Why Has Justin Trudeau Just Paid an ex-al Qaeda Fighter C$10 Million?


When most fathers want to go on a bonding retreat with their adolescent sons, they organize innocuous activities. Think fishing trips or hikes through the verdant country hillsides. This was not the case with Ahmed Khadr, the Egyptian-born Canadian citizen, whose idea of quality time with his sons entailed waging jihad against the West on the foothills of Waziristan.

One of these sons in question was named Omar Khadr, the recent recipient of ten million Canadian smackeroos. But more on him later.

Ahmed would frequently shuttle his family back and forth between Canada, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during the 1990s and early noughts. He had ties to various Islamist bad boys for a while at that point, and even had personal relations with the Grand Wizard Osama himself.

For Ahmed was a long-time fundraiser for jihadist organizations, using various “charitable organizations” as fronts for laundering money to jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Ahmed’s wife, the Palestinian- born Maha el-Samnah, was not a fan of the west either. She wanted to raise her children outside of Canada lest they be corrupted by western values. The children were put through Islamic madrassas from a young age. The daughters were forced to cover up. Frequent discussion among the family entailed lamentations about the loss of purity in Islam at the time.

In fact, so opposed to the west was the Khadr family that their children, including Omar, were trained from very young ages in the arts of bomb-making, shooting, hand-to-hand combat, and other things that normal children don’t tend to do.

From Rolling Stone magazine:

“When [Ahmed’s] children were very young, he told them, "If you love me, pray that I will get martyred." Three times he asked Omar's older brother Abdurahman to become a suicide bomber. It would bring honor to the family, he said. Abdurahman declined. Later, when Ahmed sensed that Abdurahman's faith was weakening, he told him, "If you ever betray Islam, I will be the one to kill you."



Nonetheless in 1995, Ahmed was arrested on charges of financially aiding the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group. He was released after four months due to a lack of evidence. Sad.

He relocated his family to Jalalabad, Afghanistan, where he and his children joined the Taliban in their holy struggle against the West. This is where both Khadr senior and Khadr junior were thought to have spent time with Osama bin Laden.

In 2002, the young Omar lived in a group home, where he was given further terrorist training by al Qaeda affiliated militants.

In early 2002, in an American raid on the compound, Omar was shot in the chest three times and left nearly-dead. Miraculously, he was still alive, and he threw a grenade that ended up killing American Delta Force Medec Sgt. Christopher Speer.

The young Omar, aged fifteen at the time, was eventually transferred to Guantanamo bay in October 2002, where he was allegedly subject to horrific abuse by American personnel. Throughout the repeated cycles of beatings, torture, and other various humiliations, Omar became more zealous in his faith. 

The Canadian government hence wanted to keep tabs on Omar’s mental health. From Wikipedia:

“On March 19th, 2005, Canadian government regular “welfare visits” to Khadr to monitor his behavior… they had reports that he had thrown urine at guards and was refusing to eat.”

The Canadian government had also sent journalists from Foreign Affairs magazine to interview Khadr.

To make a long story short, Khadr eventually pleaded guilty in a plea deal that would allow him to serve out the remainder of his sentence in a Canadian prison after one more year at Guantanamo Bay:

“On October 25, 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to the murder of Speer in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying. Under the plea deal, Khadr would serve at least one more year in Guantanamo Bay before any transfer to Canadian custody.”

And in September 2012, Khadr was transferred to Canada, where he served the remainder of his sentence.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. In 2013, Khadr filed a C$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada, claiming that its “welfare visits” to him meant that it had conspired with the United States to deny his inalienable rights. According to Khadr, he was unfairly tried, as he should have been tried as a minor.

On a side note, the weak-kneed Supreme Court of Canada had already agreed with this narrative, stating in 2009 that Khadr’s legal rights were mishandled and that sleep deprivation techniques amounted to violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But did Canada have anything to do with all this? Surely not: this was all the doing of the Americans.

But as the famous old Canadian motto goes: “one should never miss an opportunity to self-flagellate.”

And to bring the whole thing home, on July 4th, 2017, the day marking America’s independence, it was leaked that the Canadian Government, under the Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau, had decided to settle with Khadr for C$10.5 million.

Trudeau was adamant that he made the correct decision:

“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30 to $40 million that it would have ended up costing the government…This was the responsible path to take.”

