Syria – Both Sides are Vile – who wants to intervene now?

The Daily Mail yesterday carried graphic and, I am convinced genuine, images of events in Syria showing men held semi naked quivering with fear as they are led off and machine gunned to death in an act which can only be described as mass murder. The crowd cheers. These men were soldiers of the Assad regime captured by rebel fighters. I am sure that the Assad regime acts equally as badly. But that is not really the point.

Assorted loons who learn nothing from history have been suggesting for a while that the West should intervene in Syria. The frightful Mrs Clinton has offered up her suggestions on how we can help while David Owen (Dr Death, remember him?) and John McCain actually think we should engage militarily. Heaven help us. There are two reasons why we should just stay out of this and let natural events take their course.

The first is that both sides appear to be equally loathsome. Clinton, Owen etc seem to think the rebels include in their ranks some nice folk. Yeah, just like the Egyptian twitterers who were going to rule after Assad. Back in the real world it is not those sort of folk but those who appeal to the masses and who have the guns who call the shots.

The boy Assad gained power by being his father’s son, will not tolerate dissent, tortures/kills his opponents, has engaged in war crime style activity in the current Civil War and is a Jew hating loony who has supported terrorism across the region. His father would be proud of him. At least he allows the Christian minority to practice their faith in peace, but god help anyone converting to Judaism. On the other hand, the rebels are a bunch of Islamofascist Jew haters who have engaged in war crime style activity in the current Civil War and when in power will, like the region’s other Islamofascist regimes, sponsor terrorism across the region while crushing dissent, killing their opponents etc. Hmm. Hard call. Can the frightful Mrs Clinton etc explain exactly why we are meant to support the rebels rather than Assad?

Secondly intervention never achieves anything. In its arrogance the West reckons that it can steer other countries towards the path of liberal democracy and multi-cultural awareness. As Egypt and Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan have all show this just does not happen. Instead we in the West are resented for our interference and we suffer “blowback.” It may happen quickly, young men who have got a taste for killing people deciding to make a full time career of it with Al Qaeda. Or it may take years, the Iranians chucking out the vile Shah the West imposed and replacing him with the Mad Mullahs. For more on Blowback refer to the saintly Dr Ron Paul.

And so our best course of action is to do and say nothing. At least we will not waste money or British lives. We will not be resented for interfering. And we are not making moral choices for other folks about which side is marginally less barbaric than the other. For what it is worth Assad is toast anyway. If I were him I would be arranging a bolt hole for myself and the plundered billions right now.

The best outcome for the West is a long and bloody conflict which leaves the new Islamofascist regime in such a mess that its ability to screw up Lebanon/attach Israel, etc is weakened for a few years at least.