Livestream out of Syria

Kaos said:
Well considering that the army is fighting to preserve Syria's secular fabric then yes I'd say he is protecting the minorities. Unlike almost every other nation in the middle east, Syrians enjoy the rare freedom to practice their religion freely and without oppression. The very people Assad is fighting wish to reverse all that by imposing an Islamic caliphate which would only encompass those who abide to their extremist doctrine of Salafist Islam. Which means those that get left out...well considering Al-Qaedas modus operandi its not hard to predict how their fate will turn out.

Consider this photo:
248075_10100484829644669_1824422507_n.jpg

That testaments the secular society Syria has always been. If the Army succumbs and the FSA prove victorious, that photo will prove to be a remnant of the past as opposed to a reflection of the present.

As for your second point - well considering that drone attacks serve as one of the most common causes in radicalising otherwise apathetic Muslims in various nations, Obama isn't doing a very good job of protecting his citizens. He seems to be continuing the precarious path of his predecessor.
Click to expand...

Assad is for preserving himself..nothing more. Stop peddling this nonsense he is for any minority. He caused this entire disaster. Obama's drone attacks are the only way to protect Americans. As I have said, it is not perfect. But these terrorists are not suddenly going to love the US if he stops those attacks. We know Iran is so very happy to spread terrorism around the world...so they will continue to sponsor them. So lets get real. In no way is Obama as bad as Bush...stop deluding yourself.
 
holyland red said:
That's like saying Syrian oppression, including dad's massacres, make the human organ eating we've witnessed understandable too. My point still stands that blaming others with hypocricy is tricky. Yourself, VidaRed and Mr. Danny stood firmly on the side of the Sunni fundamentalists when it suited your agenda.
Click to expand...

'agenda' being the operative word.
 
holyland red said:
To the Iranians themselves. Their nuclear program is advancing faster than ever.

Levelling Iran was never an option, nor it should be. The nuclear program can be brought to a halt by destroying not more than a dozen sites without any damage to populated areas. It appears that Israel will have to do the dirty job on its own, despite Obama's "options on the table".
Click to expand...

we must agree to differ about how to contain Iran's nuclear program. Your action will provoke a full scale war in the middle east...surely you must realise that. Perhaps that is what you want.
 
holyland red said:
That's like saying Syrian oppression, including dad's massacres, make the human organ eating we've witnessed understandable too. My point still stands that blaming others with hypocricy is tricky. Yourself, VidaRed and Mr. Danny stood firmly on the side of the Sunni fundamentalists when it suited your agenda.
Click to expand...

1- We don't use the words Sunni or Shiite.. You're the one who does that, for known reasons..

2- What Sunni fundamentalists? Are you talking about Hamas?

3- Are you sure you know what hypocrisy is?
 
Seeing those children dead...especially the one little girl with her eyes open drove me round the bend yesterday. I could not even watch the 'watered down' newscasts. Switched channels. I want to see how Kaos and Vida Red justify this chemical attack. Protecting the Syrian minority?
 
Red Dreams said:
Assad is for preserving himself..nothing more. Stop peddling this nonsense he is for any minority. He caused this entire disaster. Obama's drone attacks are the only way to protect Americans. As I have said, it is not perfect. But these terrorists are not suddenly going to love the US if he stops those attacks. We know Iran is so very happy to spread terrorism around the world...so they will continue to sponsor them. So lets get real. In no way is Obama as bad as Bush...stop deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Iran has very little to do with the terrorists you're fighting now.. You were the ones who helped create the problem in the first place, not Iran. (I'm assuming you're an American)
 
Danny1982 said:
Indeed. Iran has very little to do with the terrorists you're fighting now.. You were the ones who helped create the problem in the first place, not Iran. (I'm assuming you're an American)
Click to expand...

Iran does not sponsor terrorism? We have fought Iran sponsored terrorism all the time. Splitting hairs really. In any case drone attacks work. Yes. I am an American. btw most Americans were never in favour of Bush invading Iraq.
 
Red Dreams said:
Seeing those children dead...especially the one little girl with her eyes open drove me round the bend yesterday. I could not even watch the 'watered down' newscasts. Switched channels. I want to see how Kaos and Vida Red justify this chemical attack. Protecting the Syrian minority?
Click to expand...