Yet Trudeau contradicted this line of reasoning a few days later, when he changed his narrative entirely:

“When governments violate Canadians’ fundamental rights, there have to be consequences and we hope that the message going forward to all future governments is: you can not ignore or be complicit in the violation of Canadians fundamental rights, regardless of what they did.”

Well, one thing is for certain: he certainly would have lost with that mentality. In any case, it displays the shocking fact that Trudeau was not ultimately concerned by the bill to the Canadian taxpayers- he genuinely believed that Khadr deserved the money.

In fact, if it were politically possible, one could imagine Trudeau giving Khadr the entire C$20 million that he had initially demanded, making him one of the wealthiest jihadists on the planet. We all knew that Trudeau was simply lovely. 

"I have ten more million dollars than you do."

"I have ten more million dollars than you do."


Yet Trudeau is clearly wrong about the Canadian government “inevitably” losing their case against Khadr. In fact, it had numerous defenses it could have put forth in the case against Khadr.

Firstly, no matter what one thinks of Guantanamo, the fact remains that it was the United States, and not Canada, who initially captured and detained Omar Khadr. It was U.S. soldiers who beat and humiliated Khadr. It was the U.S. who tried Khadr in front of a military tribunal.

All Canada did was send a few journalists and government aid workers to check on the adolescent.

Yet Trudeau believes that this nevertheless amounts to Canada violating Khadr’s human rights. With this line of thinking, I’m not sure what wouldn’t violate his human rights.

"I might make terrorists rich, but aren't I adorable?"

"I might make terrorists rich, but aren't I adorable?"

But there is a bigger issue here, one that is probably the most important one to arise amidst this entire saga. In my view, whatever the court’s outcome, even if it ended up costing the claimed C$40 million, the Canadian government still should have fought the case to the death simply out of principle. It should have signaled to other jihadis-in-waiting that it has zero tolerance for their mischief, and that it would fight till the very last breath to see that justice has been done.

And 71% of Canadians agree.

And now an ex-jihadist traitor to the Canadian state has just becoming staggeringly wealthy. Such is the condition of our times. 

Emmanuel Macron: Has his "Jupiterian" Myth Already Been Diminished?


Today marks the 59th day of Emmanuel Macron’s Presidency. One might believe that fifty-nine is a number without any particular significance with regards to Monsieur le Président- but no! For I have been told from top-secret sources that this beaming gentleman winks and points at himself in the mirror precisely fifty-nine times a day. Très louche, indeed. But each to his own I suppose.

But I digress. Mr. Macron easily won the French Presidency as a political novice, despite being up against several household political names. The press adores him. The French have confidence in him. Following June’s legislative elections, he has won a decisive majority for his newly-formed party, La République En Marche. Absolument formidable!

He has charmed world leaders all over. Angela Merkel can barely contain her giggly admiration for him, and getting a German to giggle is already a feat in itself. Jean-Claude Juncker, the perpetually “happy” President of the European Commission would gladly become the world’s most famous teetotal just to get one more whiff of Mr. Macron. Mr. Juncker should be wary, however, of upsetting the omnipresent Brigitte, who would surely stamp a stiletto over his cognac bottle in the scenario that his affinity starts to become lecherous. One just never knows with those Luxembourgers.

A love fest.

A love fest.

A love fest.

A love fest.


President Macron has managed to look derrière-clenchingly focused while discussing terrorism with Teresa May on the telephone. He continued to successfully portray this image of a fierce, albeit fiber-deprived man during his much-retweeted “Handshakegate” “win” with Donald Trump.

Entirely spontaneous.

Entirely spontaneous.


He has cunningly employed the use of social media, capitalizing on every opportunity to pose in poignant photos with autistic children, disabled tennis players, and that yoga-planking hunk, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trop mimi!

Macron Trudeau.jpg

And, lastly, there’s that perfectly Gallic gap-toothed smile that screams “a-d-o-r-a-b-l-e.”  What human monster wouldn’t melt into a gushy love puddle for that? Ahh, we are living in fabulous times indeed.

But again I digress. On the surface, things could not be better for the thirty-nine year old, France’s youngest leader since Napoleon Bonaparte.

But below the surface, far more dodgy things are afoot.

