Syria: A blatant example of Western hypocrisy and insolence

In the run-up to the creation of ISIS, in the handling of the Syrian crisis and in the reaction to Russia's strikes against terrorists, we see yet another shining and blatant example of sheer hypocrisy and pig-faced insolence from the West. Who the Hell is Obama to opine about anything after his country's record?

So NATO is expressing "concern" about Russia's strafing of terrorists with military hardware... Well, well... Did NATO express "concern" about its strafing of civilians with military hardware in Afghanistan? Did NATO and its puppet-master Washington express "concern" about the illegal act of butchery, the intervention in Iraq, and the subsequent strafing of civilians and civilian infrastructures with military hardware? Did NATO express "concern" about its illegal act of terrorism in Kosovo when it carved out the heart of Serbia and proclaimed Kosovar terrorists as an independent State? Did NATO express "concern" when its forces entered the Libyan civil war (which it created) illegally against UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) and strafed civilians, government forces and civilian structures with military hardware?

The answer to these questions is no, of course not. And why is NATO so vociferous in condemning Russia's actions in Syria? Because Russia has been targeting terrorists, not dropping supplies to them or siding with them, aiding and abetting them, financing them, paying them not to attack or arming violent terrorist groups on its own lists of proscribed groups, as was the case with NATO powers and terrorist forces in Libya.

Russia supports democratically elected Government

Russia is supporting the Government of His Excellency Bashar al-Assad who was democratically elected in a large turnout last year by a vast majority of the electorate, a Government which is fighting against terrorists either armed by the West and its Poodles in the Middle East, or else which formed under its nose while Washington and its bed-boys turned a blind eye.

And who the Hell is Barack Obama, or John Kerry or Poodle in Chief Cameron to opine on anything anyway after their criminal and despicable foreign policy in which war crimes are rife, disrespect for human life blatant and total disregard for the law a mainstay? How for example would they respond to this?

Who the Hell is Barack Obama to deal the cards and dictate policies to Moscow when the diplomatic history of his own country in the last century is an example of demonic skullduggery, self-seeking arrogance, blackmail, bullying, belligerence and chauvinism of the highest degree?

Who supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight against the progressive socialist Government backed by the Soviet Union? Who destroyed the public services provided by the Soviets in Africa? Who masterminded the disintegration of the Angolan education system turning an excellent service into a business or a shambles, depending on how much you pay? Who sponsored fascist governments in Latin America, which tortured their victims to death?

West's despicable record of murder

Who masterminded the torture and concentration camps in Abu Ghraib, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Who committed a twin atomic terrorist attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who committed chemical terrorist attacks in Vietnam? Who has invaded more countries than anyone else at any time in the collective history of Humankind? Who has sparked off more conflicts and uprisings, bloodshed, illegal overthrows of democratically elected Governments?

Who destroyed Iraq and murdered up to a million people? Who left swathes of territory poisoned and is responsible for the thousands of children born handicapped in that country? Who bombed the Libyan water supply and electricity grid "to break their backs"?

And just why is Mr. Know-it-all, pea-brained, pith-headed Obama in his utter American insolence in such a panic? Why, because Russia has bombed terrorists. Why is he so "concerned"? Because it is his terrorists that are being exterminated like cockroaches? Just who is Mr. Obama to say that President Assad must go? Was he elected President of the United States of America? Or Syria? So if he claims the right to opine on who should rule Syria, two options:

Either he can man up and go there in person instead of whining from thousands of miles away like a yellow-bellied, sniveling coward, or else the one who has to go is the President of the United States of America for pursuing a terrorist policy and siding with terrorists. President Assad has done none of the above after all, so judging by his own standards, the one living on borrowed time is Barack Hussein Obama.

Such a study in insolence, arrogance and ignorance would be hard to conjure up even in a story book.