracy have described what was happening as a conflict between a democratic opposition and bloody dictators. It was assumed that if, on the one hand, the Evil Empire, then the Skywalker hatches fight against it.

Islamists, who have long been accustomed, ”like Lenin, to use“ useful idiots, in every possible way supported this discourse. Now this crazy way of describing the world has led to the fact that the United States will strike, protecting Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and the founder of the Brigad Faruk Abu Sakkar, who eats the liver of his opponents on the video.

“Jihad’s hands of the infidels,” as was said.