Syria: What part do they not understand?


Let us make it perfectly simple, in fact let us make it idiot-proof: if you arm terrorists and send them to create havoc among a civilian population, the authorities have the right to react, to restore order, to punish the perpetrators and to apply the law of the land. What part of that is difficult to understand?
Syria: What part do they not understand?. 47008.jpeg
Innocent civilians or terrorists? Remember Libya?
Let us back this up with an idiot-proof analogy. Farmer A has a farm with a complex mix of fields and crops and micro-climates but generally speaking, all parts of his farm and the tremendous mix of workers from several tribes and religions live happily together, respect each others' differences and are productive. There is however one problem. Farmer A's land lies in a strategically important area, involving gas and oil pipelines and is considered as a stepping stone to the Great Farm to the East, coveted by the FUKUS farmers to the West.

The FUKUS farmers therefore stir up trouble in farmer A's land, sending in terrorists from the North and West, creating ethnic, tribal and religious strife where there had been none for years, since the last time they tried. Farmer A reacted to this scourge, which was raping girls, pillaging and torching villages, slicing the breasts off women, murdering, stealing and destroying public and private property, armed with machine guns, anti-tank missiles, anti-personnel mines and rocket-propelled grenades. He lost over 3,000 members murdered by the FUKUS terrorists...yet the FUKUS-Axis and its umbrella organism, called the United Farmers' Organization (UFO), led by Man-ki Boon, blamed Farmer A for the crisis and continued to accuse him of abuses and of perpetuating the conflict while all the time under their noses FUKUS-Axis friends and UFO members continued to arm the terrorists and instigate violence against the brave farmer.

What part of that is difficult to understand?

In fact, let us face Messrs. Ban-Ki Moon and the leaders of the FUKUS-Axis - Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama, and their nasty sidekicks in their respective Foreign Affairs Departments and UN Reps - sit them down and fire some questions at them.

For Ban Ki-Moon: For a start, why is Turkey harbouring and arming terrorists and sending them into Syria, with the full connivance and/or knowledge of the UNO and the FUKUS-Axis? What is the Syrian National Council? I will tell you. It is a Turkish-based group called Suriye Ulusal Geçiş Konseyi. What part of that is difficult to understand?

For David Cameron: Now let us go back to the "Massacre of Homs". Remember when the West accused the Syrian Government of atrocities there back in February? And remember when in this column I published pictures of the victims supposedly strafed by Syrian artillery, with their hands tied behind their backs? The only consequence of this article was a massive hacking attack, of which I am sure you are aware but if not, now you are... but apart from that I did not receive a single answer. Artillery regiments do not enter a town, tie up its residents and then go back to their pieces to shell them. What part of that is difficult to understand?

For Barack Obama: Since the victims of the Massacre of Homs were members of the Allouite community, it was quite obviously yet another FUKUS-Axis false flag event, as was the case in Libya. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Anyone seen this murdering shit before? 
For Susan Rice, nice and simple now: The Syrian authorities can only stop their activity if the terrorists stop theirs. What part of that is difficult to understand?

For Nicolas Sarkozy: Making continuous statements against the Syrian government and not once referring to the violence perpetrated by the terrorist scourge it supports, it would appear the FUKUS-Axis is a self-interested bunch of terrorist supporters. What part of that is difficult to understand?

For the (unelected) Emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani.: As the friends of Syria meet in Istanbul, terrorist elements infiltrate Syria from that country and from Lebanon. This is not merely a Syrian "uprising", therefore. What part of that is difficult to understand?

One final question: Why is it what when today the Syrian representative at the UNO, Bashar Ja'afari, took the stand to speak, the UNO television network went blank? Strange, because this same system had just broadcast the speeches of Ban Ki-Moon, and the Qatari President of the UN General Assembly, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser. Why not the Syrians?

The answer: Because the UNO is no longer what it purports to be, is it? And if this is the UN's contribution to freedom of speech, what part of that is difficult to understand?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey



No comments: