Friday, September 06, 2013

Why Is John Kerry Supporting Genghis Khan?

In 1971 as I was sort of recovering from service  in Vietnam in a VA Hospital, there was John Kerry testifying before Congress  on television about the "atrocities" committed by the American troops in Vietnam, reminiscent of Genghis Khan - as Kerry explained it. At the time, I had other things on my mind, and I did not fully realize the treason he was committing.

In the Twelfth Century, at the same time Islam was manifesting destiny by killing and otherwise subjugating infidels as they  into the  Middle East, North Africa and Europe, the infamous Genghis Khan was taking over country after country with his Mongol hordes. History is replete with examples of Khan's overkill in China, Iran,Iraq, pre-Russian Kiev,Afghanistan, et al. Reportedly he wholesale butchered millions of people who would not subjugate their country to Khan. It has also been reported that the Mongolian Empire eventually became more tolerant of various religions - at least, more  than modern Islam.

After I had time to examine John Kerry's testimony before Congress, I was mystified, because I had spent 16 months in country  - Vietnam - attached mainly  to helicopter squadrons which allowed me to do extensive traveling in the northern section of South Vietnam, or I Corps. While in contact with Marines who were serving throughout Vietnam, I did hear of some of the things John Kerry mentioned, but not to the magnitude that he testified.

Some of Kerry's enemy enabling rant went like the below in 1971. He certainly captured the left's imagination and confidence, and was rewarded not to long after his defamatory speech by winning future Massachusetts elections.

"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Now, 40 years later, Secretary of State John Kerry, under the auspices of Barack Obama, desires to support the most inhumane, murderous and torturous Syrian rebels who make Genghis Khan look like a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There are a number of videos on the Internet and other accounts showing the Syrian rebels executing Syrian civilians (probably through gas attacks), Syrian Army regulars and anyone in their path. Glenn Beck has one such  video showing U.S. supported rebel eating the heart of a fellow Syrian.
The same Al Qaeda, which Obama had supposedly eliminated, has joined forces with certain rebel factions, different from other, supposedly more U.S. friendly rebel forces. All the United States has to do is only support the "good" rebels and not the bad. Easy enough to accomplish by the President who can do it all.

And, there are many reports, and not just from Putin, that the Rebels have been launching chemical weapons at people who have been deserting their rebel cause.

For more reports of atrocities committed by Syrian rebels, from media on the  left and the right, go here, here, and here.

What the United States needs today is a more modern John Kerry, who will testify before Congress that, indeed, atrocities are being committed - by those sons of Genghis Khan, the Syrian rebels.

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

We Love Islamic Terrorists, We Love Them Not, We Love Islamic . . .

I can understand why we aided Bin Laden in Afghanistan - to break the Russians. I can understand why both Bushes fought against Saddam - as encouraged by even Democrats. It made a lot of sense to me that Ronald Reagan bombed the heck out of Libya in 1986. So much shock and awe went down on Libya that Gadaffi's pride was humbled to the point that he finally submitted  to more peaceful terms with the U.S. What President Obama is planning for Syria, is inexplicable, and it remains to be seen if he will do anything.

As Secretary of State, the faultless Saint Hillary, Obama's Secretary of State, promoted and applauded the "Arab Spring" where, more or less, steady semi-allies of the U.S. like Egypt's Mubarak and Libya's  Gadaffi were undermined by their former friend - America - so that the Arab Spring would blossom and flowers of Democracy would sprout throughout  the Islamic Middle East. Or, that was the plan. Obama praised the Spring, comparing it to the Boston Tea Party and  Rosa Parks. At least, he had fond regards for one Tea Party, although  Obama, according to his own writings, has never really appreciated those white, colonial founders of America.

I'm not sure if Obama's  plan to strike Syria (don't know what it is) is a Wag The Dog scenario, but it certainly resembles Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia - in order to defend militant Muslims in Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, while he was dodging accusations of having an affair with Monica, that "did not involve sex."

I still hear from  former Yugoslavians and even reconnaissance people who were inspecting the Balkans before Bill Clinton bombed them, and they continue to be  perplexed why Clinton and NATO attacked them, when it was the radical Moslem terrorists who were terrorizing Orthodox Christians. Once You Go Islamac, You Can't Go Back, and  that explains why many of the countries of the world are in such turmoil. In the Kosovo War, the  U.S., NATO, and the U.N. defended the  Kosovo Liberation Army, and Ethnic Albanians, otherwise known as Radical Muslim Terrorists, yet even back in the late 1990's, the mainstream media could  not label them as terrorists - much the same as President Obama has had a reluctance to call sworn enemies of the U.S. - enemies. So we jumped into the Kosovo War - to help the wrong people, just as we may jump into Syria. Even to this day, Moslems are  burning churches and terrorizing Christians in the Balkans

For some reason, the West, the U.N., NATO and libs everywhere think that befriending the majority of Moslems will bring us good favor with them. Since the Islamic religion lives by the sword, it seems that only strong arm leaders (dictators?) can control them and inhibit them from killing infidels among themselves as well as every other country in the world. There is a reason that we hardly heard a peep from Moslem radicals for most of the 70 years during the regime of the Soviet Socialist Republic. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the genetic predisposition of Molems to kill became reinvigorated.

We helped depose the first guy - Mubarak, because he occasionally used a strong arm to control blood thirsty Egyptian rebels in the streets. After  Mubarak  we alternately supported then deposed the democratically elected  Morsi, because he quelled riots, and now we are opposing the Egyptian military (which we promoted) for bringing down the hammer on rioters in the streets of Cairo.  I don't believe the U.S. has ever had a more  schizoid foreign policy. Maybe, as in Syria, we should just allow the herd to be thinned, because no matter who we support, the victorious faction will also rule by the sword, because that's the only way most of Islam can be ruled. And, whoever wins will still hate the United States and Israel.

Who do we think will replace Assad? Someone like a Barack Obama? A man of peace? I don't think that sort of leader would last long in the world of Islam.

This Just In: Rush Limbaugh gives some credibility to the possibility that the Syrian rebels are playing Obama, and trigger-fingered Republicans, and that it was the rebels who initiated gas attacks against fellow Syrians who were deserting the rebel forces. Re: Yoseff Bodansky