Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 31, 2013, 3:11 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I see OWS has finally accepted Twitter as one more viable messaging platform. I think that is a good thing, with many potential applications all at once. Though I was an early advocate, I am certain no one undertook the implementation at my instigation. I wonder . . .
But never mind.
AS to the topic of Syria, I say Assad is but one of many among the one percent who see themselves as entitled beyond all reason and endurance. Let us cut off his head.
It is, as I am well aware, a matter of some controversy. Many say no no no, let us not intervene, and it is certain that many who hold such objection do so strictly as a matter of conscience. To them let no taint append for this cause.
Were OWS an organization, one given to discipline, deliberation, and decisiveness, we might provide the possibility of an Organizational Position while releasing each and every member to act according to conscience.
Were OWS to take up such a position, the benefits would be thus:
We would demonstrate clearly to those one percenters everywhere, that we are indeed content with their sudden and calamitous demise.
Less than 50% of the public support any intervention in Syria. We could ascend to power with a demonstration of the ability to change public perception, and so to harness the people.
We could change the public perception on this issue because the death of Assad is in this case Just. We could make that case on far more than the mere use of Chemical Weapons alone, for the longer a conflict of this nature continues, the deeper the emotional scars among the population afflicted with the scourge of war. Many are the deficits of prolonged conflict.
The principle beneficiaries of extending this conflict are those who would use such events to draw in members of al Qaida, and so perpetuate their ability to recruit, to train, to know and become intimate with killing and so hone their art. Such a position must be opposed as a matter of principle.
Were we successful at swaying public opinion we would strike fear into the hearts of the one percent whose single allegiance is to wealth and to power. Were the nation to act as we had advocated, and had we so advocated loudly and often, it would be unclear to these one percent pretenders what degree of influence we actually possess.
For the purposes of negotiation we could allude to the possibility that any one of these unentitled one percent scum could be next.
Such a set of circumstances would induce among many of our opponents a degree of panic, and in their hysteria they would over play their hands, providing openings we could capitalize on.
Such a set of circumstances would enhance recruitment to us in a number of ways, not least of which are those in mid level positions of trust among the one percent, with access to information that we would find useful. Some of them would surely turn to us, just as some of them have in the past, for what ever reasons they may have. The links below establish that indeed, it has happened in the past:
There may be other benefits as well. One of them includes the fact that Russia is adjusting its naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Within the Christian mind, this presents the image of Armageddon. For all of those repelicans who have ascended to public office while standing upon the Christian Bible, there is now a distinct dilemma. Much of right wing Christian dogma demands that the Christian embrace Armageddon at every opportunity. Thus those who have ascended to power standing upon the Bible must appear as cowards among their own constituents, and may easily be run from office with a carefully contrived astroturfing campaign. While the issue of Armageddon itself is a topic that OWS need not take up, such an astroturfing campaign could easily be undertaken and maintained at arms length from the organization itself.
Perhaps with little more than a small suggestion to the Tea Party.
Such an approach would necessarily be noted among even Pentagon brass, who must even now be assessing the behavior of Putin and asking if his behavior is little more than a probe, a query of our will by him regarding our willingness, our commitment, to do the right thing.
Were there such an organization.
But there is not.
Still I say, off with Assad's head. It's the right thing to do.