You need to calm down and try to think more sensibly. Nobody will try to justify it. It's a crime, and it's ridiculous to even try to bring up a debate about it, let alone mentioning names and trying to put words in others' mouths.

The thing you're apparently missing here is: what makes you think that Assad did indeed do it? I'm not saying till this moment that he didn't, because like any sensible person, I'd like to wait a bit more so we know more about the incident, but logically, it doesn't make any sense that Assad actually did it.. On the other hand it does make a lot of sense that the rebels (especially that many of them aren't even Syrian, so wouldn't care much about the Syrian people) are actually the ones who did it.. Don't you agree?
 
Red Dreams said:
Iran does not sponsor terrorism? We have fought Iran sponsored terrorism all the time. Splitting hairs really. In any case drone attacks work. Yes. I am an American. btw most Americans were never in favour of Bush invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

Where? Whom are you talking about? I thought Al-Qaeda are the main terrorists you're fighting.
 
Danny1982 said:
You need to calm down and try to think more sensibly. Nobody will try to justify it. It's a crime, and it's ridiculous to even try to bring up a debate about it, let alone mentioning names and trying to put words in others' mouths.

The thing you're apparently missing here is: what makes you think that Assad did indeed do it? I'm not saying till this moment that he didn't, because like any sensible person, I'd like to wait a bit more so we know more about the incident, but logically, it doesn't make any sense that Assad actually did it.. On the other hand it does make a lot of sense that the rebels (especially that many of them aren't even Syrian, so wouldn't care much about the Syrian people) are actually the ones who did it.. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/syria-war-chemical-attack_n_3793966.html

unless they are making all this up.
 
Red Dreams said:
Seeing those children dead...especially the one little girl with her eyes open drove me round the bend yesterday. I could not even watch the 'watered down' newscasts. Switched channels. I want to see how Kaos and Vida Red justify this chemical attack. Protecting the Syrian minority?
Click to expand...

Its touching to see you so traumatised by the horrors Syrian children have endured, yet it would be nice if you also spared a fraction of that same empathy towards the children killed in that Yemeni school which Obama had authorised to hit with drones...amongst the many others he's been directly responsible for killing. I'm not one to playing the emotional boasting card, but I've lived through and seen horrors very similar to the ones the Syrian people are currently enduring, so your sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit could do with a rest.

Considering that Assad is the new fashionable public enemy number one in your media, its understandable that your mind has been inoculated with this simplistic notion of him being the evil mastermind setting out to murder his people. I'm not 'defending' this allegation of him using chemical weapons on his people because that's all it is at this stage - an allegation. If you've been paying attention many of these allegations sourcing from the FSA side have proven to be nothing but bogus, fabricated pieces of propaganda and they're certainly repeat offenders. Moreover it doesn't make sense for him to use chemical weapons at a time where UN inspectors are in the country and hence when he's facing the most scrutiny. Instead of jumping on your high horse how about you take a step back and actually wait for some impartial evidence to materialise before going on a hysterical rant implicating some of us as genocidal endorsers.
 
Kaos said:
Its touching to see you so traumatised by the horrors Syrian children have endured, yet it would be nice if you also spared a fraction of that same empathy towards the children killed in that Yemeni school which Obama had authorised to hit with drones...amongst the many others he's been directly responsible for killing. I'm not one to playing the emotional boasting card, but I've lived through and seen horrors very similar to the ones the Syrian people are currently enduring, so your sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit could do with a rest.

Considering that Assad is the new fashionable public enemy number one in your media, its understandable that your mind has been inoculated with this simplistic notion of him being the evil mastermind setting out to murder his people. I'm not 'defending' this allegation of him using chemical weapons on his people because that's all it is at this stage - an allegation. If you've been paying attention many of these allegations sourcing from the FSA side have proven to be nothing but bogus, fabricated pieces of propaganda and they're certainly repeat offenders. Moreover it doesn't make sense for him to use chemical weapons at a time where UN inspectors are in the country and hence when he's facing the most scrutiny. Instead of jumping on your high horse how about you take a step back and actually wait for some impartial evidence to materialise before going on a hysterical rant implicating some of us as genocidal endorsers.
Click to expand...

