“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya
Inigo was talking about his companion’s use of the word “inconceivable,” but he could just as easily been talking about the New York Times’ notions of what constitutes a “dilemma.”
Under the headline “Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West,” the NYT has posted a video smuggled out of Syria by a former rebel who grew disgusted with the actions of his compatriots.
In the video, a group of Syrian rebels has five captured government soldiers on the ground, their shirts removed and hands tied behind their backs. The men have clearly been beaten. After some mumbo-jumbo, the rebel commander and his boys shoot the soldiers in the backs of their heads.
“The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition,” the NYT reports.
The article goes on to state that “elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast,” and that the plan for the U.S. to bomb Syria “has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.”
If the New York Times were any more blase about the human carnage caused by the liberals’ rebel champions, we’d need a defibrillator.
The Syrian rebels, which have openly declared for al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups, are monsters, pure and simple.
Liberals want you to see support for the rebels as acceptable, therefore siding with someone who just murdered a bunch of people by shooting them in the backs of their heads is “a puzzle” or “a dilemma.”
The truth is that the rebels draw their leadership from the dregs of humanity, people who are so evil that they do things like engage in cannibalism and record it on video.
There’s no “dilemma” here. Anyone who hasn’t figured out yet what the U.S. is doing and what it should do can find the answer just by breaking down the moral facts:
Obama supports the Syrian rebels. The Syrian rebels are evil men who have murdered prisoners and engaged in cannibalism. Therefore, Obama supports murderers and cannibals.
In another video, a Syrian rebel cuts out and eats a Syrian soldier’s heart.
Americans should not support evil. The Syrian rebels have shown through their actions that they are evil. Therefore, Americans should not support the Syrian rebels.
President Obama is at odds with clear-thinking Americans. He always has been, but now it is so clear that even the Left is recoiling from the course he has laid out.
If Obama were to order the U.S. military to attack Syria, it could require 75,000 troops on the ground to secure Syria’s chemical facilities, according to a 2012 Pentagon report. The war resolution being worked on by the White House and Congress reportedly asks for more than just the “limited strike” Obama has touted.
There is no imminent danger to the U.S. posed by Syria, and there is no real interest. It’s purely a war that would be fought to soothe the ego of our milquetoast president.
Going to war in Syria isn’t a dilemma, it’s just plain wrong.