The Daily Digest of Global Delirium: Prologue

It has been almost 10,000 years since we built our first cities and called them states and kingdoms; 10,000 years since the beginning of civilization and the invention of organized politics and religion, yet, and for all the time that has elapsed, and all the progress made, the gods and men seem more angry than they have ever been over primordial longings that remain unfulfilled and seemingly unfulfillable. We have now moved into the thick of a new century, the first in a new millennium in our haphazard existence, and the venomous rancor of the most powerful of our gods and men is threatening to plunge the world into a new era of darkness and delirium, as unnecessary and unfathomable as such development has always been. These are the chronicles of these mad and maddening times, recorded as they unfold for the benefit of a posterity that may not come to be, yet should it come may need to understand from whence it did and how it managed to survive in the face of all odds, mayhap its children would learn from the mistakes that are now being made.

IDG: Holding steady at 9.7 on the 3rd anniversary of Ghoutah Chemical Attack #Syria

The IDG or the Index of Global Delirium reflects the state of delirium in a particular country using a 1 to 10 count, with 10 denoting the highest level of delirium. Levels of delirium change on the basis of current development in said country, such as instability, terrorism, elections, sports events and the like, as well as relevant global developments such financial meltdowns, certain leaks, and stock market indices. Countries shown above are among those where fluctuation in the national and local indices have a greater global impact than is the case with other countries. Note: levels of violence and delirium do not always coincide. Indeed, a country can have a high delirium level even though it is relatively stable.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Daily Delirynth, August 23, 2016: Hateful Analysis

A daily rundown of delirium-inducing developments from around our labyrinthine world. 

Hate Speech Or Scholarly Analysis?

The Assad Regime and its Russian allies have been trying for years to bomb moderation into Syria's Sunni population to no avail.

Once we ignore how cause-and-effect work and turn the issue into a chicken-and-an-egg question, then, there will be no reason why this racist screed cannot pass for scholarly analysis.

Indeed, this is the kind of scholarly works that Donald J. Trump himself would have written had he been, as hard as it is to imagine it, an academic rather than an “entrepreneur.”

Some of the fucked up lessons that we can learn from this thoughtful Trumpist piece of scholarly analysis that is challenging the “conventional Western narrative”…  

If Sunni populations escaped from rebel areas, it’s because extremists have taken over, not because the Assad regime is dropping barrel bombs on their heads as the United States watches on.

Sunnis are predisposed to becoming extremists because they are Sunnis. Sunnis are also predisposed to being traitors, that is, agents for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Alawites are not so predisposed to extremism and treason because they are Alawites. That’s why the Assad regime relies on them, not because the Assads are sectarian bastards.

Dogmatic differences between Alawites and Twelver Shia matter, but dogmatic differences between Sunni groups don’t. Wahhabis, Salafis, Sufis, they are all alike. Sunnis are all alike.

The Assad regime built mosques and Qur’an memorization schools for the Sunnis, not as part of a strategy to further divide the Sunni community, no, it did so to placate the Sunnis, because that’s what the Sunnis wanted, since they are all alike.

It’s not the continuous bombing of their communities by the Assad regime and the global indifference to their plight and suffering that ended up fostering extremism among Syria’s Sunni communities, it’s being Sunni. Their Sunnitude is the problem.  

And one can go and on. It’s bullshittery at its finest.

Yet, the piece is bound to be endorsed by a variety of well-established voices responsible for the “conventional Western narrative,” because it’s cool to appear maverick, and even cooler to have some of your own well-established prejudices legitimated.


Beyond the Horizon


Now This


This is not what it quacks like

Pentagon insists zone where it says Syrian planes can't fly is not a 'no-fly zone'. No matter what it looks like, or how it quacks. For indeed, the true Obama Legacy is all about defining the meaning of certain terms, like ransom, no-fly zone, and perhaps even humanity, decency and compassion since none of these notions have so far inspired any meaningful action on Syria.

Meanwhile, and in another sign of double standards: U.S.-Backed Kurds to Assad Forces: ‘Surrender or Die’. In a critical battle, Washington’s most effective allies in Syria turn their attention away from fighting ISIS and toward the militias of Bashar al-Assad. It seems the Kurds have that prerogative, but the Free Syrian Army does not.

Be that as it may, it seems the time has come for the Kurds, represented by the PYD and YPGs, to assert their total control over the areas where they make up the majority of the population. As such, the city of Qamishlo could be next, albeit the battle for control of that city might prove to be more complicated, due to its greater diversity, and stronger regime presence. Still, that battle may no longer be avoidable.