Four of Mr. Macron’s cabinet ministers have already had to resign. To put this in perspective, even Donald Trump, the flagrant idiot, has managed to keep his original cabinet together.

First to resign from the Macron cabinet was Richard Ferrand, Regional Cohesion Minister, who was being investigated for nepotism. Then there were the three members of the MoDem party, headed by the perpetually cherished “good guy” of French politics, Francois Bayrou.  But alas, the party was embroiled in a scandal over misuse of EU funds to pay party employees. La honte!

For a President who vowed to bring confidence back into politics, this made for a bumpy start to his Presidency. His opponents will claim that the political rookie has already displayed incompetence and a lack of judgement. His supporters will indeed on the contrary deem the resignations to be a positive thing: proof that Mr. Macron will take decisive action to remove any bad elements from his retinue. But then again, his supporters tend to see anything Manu does in a positive light.

Then there is the issue of his ambitious economic reforms which have thus far stalled. It was widely reported that business leaders, once thoroughly overjoyed at the prospect of a Macron Presidency, were slightly irritated upon learning that his much-promised tax cuts would be put on hold until further notice.

At a recent meeting of CAC 40 CEOs in the quaint town of Aix-en-Provence, it was reported that there was frustration about Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s announcement a few days earlier that certain tax cuts would have to be put on hold.

This follows a statement by the official state audit body that the Macron budget had an €8 billion hole in it. Hence, tax cuts would have to be delayed in order to remain under the 3% EU deficit limits. Adding to the confusion was Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire’s insistence a few days later that the tax cuts would go ahead regardless.

This caused Mr. Macron’s detractors to roll their eyes. It further adds to the sense that Mr. Macron, who promised to swiftly and decisively reform France, is a man who will “talk the talk,” but who will not, “walk the walk.” Or maybe he will just “stumble the stumble” for now. Who knows.

I, for one, never believed that Macron’s math added up regardless: he has constantly stated that he would concurrently lower taxes, increase some social protections, increase fiscal stimulus, whilst reducing both France’s national debt and the deficit. Anyone with an IQ higher than the average orangutan will instantly realize that these are, at least in the near-term, completely contradictory claims.

But just like the fact that we will have to believe that Mr. Macron’s azure eyes have not been enhanced by colored lenses, we all will just have to believe that his budget numbers have not been subject to any enhancement (read: sorcery) either.

However, Mr. Macron’s already-dubious claims were made to look almost plausible in comparison to his proclamation at the recent G20 summit that international terrorism was linked to climate change.

This is quite an odd claim. Most reasonably intelligent people might find this curious, given that Jihadists tend to precede their decapitations, shootings, and other miscellaneous mischief with the proclamation: “Allahu Akbar!” Hence most people have come to the conclusion that Jihadism has to do with Islamic extremism, more than anything else. But Mr. Macron clearly feels differently:

“We can not pretend to fight terrorism effectively if we do not have a resolute action against global warming, or we must go and explain to the people who live in Chad, Niger and elsewhere that the climate is not a problem.”
“Today, terrorism, the great imbalances in our world, what we are experiencing, is linked to the climatic imbalances that our international productive mode has generated. We have to answer them because everything is linked,” he added.
"I want to chop off his head because of bad weather" -said no one ever.

"I want to chop off his head because of bad weather" -said no one ever.


Personally, I was unaware that the temperatures in London, Manchester, Brussels, Stockholm, and Saint Petersburg had suddenly risen this year. But I suppose I am no scientist, and will therefore choose to not elaborate further.

Then there is the pomposity and arrogance of the man. He once described his future Presidential style as “Jupiterian.” Jupiter, king of the Roman Gods and ruler of the sky, thunder, and lightning, is certainly a formidable personality to embody. Macron wants this particular pagan God to be his role model because, apparently, he wants to appear “distant” and “mysterious” to the average Frenchman. Apparently the French like that.

Adding to this mysteriousness and arrogance was Mr. Macron’s decision to eschew a traditional television address to the nation on the 14th of July (France’s National Day). When asked about why he would not partake in this tradition, an Elysée official stated that his, "complex thought process lends itself badly to the game of question-and-answer with journalists.”

The same “complex” thought process that blames al-Qaeda on warm temperatures, one supposes.

Jupiter might have a super powerful, magical thunderbolt, but does he have "complex thoughts"?

