Whatever Russia's motives in Syria, one thing is clear: persecuted Syrian Christians favor Russian intervention against the jihadis slaughtering them, while accusing the U.S. and Western allies of only engaging in cosmetic strikes. Here are the words of a Syrian Christian leader — one well acquainted with the persecution his people are experiencing — concerning Russian intervention, as reported in Asia News. Note also what he says of the non-IS rebels being struck by Russia, the groups the U.S. is eager to portray as simply "anti-Assad rebels," but which in fact are also Christian-slaughtering jihadis:

Damascus (AsiaNews) – US air strikes in Syria are window-dressing, and have little real effect on the militias of the Islamic state (IS), who are left free to act on the ground. Instead the Russian attacks in recent days have been effective, forcing jihadists to fall back towards the Iraqi desert. This is according to Msgr. Jacques Behnan Hindo, referring to testimonies of people living in areas of conflict theater. "Moscow’s intervention has been positive – said the prelate who leads the archieparchy Syrian Catholic Hassaké-Nisibis, – because they are really targeting Daesh [Arabic acronym for the IS/ISIS, Islamic State] and the militia are beginning to flee. They fled from the area in about 20 cars in a hurry in the direction of Iraq, leaving another 20 cars on site. A sign of a real retreat. " The bishop of Hassaké-Nisibi lives under constant threat from IS: "I am less than three kilometers from the town – he says – a month ago their offensive was repelled and they folded around the city. In the past two weeks, thanks to the attacks of the Russians, they began to retreat. " In contrast, Msgr. Hindo reserves rather harsh words for the United States, who are not bombing the positions of jihadi militias but the Syrian government. "It's not about being for or against the government – he says – but people never believed in America’s attacks. Only the Kurds have really fought on the ground, but to hold their ground "and it is not plausible that they can, alone, solve the emergency. Besides the United States, France, Britain only speak of "attacking the Daesh, but do not speak of the Nusra Front and other Islamist militias linked to Al Qaeda. Indeed, there are extremist groups that have changed names to rebuild credibility, and these are not even mentioned. This is also a big problem. " The prelate denounces Washington's "ambiguity" seen in the American’s attitude during the seizure of hundreds of Christians originating in the villages of the valley of the river Khabur. "On the night of Feb. 23, when Daesh attacked, the American planes – he says – flew over the area for a long time without intervening. Then for three days we saw no more jets, leaving the field open to the militants. This makes us think that in some way have been helped by the Americans and their ambiguous attitude”.

Click here to read about the most recent Christians to be martyred in Syria — tortured, publicly raped, beheaded, and crucified for refusing to renounce Christ.

Le candidat à l’investiture républicaine] Ben Carson a récemment suscité la controverse en mettant en garde contre la doctrine musulmane de la taqiyya qui permet aux musulmans de mentir aux non-musulmans. J’ai déjà consacré des articles à la validité des arguments de Carson et aux tentatives des médias de le discréditer.

Peu après, Daniel Pipes, le président du Middle East Forum, a attiré mon attention sur une anecdote intéressante.

Dans les années ’80, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, le président du Pakistan, a expliqué à Ronald Reagan [alors président des États-Unis] que les Pakistanais n’avaient aucune objection à signer les accords de Genève [sur le désarmement] tout en continuant à approvisionner en armes les djihadistes afghans qui combattaient l’Union soviétique.

Pourquoi n’y avait-il aucun problème? Selon Zia, «Nous allons simplement mentir à ce sujet-là. C’est ce que nous avons fait durant les huit dernières années.» Il ajouta : «Les musulmans ont le droit de mentir pour une bonne cause.» L’anecdote est rapportée dans le livre From the Cold War to a New Era: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1983-1991, p.280. Cliquez sur l’image à droite (également sur Google Books).

Comparez cette prise de position désinvolte du président d’une nation musulmane avec les affirmations d’Abou El Fadl de l’Université de la Californie à Los Angeles cité par Glenn Kessler du Washington Post qui tentait de démontrer que Carson disait n’importe quoi au sujet de la taqiyya. Selon le professeur musulman, «il n’y a aucune doctrine qui encourage un musulman à mentir pour atteindre un objectif. C’est une invention pure et simple».

Lequel des deux musulmans croyez-vous? Le musulman en position de force qui déclare que «Les musulmans ont le droit de mentir pour une bonne cause», dans ce cas-ci le jihad contre les ‘infidèles’. Ou le musulman vivant en situation minoritaire, entourés d’’infidèles’ américains qui soutient que «il n’y a aucune doctrine qui encourage un musulman à mentir pour atteindre un objectif»?

De toute évidence, il ne semble jamais être venu à l’esprit de Kessler du Washington Post qu’El Fadl lui-même aurait pu avoir exercé ce que Zia appela le «droit [du musulman] à mentir pour une bonne cause». Dans ce cas-ci, la bonne cause c’est d’empêcher les Américains de se mettre à douter des musulmans et de leurs organisations aux États-Unis.