It used to be rare that one would get an opportunity to look inside a totally insane brain/thought processes aka mind. Now, with communication happening at the speed of light, it is, unfortunately, all too common. Here we have an insane mind laid bare...for all the world to see...and it is as recent as September 26, 2016...that's just yesterday.
To assist my readers navigate through the rocky shoals of the truly insane mind...I have bolded the insane markers along the way. The truly insane signposts have even been italicized. And I inked in red, bolded and italicized the insane conclusion drawn from all the insane markers. My own definition of insanity is "telling yourself lies...and then believing them". This poor soul has obviously been insane for a long time. In fact, he appears to have built a flourishing career as a professor in Hamburg, Germany, primarily on the strength of his insanity. I have put my comments in green and hope you can see how prevalent and acceptable insanity is in our society. The MIC, a multi-trillion dollar industry, is based solely on the foundation of the psychiatric condition called insanity.
Should the West take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime and the Russian forces supporting him? Middle East expert Udo Steinbach makes the case for just such a course of action.
It might sound macabre, but is there at least some hope to be gained from the warring parties growing weary with fighting?Yes, but not today, and not tomorrow. And really, only one party is fighting. It's mainly just the Syrian air force and the Russians who are supporting the air force who are fighting. The opposition is fighting a bit, and the West not at all. As long as that remains the case, those who opt to fight will always have the upper hand. So the question is no longer, diplomacy, yes or no? The question now is, military engagement, yes or no? A few days ago, people were talking about a no-fly zone again for the first time in a long time, and that would be the first step. It would also be the right step and an important step.
Only one party fighting? what about the myriad of kaleidoscopic, ever-revolving proxy terror militia? The West is not fighting at all? C'mon....First Lie. No-fly zone for the first time? this has been pushed for years....constantly being sent up as a trial balloon by Kerry. Second Lie
That means, if the political will were there, that could be a solution?
Of course. Not a solution, but it would be a first step toward a solution, a first step in making the Russians and the Syrians understand that we are finally ready to do something, that we're prepared to give a military answer to the military violence. That's something that we haven't done up to now. We've always backed down, retreated to these formal agreements. And the other side fought, and you have to admit, won. And now, right before the end game, they're not just going to roll over.
That's something that's been talked about: A no-fly zone for Syrian fighter jets. You'd have to shoot down the planes that violate the zone, and then you'd see what the Syrians would do, what the Russians would do. And then, should the bombing continue, you'd also know who was doing the bombing. Right now, you don't know. Is it the Syrian air force? Is it the Russian air force? Who attacked that convoy recently? A no-fly zone against the Syrian jets would make it possible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
We're finally ready to do something. Like you haven't been waging a proxy war since 2011? We're prepared to give a military answer to the military violence. That's something that we haven't done up till now. Poor baby, such an innocent...noooo...you haven't been having your paid and equipped jihadists beheading and torturing Syrians. You haven't been using the US TOWS missiles to reduce all the Syrian cities to rubble and cause the inhabitants to flee for their lives. No, you're just a regular "Nobel Peace Prize" nominee...you are. You'd have to shoot down the planes that violated the zone. Note how the insane mind grapples with a sure declaration of WWIII. Merely asks: "What would the Syrians do? What would the Russians do? " Then with the other side of his mouth...he asks..."Who attacked that convoy recently." The evidence was clear as of yesterday that the rebels who were in the area did....perhaps with the help of a US hellfire missile.
In Libya, for example, the West saw what happens when a head of state, who may have been autocratic but who nonetheless held the country together, disappears. Could the West therefore be willing to tolerate Assad in the future?
That would be absurd. It would be absurd, after everything that's happened, to tolerate a head of state who has massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, who has caused half of the country's population to flee. It's absolutely unthinkable. There's no way there can be a diplomatic solution with Assad. And since the Russians and the Iranians and others are clearly still dreaming of such a solution, this solution will not be possible. In the end, it can only come down to an escalation, including a military escalation.
No evidence is ever requested to back up the mantra of false accusations against Assad/Saddam/Gadaffi/ad infinitum. No journalist would ever dare interrupt the Gregorian chant to slide in such an impertinence. Lie number three....Massacred hundred of thousands of his own people. Lie number Four...Assad caused his population to flee. The truth is that the perps themselves caused both of these catastrophes, and now they want to stage a casus belli for WWIII
On the other side, a lot of people say the rebel groups, which had been partially supported, have practically no moderate negotiating partners.
That's simply not the case. There are obviously very radical people, there are very moderate people and in the middle there are a multitude of organizations which in one way or another we say: They are half-radical, they are Islamist. And if you were willing to make the effort and if there was the political will and also the military will behind it, you could very well forge an opposition front that could be sustainably supported and would be strong enough to bring about a change of power in Damascus. Now the excuse is used: These are non-profiled groups, they are radical. Those are all excuses, because you are shying away from the logical conclusion, namely, risking the military option with military support. If you shy away from military support, then you are also degrading the political option.
If Kerry was not able to identify the "half radical Islamists" then I think we can safely conclude that this is Lie number 5. There are no moderate rebels. This individual is only imagining them, as part of his florid psychosis.
Middle East and Islamic Studies expert Professor Udo Steinbach has led the German-Orient Foundation in Hamburg for more than 30 years.
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Steinbach for loaning us his brain for the purposes of this seminar.