Jupiter might have a super powerful, magical thunderbolt, but does he have "complex thoughts"?


Nonetheless, despite deeming the July 14th address to be unnecessary, Mr. Macron saw it fit to address the two houses of the French parliament in the grandiose halls of the Versailles palace- an unorthodox spectacle that Presidents do not often engage in. In fact, it was last conducted following the horrific November 13th attacks in Paris. Perhaps Mr. Macron finds the prospect of announcing tax cuts just as momentous.

Then, lastly, there was that other handshake moment, a most puerile and petty moment totally unfit for a President of a major world power. As one can see in the video, Mr. Macron trolls Donald Trump at the G7 summit by appearing to head towards him for a handshake, only to veer off to Ms. Merkel at the last moment. Now, Trump is certainly not a paragon of maturity and virtue. But Macron's mischief was ill-placed regardless. “Oh the brilliant symbolism!” his fans will declare. An eyeroll is what the rest of us could muster.

Mr. Macron is still very early into his Presidency. But he is beginning to show signs that perhaps his critics were not entirely wrong during the Presidential campaign in saying that he was naïve, shallow, and somewhat of a showman. It took many centuries and the onset of Christianity for the myth of Jupiter to finally die. Let us hope that the myth of Macron can survive at least five years.

Quebec City Mosque Attack: Future Discourse Will be Dominated by Far-Right Bigots and Leftist Jihad Denialists

Two sides...  

Two sides...

... of the same problem

... of the same problem


There is nothing quite as effective as a developing story regarding a terrorist incident to smoke out people’s true political agendas.

On Sunday night, six people were killed at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre by a lone gunman. Or was it two gunmen? In the immediate aftermath, there were conflicting reports on the matter, although as of Monday afternoon, it appears that the Quebec City authorities have finally concluded that indeed only one man was the perpetrator.

In any case, as of Sunday night, regardless of the fact that no concrete facts had yet been established about this horrendous incident, the usual suspects on both the right and the left were out in full force pushing their own theories and agendas.

“Islamophobia! White supremacy! Trump!” shouted the left.

In a New York Times article from Sunday evening, the paper was quick to mention that this same mosque had been the victim of Islamophobic bigotry in June 2016, when a pig’s head was left on its doorstep. In an article from today, the same paper noted that other minor Islamophobic incidents had been committed in Canada in recent months.

The aim, clearly, was to immediately establish a link between the Mosque shootings and Islamophobia, before any firm facts had been established.

Also on Sunday evening (again, before any facts had been established), Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to put forth similar theories, stating that, “this was a group of innocents targeted for practicing their faith… Make no mistake: this was a terrorist attack.” Was this statement meant to nudge us into assuming that the killer(s) was an anti-Islam bigot? I shall let you decide for yourself.

Trudeau is cute

Trudeau is cute


New York City mayor Bill de Blasio went on a Twitter offensive on Sunday evening with similarly non-neutral insinuations about the causes of the Quebec mosque attack:

Assumptions before facts had emerged

Assumptions before facts had emerged


Moving to the right, the assumptions and battle cries were no less fatuous. “Jihad! Muslim-on-Muslim barbarity! Sectarian violence!” they reflexively shouted.

These sentiments were fueled by emerging reports on Monday morning that one of the “two” gunmen was a Moroccan national by the name of Mohamed el Khadir. This turned out to be false- el Khadir was merely a witness. Adding to the right’s excitement were alleged claims by some eyewitnesses that the gunman had shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the massacre.

Predictably, the anti-Islam brigade was hailing this as a vindication of their suspicions that Jihad, rather than Islamophobia, was responsible for this attack.

The anti-Trudeau: This tweet was left up hours after it had been established that the individual of Moroccan origin was no longer a suspect

The anti-Trudeau: This tweet was left up hours after it had been established that the individual of Moroccan origin was no longer a suspect

Geller loves jumping to conclusions as well  

Geller loves jumping to conclusions as well

Tommy Robinson retweeted this, probably as he was orgasming

Tommy Robinson retweeted this, probably as he was orgasming


Firstly, what is most troubling about this entire spectacle is that it has revealed a penchant for people on both sides of the political spectrum to engage in what I call the “reverse scientific method.” That is to say, there is a tendency for seemingly-informed people to draw certain conclusions first and only then to scrape together pieces of evidence in support of this conclusion after the fact.

