U.K. in talks with U.S. general and others to aid Syrian jihadists

Re:
......"and the West an ally of Pakistan."

The athenian over-simplifies.

This American disputes that we "support Jihadis" (capitalized) in Syria. The definition of "Jihadi" seems to vary from time to time and place depending on who's using the word, under what circumstances.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" can apply in "the West", another over-simplification, as well as anywhere else.

If we Americans would only pay closer attention to the Paki's actions and less to their taqiyya-intended words, we'd remain more watchful at a distance, and be very wary of further "entanglements" as our Founding Fathers wisely intended....in the 18th Century.

It's forgotten everywhere that we Americans have been fighting against Muslims since the 19th Century. We Americans tend to forget this also.

We Americans, IMHO, unwisely think that intimate involvement with our troops on the ground locally in widely dispersed areas is the best way to keep an eye on our strategic interests. That seems to be almost Napoleonic thinking after our bloody experiences of the Twentieth Century. I'm an "outsider", not privy to closed door meetings....but I have eyes also and some years' experience as an expat in Asia.

Because the oh-so-shrill Paki's object to our unmanned drones, they, the drones, must then be judged very effective in the Paki's eyes....(no pun intended)....if the Paki's remain irritated and worried, then the drones ought to be continued in so far as Pakistani territory continues to be a sanctuary for the anti-American butchering factions of the Muslims....what do they expect from us Americans?

It seems that the Pakistanis,Iraqs, and Afghanis delight in their complex double dealing. We Americans are then at fault so long as we continue our foolish fire-hosing of our scarce dollars over that Triad area.

The Indians can take care of themselves. That's why they separated from the Muslim areas in 1947.

The Russians are xenophobic, as are the Chinese, so nothing anyone does is correct in their eyes.

That sums up this American's foreign policy ideas.

Sanjay 111 wrote:

It is not true that the west (US and UK mainly, and whites) are not aware of the evil represented by Syrian opposition. The white west has always sided with Islamists so long as they act against non - whites. And there is good reason for it.

If, in our beastly non - white countries, good people come to power, it is far more difficult if not impossible for western powers to push us around...
..............................

Oh, good grief. I was never entirely certain what your overarching thesis was until now in going on endlessly about how "whites" supposedly don't care about Jihad when it is directed at people of color—never mind that this thesis is disproven every day here at Jihad Watch, as well as with many other Anti-Jihad sites.

Robert Spencer and many other Anti-Jihadists regularly decry violent Jihad against Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Safardic Jews, sub-Saharan Africans, and many other "non-white" peoples.

But even if "whites" were as venal as you imply—which we *are not*—do you actually believe that it is really in the long-term interest of the West to see ravening Jihadists set up all over the world, regularly launching Jihad terror attacks against us?

You have made it quite clear that you are not asking Western Anti-Jihadists to take a greater interest in Jihad around the world—indeed, that you believe "whites" to be intrinsic supporters of evil.

What is your ultimate point in posting here, if you believe that all "whites" are not only born 'racists', but are deliberately enabling Jihad all over the world?

Ultimately, I can only really think of one reason: to make "whites" feel guilty, and make them believe that they cannot truly act against Jihad because of their inborn 'racism'—and make them believe that they should simply stop trying, and roll over and bare their necks to the Jihadists.

If you have a different purpose in posting here, please let us know just what that might be.

Gandhi's support to khilafat was in entirely different circumstances.

And yes, the shameless secularist government is not acting against Pakistan and is fully supported in it by America which would have followed an entirely different policy if similar terror attack was against let us say Britain. In that case, US would not support Pak-sympathetic secularists but belligerent nationalists! THAT is racism!

My purpose here is simple - I want all non - whites, especially Indians, NOT to fool themselves into believing that white west will be consistently anti - jihadist. The west's profession of commitment to human rights and equality of people irrespective of color are bogus pretensions.

Our war against Jihadists is entirely our own and not only will whites not support it, they will actually do everything to sabotage our efforts to defeat jihadists. They have consistently behaved that way and nothing indicates this will change.

As for Robert Spencer and this website, I believe that you all are like well meaning Muslims who won't harm others, are themselves not jihadists, but won't fight jihadists either.

