The finer pleasures of Syrian Conflict
December 11, 2012 in Resistance
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
What is a Syrian conflict? Is it something I can touch or feel? Can I eat it? Does it help lubricate a moving part on a machine? Are there many uses for a Syrian conflict in contemporary society? Can it be made into a decorative cake?
Yes, there are many questions concerning a “Syrian conflict”, and today, we will break down the positive aspects of the conflict in action.
A Syrian conflict has many implications, point in fact. For starters, it is the idea that the Syrian people are in conflict surrounding the state of Syria’s existence. While being categorized into “minor” conflicts, and “major” conflicts, it is hard to determine which is a conflict, if even that state of argument can yield positive results for all observers to enjoy. For example, a man in Syria may quarrel with another man in Syria about the state of his property, and the second man may object to confounding the state of his own arguments with a bad mix of thought. Of course, the observer is of no particular consequence to the outcome, but still, by verdict of the state of mind, it would seem like it is a great pleasure to observe conflict, and thus, it is considered a fine thing.
One thing I would like to cover is the baking of a cake in recognition of a Syrian conflict. The cake itself should be quite tall, and should be layered according to the varying factors playing role in the conflict. And of course, do not forget to add a cherry on top. This is representative of a dualistic component to Syrian conflict, wherein the bulk of the conflict is layered upon each other in a lifeless heap, and the cherry is rested upon the top of the pile as a symbol of the beauty of adversity.
And finally, as a final figurative example, we shall assess what joy outside observers may find in Syrian conflict. Outside observers range in type, from big to small, but all of them have a big smile when it comes to talking about the benefits of the contemporary major crisis, and what it means for their own interests. Some larger observers, for example, have big intentions for the outcome of the contemporary crisis. The United States is dwindling in foreign allies, and Russia is also dwindling. This precipice was placed underneath both allies by the much larger, much more pleasurable crisis throughout the region, as Arab country falls one right after the other. For the United States, this is a battle to keep what it has in the region, to stay the bigger fish. For Russia, this is a battle to expand it’s interests, to become a bigger fish in the region through it’s economic alliance.
But how will they do that?
Russia has a particularly wide range of influence. It is intending to buy the EU. It is intending for Iran to stay strong as a deployable base, which unfortunately is the only good reason for alliance in this day. It is intending to feed the Arab powers of the world with personality and causality, in order for their Ultimate Secondary Reactionaries to manifest, and to cause Secondary Reactionaries to arise, further evolving their societies. It is intending to spread the wealth of it’s nation so far that it’s influence is everywhere. This is how it plans to use Syrian conflict pleasurably, in the way that it will progress significantly under the new Syrian leadership.
The United States has a range of interests. It must uphold it’s place in the world by means of generally surviving economically. It is in the midst of losing an entire network of allies called the EU. It is in the process of bringing liberation across the Middle East through support and praise of conflict which uproots foundations of civilization in Arab regions. It is facing an enemy in that same region which threatens it’s existing allies such as KSA and the GCC. In this way it is to find pleasure in the outcome of the Syrian conflict, and further use it to it’s advantage.
And, of course, all others fall directly in line with the consequences of that argument, pleasurably.
So really, all contemporary conflict is found considerably pleasing by all peoples, and nobody wants to find a solution which prevents foreign enemies from travelling into Syria. Peace IS possible, but war is pleasurable, so NOW what do we do? The only answer is to realize that this world is on a hellspin to defeat. Everyone’s got enemies or something. And America is next, if it is not careful.
It would be different if the US was safe to move in on Syria. In no way at this time is that a possibility, no matter the rationale. It’s too damaging here. It’s plain and simple going to be “Oh, Obama on the warpath again, what are we to do but deliberate?” and “Obama NWO puppet plans NWO victory in Syria NWO” and “Satanists Illuminati coming beware of gog and magog”. All this rhetoric is already spoken for.
It’s not going to be a different story every time. It’s going to be the same thing, over and over again, until we get free media in this world. No, Alex Jones is not the free media. No, the mainstream media is not the free media. All of them are on topics getting facts from known liars, and it’s about time all newscasters understood that. I would like to see the other side to life, where war is not pleasurable. Where people are fighting their battles together, rather than against the NWO. When a conspiracy theorist doesn’t go cold over the world, and instead becomes warm and talkative.
Syria, you have much to do, and only you can eject the foreigners.