This flies in the face of what we were all taught as 13-year-olds in science class: collect the evidence first (and, if need be, patiently wait until it emerges), and only then start to draw conclusions based on this evidence.

Secondly, this incident has revealed a deeply troubling erosion of the ostensibly nuanced political center in dictating the narrative on such issues. The Left (of which the New York Times, Trudeau, and de Blasio are all a part), will reflexively see Islamophobia as the primary problem plaguing our societies. The right (Geller, Robinson, and Fox News) will deem radical Islam to be the primary problem.

Now, as of Monday afternoon, it turns out that the prime suspect in this shooting is a Canadian national by the name of Alexandre Bissonnette. It appears, based on his social media activity, that he is a supporter of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. He was known to troll various refugee-supporting Facebook groups as well as Feminist organizations.

Hence, as it turns out, the left will probably end up being correct about this particular incident. Expect days of declarations about how there is now “definitive proof” that Islamophobia is a far larger threat than is Islamism.

Of course, this would totally ignore the fact that terrorist attacks on Muslims are most frequently committed by… fellow Muslims. The recent attack on a Shia market in Pakistan, and the attack on a Shia mosque in Kabul are but two examples of this phenomenon. Closer to home, in March of 2016, an Ahmadi Muslim by the name of Asad Shah was stabbed to death in his Glasgow shop by a Sunni extremist.

Asad Shah was killed by a fellow Muslim in Glasgow because he apparently "insulted Islam."

Asad Shah was killed by a fellow Muslim in Glasgow because he apparently "insulted Islam."


This is not to say that the right was correct to assume that this particular incident was conducted by Islamists or Jihadists. And yes, far-right Islamophobic hate crime is certainly a problem we face today. However, Islamism and Jihad are also very real problems. So let us not yield to the extremists on both sides of the debate who only acknowledge one side of the problem.

2016 Has Been a Horrible Year for the Left

2016 might be the worst year for the political left in recent memory. Let us now examine the highlights: 


These scenes in Germany are not nearly as common as they were in 2015

These scenes in Germany are not nearly as common as they were in 2015


Perhaps the biggest news story to greet us in the New Year was that of the mass-scale sex attacks that occurred in Cologne and other European cities on New Year’s Eve. By July of this year, over six hundred women (600!) have come out stating that they had been sexually assaulted in Cologne on that one night alone.

Perhaps most shamefully, out of fear of perpetuating cultural stereotypes, the authorities in Cologne declined to admit that the vast majority, if not all, of the perpetrators were recently-arrived asylum seekers from the Muslim world. The Cologne prosecutor had to publicly come out and admit that the perpetrators were indeed recently-arrived asylum-seekers, mostly from North Africa..

The Cologne chief of police was suspended, and the mayor ridiculed after she victim-blamed the victims, stating that women should keep an “arm’s length” from groups of men. Incidentally, one wonders if she meant “all men,” or men from one particular culture.

Perhaps one of the more shocking cases of sex crimes was in October when a 19-year-old German girl was raped and drowned on her way home from a party by an Afghan asylum seeker.

This year has also seen numerous terrorist attacks by asylum seekers and refugees. In Germany, a Syrian asylum-seeker conducted the first suicide bombing that the nation had ever experienced on its own soil. In another attack, an “Afghan asylum-seeker” (who was probably Pakistani and not a legitimate asylum-seeker at all), decided to start hacking at people on a German train.

In Brussels, the airport and metro were blown up by Muslim immigrants to Europe, some of whom had re-entered Europe among migrants.

In June, Omar Mateen, the son of an Afghan immigrant to the United States, shot dead 49 people in a LGBT Orlando nightclub.

In September, Ahmad Khan Rahami, the son of an Afghan asylum-seeker, set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey, injuring dozens.

In December, a Somali asylum-seeker drove a car into a large group of people before starting to knife them on the Ohio State University campus.

And, most recently, just days before Christmas, a Tunisian asylum-seeker drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12.


In light of the numerous crimes committed by migrants this past year, it seems odd that the left has been determined to censor viewpoints critical of Angela Merkel’s immigration policies.

In September, Angela Merkel was caught speaking to Mark Zuckerberg off-the-record about the need to curtail Facebook posts that criticized her migration policies. Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative when asked whether Facebook was “working on this.”