You guys are not racists yourselves but you won't confront racism either.

Sanjay

My purpose here is simple - I want all non - whites, especially Indians, NOT to fool themselves into believing that white west will be consistently anti - jihadist. The west's profession of commitment to human rights and equality of people irrespective of color are bogus pretensions.

Our war against Jihadists is entirely our own and not only will whites not support it, they will actually do everything to sabotage our efforts to defeat jihadists. They have consistently behaved that way and nothing indicates this will change.

As for Robert Spencer and this website, I believe that you all are like well meaning Muslims who won't harm others, are themselves not jihadists, but won't fight jihadists either.

You guys are not racists yourselves but you won't confront racism either.

Sanjay

The objective effect of your postings will merely be to foment and deepen division and distrust amongst the people of all backgrounds and countries who are becoming aware of the meaning and menace of Islam; it will become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You rail against 'whites'. Define 'whites', please. Name every single one of all the countries you deem - because they are populated by us wicked, useless 'whites' - to be permanently incapable of ever being genuinely 'non-racist', and permanently unable and unwilling to put up any sort of real fight against Jihad. Be specific.

Do you mean Anglo? non-Anglo? everybody from Kamchatka to Iceland and from Lapland to the north shore of the Mediterranean. Latino Anglo Germanic? Those shaped by Eastern Christendom, those shaped by the West, plus all the atheists and agnostics? Do you mean every 'white' person who has ever existed since about AD 700? (That is, for as long as the Jihad has been attacking humanity - of all colours and cultures - in all directions on three continents?).

Do you see 'white' (people with lighter skins and pale eyes, though some of us have black hair and brown eyes) as a sort of eternal cultural bloc, acting consciously in concert, genetically preprogrammed to be all (nonwhites) eternal sworn enemy?? That would be as silly as seeing 'Asian' - Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Indian, just for starters - as a sort of undifferentiated cultural bloc. Or, for that matter, lumping 'Africans' (the most genetically varied human population on earth) all together as one bloc.

Final thought: define, precisely, the 'racism' that you wish us to denounce, attack and...punish?

What thoughts are we permitted to think and what are we not permitted to think? What things should we put people in jail for?

What laws must we enact, and enforce, in order to meet your exacting standards for being 'non-racist', before you will accept that *our* resistance to Jihad might just possibly be sincere and real and even occasionally effective?

Sanjay 111 wrote:

My purpose here is simple - I want all non - whites, especially Indians, NOT to fool themselves into believing that white west will be consistently anti - jihadist. The west's profession of commitment to human rights and equality of people irrespective of color are bogus pretensions.

Our war against Jihadists is entirely our own and not only will whites not support it, they will actually do everything to sabotage our efforts to defeat jihadists. They have consistently behaved that way and nothing indicates this will change.
............................

Oddly enough, you almost never criticize Jihad itself, no matter how savage.

Instead, your only condemnation is for those trying to fight it.

More:

As for Robert Spencer and this website, I believe that you all are like well meaning Muslims who won't harm others, are themselves not jihadists, but won't fight jihadists either.
............................

Do you really believe this? Very few Muslims can ever bring themselves to criticize Islam, whereas Anti-Jihadists criticize the West's shortcomings all the time—you can find such right here in the comments above.

Robert Spencer and many of us here—including myself—consistently condemn Jihad against people of color. What possible reason could we have for doing this if we didn't believe it?

More:

You guys are not racists yourselves but you won't confront racism either.
............................

What utter rot. I marched against apartheid in South Africa.

I have taught adult literacy and worked with low-income kids—many of them people of color—to get their GEDs (high-school equivalency).

And while this has nothing to do with race per se, I have also stood against what I consider to be bigotry by working for gay rights.

But then, you have made it clear that nothing we can say will make any difference.

You have seen Robert Spencer working tirelessly against the Jihad threat all over the world, partnering with Indians, Copts, and sub-Saharan Africans—and none of this convinces you that he is not "enabling racism".

It is clear that you do not have any constructive criticism to offer, but that your only aim is to divide the Anti-Jihad movement—obviously, this is more important to you than fighting Jihad itself.

What a terrible shame.