End U.S. battle against Syria's Assad: James Robbins. Or, how to support a genocidaire and retain the moral high ground:

The U.S. did not make the necessary commitment to win in Syria years ago when it had the chance, and it's now giving just enough support to a losing cause to keep the war grinding on. The result is more innocent deaths, more refugees and more misery. It is time for the Obama administration to admit that its policies are doing more harm than good. The president should seek peace the only way he can, by bowing out of the anti-Assad fight.

No. No. No. No. Bowing out of that particular fight, which the U.S. never really embraced, is exactly the recipe for prolonging the war and misery in Syria. Without punitive strikes against the Assad regime, it will never be brought to sign peace deal with rebels. Thanasssi Cambanis does a better job at advising the next president of the United States.

A more robust military campaign in Syria should build on both of the missions already underway: the CIA’s covert sponsorship of armed proxies and the Defense Department’s overt train-and-equip program for rebels.

U.S. military action would have specific goals: to weaken Syrian government forces and punish them in direct response to war crimes, sieges, and other atrocities. The aim of intervention would be to protect civilians and promote the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement to the war. It would not go so far as to help the rebels win — just far enough to maintain the stalemate so that Assad’s regime understands its only choice is to negotiate with the majority of its citizens who oppose his dictatorship.


© Ammar Abdulhamid | All rights reserved. No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated for stand-alone materials. For modes of sharing, please contact the author.

Monday, August 22, 2016

The Daily Delirynth, August 22, 2016: CSI: Syria – It’s a great fuckup all right!

A daily rundown of delirium-inducing developments from around our labyrinthine world.

Brought to you by…

The Everything Deniers Society: We don’t even exist.   


When the Western world is resolved to absorb the costs associated with intervening in the conflict in Syria and imposing peace on its combatants, then the tears shed for Omran will be more than just emoting. For now, the Western world is simply seeking to soothe its conscience for prioritizing its own insularity over the lives of the innocent.


As the Atlantic Council’s Faysal Itani told me, for the Middle East, for Europe, and for the world, there appears to be no end in sight. “As it turned out, Syria became a bloody disgrace to the international community. We'll never know what would have happened had the US engaged with the opposition, pressured Assad, or done anything else. But the fact is this was never given any consideration in the first place. A position was taken, evidence was either ignored or spun, and external expertise was actively ridiculed.”


Crime Scene Investigation: Syria

Every day brings new complications to the Syrian crime/war scene:

Today, Kurdish YPGs and regime forces keep battling in Hassakeh, as YPGs are ow said to seek wrest control of entire city, while Turkey bombs Daesh stronghold in Jarablous, and YPGs newly-acquired city of Manbij. The understanding between turkey and the U.S. that has allowed for YPGs to fight IS/Daesh in northern Syria stipulates that YPGs forces should evacuate cities like Manbij and Jarablous shortly after their liberation allowing for the local councils to govern. YPGs forces have so far refused to depart Manbij.

Meanwhile, Russia says it suspended its strikes on Syria from Iranian bases, probably to give Iranian officials the chance to absorb domestic fallouts from this policy, and Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal says that “Iran threatened to pull out of nuclear talks if U.S. started hitting Assad forces in Syria.”

So, and as many Syrians have contended for years, allowing for the ongoing mass slaughter in Syria was the price the Obama administration agreed to pay in order to get the coveted deal with Iran. No wonder, Obama’s head has turned white. At some deep level, he must understand the horror of what he had done. Or, at least, that’s what he wants us to believe.


The similarities between the Corbyn and Trump phenomena are disguised by the almost comic differences between the two politicians. Mr Corbyn primly insists that he “doesn’t do” personal abuse; Mr Trump does almost nothing else. The Labour leader is most at home in his allotment garden; Mr Trump’s natural environment is a penthouse suite. Mr Corbyn is on the far-left. Mr Trump is on the far-right. Mr Corbyn is an internationalist; Mr Trump is a nationalist. But, despite these differences, the two leaders have quite a lot in common. Both are “anti-system” politicians. Both have seized control of their parties by mobilising new groups of activists and voters. The Trump and Corbyn activists despise their parties’ old-guards and often have an undercurrent of violence in their rhetoric. […]

Instead of introducing creative new ideas, Messrs Corbyn and Trump have merely succeeded in recycling some bad old ones: state control of the economy in the case of Mr Corbyn; and America-first isolationism in the case of Mr Trump. These two individuals may never gain real power. But their rise to prominence is a sign of a real sickness in British and American democracy.

Both men won’t rush to help a NATO ally. Both admire Putin.


Now Trending


Speaking out of one’s ass seems to be a Trump family trait: Eric Trump blames Syrian refugees for 15 years of wage stagnation.

© Ammar Abdulhamid | All rights reserved. No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated for stand-alone materials. For modes of sharing, please contact the author.