Angie: "Pssst... how can I make people less aware of the scale of my blunder?" Zuck: "Say no more fam!" 

Angie: "Pssst... how can I make people less aware of the scale of my blunder?"
Zuck: "Say no more fam!" 


In April, Merkel allowed the prosecution of Jan Boehmermann, a young German comedian, who made a certain crass joke about President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and a goat. Apparently, Merkel felt it was more important to appease a foreign dictator than to allow for the freedom of expression in her own country.

And speaking of Facebook, the technology group has been accused this year of censoring conservative news stories in favor of left-wing ones.

The left has, in 2016, tried to silence Trump supporters as well. In a widely-shared video on social media, a student wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat is harassed by fellow students who claim that it amounts to “hate language.”

In another, a different man wearing the same hat is physically intimidated by a group of Black Lives Matter protestors in New York City.





During the months leading up to the June 23rd referendum on Britain’s membership within the European Union, the left-leaning mainstream media pelted us with claims that Brexit was racist, xenophobic, economically calamitous, and a sure catalyst for new wars amongst European nations.

Of course, as it happened, the UK economy has done quite well since Brexit, and no wars between European nations have occurred.

Critics will insist that as Brexit has still not formally transpired (which requires Britain to invoke Article 50 of the European Union Treaty), we still do not know what might happen. Sure. But so far, so good.

Trump’s Election




This was the big one of 2016. Hardly anyone, be it on the left or the right, had foreseen the elevation of the world’s loudest mouth to the President of the United States of America.

Writing in the Guardian, author Thomas Frank made an eloquent case in favor of the idea that liberals had put Trump in the White House.

Following Trump’s election, New York Times Company chairman Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. had to issue a mea culpa on behalf of the left-leaning paper’s reporting of the Trump phenomenon. In the letter, he admitted that the New York Times had to now rededicate itself to reporting on America and the world, “honestly.”

Moreover, it is interesting to note just how many voters who had backed Obama in 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. This rendered claims of all Trump supporters being “racists,” and, “deplorables,” to be fundamentally untrue.

The hyperbole clouding any discussion of Trump in the lead-up to this election has truly been, “deplorable.” On the evening of the election, left-wing Al Jazeera journalist and terrorist apologist-in-chief Mehdi Hasan posted the following startling tweet:

No, you are wrong, Mehdi

No, you are wrong, Mehdi


At once, he equated Trump’s so-called “extremism” with the extremism of certain Muslim countries in which democracy doesn’t exist, pluralism doesn’t exist, free speech doesn’t exist, secularism doesn’t exist, minority rights don’t exist, and people are routinely punished with beheadings, stonings, public hangings, and cross-amputations.

If Mr. Hasan truly believes that Trump’s victory will lead to the same degree of oppression as we witness in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Islamic State, all perspective and reason has truly been lost.




Although the disastrous and corrosive Western policies regarding Syria aren’t limited to the political left, they certainly were heavily pushed by the Obama administration and by Hillary Clinton, his Democratic successor-to-be (or so they believed).

By standing in stark opposition to Assad and Putin, the West boxed itself into a corner by constantly searching for an illusory, “third way,” that entailed a peaceful resolution to the conflict that did not involve either ISIS or Assad.

This naivety was evident to many of us, who saw the Western-backed “moderate rebels” for what they really were: murderous head-chopping Jihadists.

Hence, throughout this entire fiasco, the West was keen to arm and finance various groups of Islamist thugs, many with ties to Al Qaeda, rather than assist in letting the secular dictator Assad regain control of Syria.

It can be argued that if Assad, Putin, and Obama had fought on the same side from the get-go, the Syrian conflict would have come to an end months prior, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives.

The hand-wringers on the left were truly an unbearable embarrassment throughout the entire Syrian civil war, accusing Assad of war crimes on a daily basis without providing any viable alternative to his rule. The left simply could not grasp the fact that peace under a dictatorship was much preferable to life under theocracy.

It seems that the left didn’t learn any recent lessons about deposing Middle Eastern dictators, be it Hussein, Gaddafi, or Mubarak. It seems that the left didn’t learn any lessons about arming Islamist rebels, either (the mujahedeen in Afghanistan for example, who later turned on the West in the form of the Taliban and Al Qaeda).


Here's to 2017, folks!