As the leaders of western nations remain mired in a toxic tank of groupthink that says Syria’s Bashar al-Assad must go and that if you disagree, you’re a heartless and ridiculous twit who doesn’t know anything, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained that it’s the rebels who are making Assad’s supporters heartless – by eating them in front of video cameras. What do these geniuses of elitist western thought come back with? Well, nothing, really.

The seven words underlined below represent a “Bingo” moment for Putin.

Via U.K. Guardian:

A diplomatic breakthrough on the Syrian civil war at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland appeared unlikely when the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, chastised the west for considering arming Syrian rebels, saying they ate human organs. He said Russia by contrast was arming the legitimate government of Syria.

Speaking after a difficult meeting with Putin in Downing Street, David Cameron claimed both men were in agreement on the need to end the human catastrophe of the civil war. But there was little to suggest the two men made progress on how to convene a fresh Syrian peace conference in Geneva, let alone who should attend, or its agenda.

In icy exchanges at a press conference, Putin said: “You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”

Putin’s remarks will find an echo on the Conservative benches, where there is strong resistance to arming the Syrian opposition. Cameron has argued that it is possible to arm the pluralist democratic elements of the opposition, and he too wants to drive al-Qaida from Syria.

The Russian President – regardless of what you think of him – was spot on about that humanitarian part. So, if as Putin says, arming the Syrian rebels is not about humanitarian concerns, what is it about?

The simple answer is: Resurrecting the Ottoman Empire and re-establishing an Islamic caliphate. Assad is a nationalist. The rebels want to erase Syria’s borders and have the land absorbed by the same forces behind the Arab Spring. Western leaders are willingly ceding their own power.

Putin presented facts about what the Syrian rebels are doing while Cameron’s argument is that by arming al-Qaida in Syria, al-Qaida can be driven from Syria, which makes as much sense as the infamous line about ‘leading from behind’. Cameron’s position is not only incoherent; it’s irresponsible and completely belies his stated concern for human rights. Yet, western groupthink labels as idiots, those who don’t want Assad gone? Perhaps Mr. Cameron’s new clothes have a conspicuous resemblance to underwear.

Speaking of leading from behind, the guy leading the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, western, groupthink wagon is playing a very influential role relative to Cameron’s stance:

The talks (with) Putin followed a decision by President Barack Obama’s administration to arm rebels trying to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad after the US said it had obtained proof that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Some of the proof was provided by British scientists at Porton Down, and Cameron has now accused Assad of committing war crimes.

Perhaps if ever a case could be made for using chemical weapons, it might include an enemy that eats the organs of its victims for video cameras. Despite this, the only proof we’ve seen that chemical weapons have been used in Syria shows that it was Syrian rebels who used them. Another red flag in this regard is that if Assad used chemical weapons, the death toll would likely be so large that we would have video footage for the whole world to see.

That we don’t should be a cause for pause, not more groupthink.

Speaking of Cameron, yes, he must consider strongly the position of any U.S. administration when setting foreign policy but that doesn’t mean he should accept it blindly and at all costs. Perhaps Cameron should dust off the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that Obama sent back to the U.K. in 2009 (despite White House attempts by Dan Pfeiffer – the guy who said the president’s whereabouts during the Benghazi attacks was “irrelevant” – to debunk this charge, it has been confirmed). Considering what Churchill wrote about Islam, Cameron might be well served to read it:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live… No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” – Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Nonetheless, it appears that western emperors are being led from behind from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue down an untenable path… and without clothes.