It has to be mentioned that the impartial Chinese and Russians made sure we don't get the necessary evidence.
 
Kaos said:
Its touching to see you so traumatised by the horrors Syrian children have endured, yet it would be nice if you also spared a fraction of that same empathy towards the children killed in that Yemeni school which Obama had authorised to hit with drones...amongst the many others he's been directly responsible for killing. I'm not one to playing the emotional boasting card, but I've lived through and seen horrors very similar to the ones the Syrian people are currently enduring, so your sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit could do with a rest.

Considering that Assad is the new fashionable public enemy number one in your media, its understandable that your mind has been inoculated with this simplistic notion of him being the evil mastermind setting out to murder his people. I'm not 'defending' this allegation of him using chemical weapons on his people because that's all it is at this stage - an allegation. If you've been paying attention many of these allegations sourcing from the FSA side have proven to be nothing but bogus, fabricated pieces of propaganda and they're certainly repeat offenders. Moreover it doesn't make sense for him to use chemical weapons at a time where UN inspectors are in the country and hence when he's facing the most scrutiny. Instead of jumping on your high horse how about you take a step back and actually wait for some impartial evidence to materialise before going on a hysterical rant implicating some of us as genocidal endorsers.
Click to expand...

oh..I'm so touched that you lived through this horror ...I have not seen any condemnation of your hero Assad though. He is a mass murderer.But you support him. You have no credibility.
 
Red Dreams said:
we must agree to differ about how to contain Iran's nuclear program. Your action will provoke a full scale war in the middle east...surely you must realise that. Perhaps that is what you want.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to say that those least interested in ward are the people who live in the areas likely to be most affected. Those who wouldn't be in aposition where they avoid the carnage by flipping TV channels.

Still, the dilemma facing Israeli leaders is between pretty bad alternatives. The war you envisage is one whereas the other is living under the threat of nukes in the hands of Khamenai. what would be your choice if Iran had missiles capable of hitting hte East Coast?
 
holyland red said:
I think it is fair to say that those least interested in ward are the people who live in the areas likely to be most affected. Those who wouldn't be in aposition where they avoid the carnage by flipping TV channels.

Still, the dilemma facing Israeli leaders is between pretty bad alternatives. The war you envisage is one whereas the other is living under the threat of nukes in the hands of Khamenai. what would be your choice if Iran had missiles capable of hitting hte East Coast?
Click to expand...

Iran may want nukes...they wont get them. Israel and the US will make sure of that. Though they may be religious fecks...they are not insane...hope so anyways.

Look you guys can wipe them out all by yourselves. But why give all those other crazies around Israel an excuse? Israel is the only reliable country in the Middle East the West has as a friend. Why drag yourselves down to their level.
 
BBC Fivelive dedicated the opening section of their late news programme to the alleged chemical weapons attack, whilst the editorial slant of the coverage did annoy there was also had an expert of WMD in Syria as a guest, and she pointed out that the reported symptoms are not consistent with sarin which has been suspected in the earlier incidents.

The general trend of the PR in recent times had been a a negative one for the rebels, it is a puzzle to understand why an indiscriminate bombardment of this location would be the moment to introduce chemcial weapons on such scale to the conflict.

I see that the French are calling for direct military intervention in response, well let's see them be at the fore in this plan of theirs.

For years in Afghanistan it was primarily the the US, UK and Canada [with smaller contingents of Dutch and Danish troops i think] in the most dangerous locations, but now Paris is willing to send its into the danger of advanced Russian anti-air systems? Thsi woudl make a change.
 
Red Dreams said:
Iran may want nukes...they wont get them. Israel and the US will make sure of that. Though they may be religious fecks...they are not insane...hope so anyways.

Look you guys can wipe them out all by yourselves. But why give all those other crazies around Israel an excuse? Israel is the only reliable country in the Middle East the West has as a friend. Why drag yourselves down to their level.
Click to expand...


Look, this is not tag team WWF. The US has a much wider margin for error, hence their urgency of making sure Khamenai doesn't get his new toys isn't a given. Israel can't "hope" that lot aren't insane, as they publically voice their aspirations for an Israel-free region.

Still, Israel can not wipe out anyone, and has no reason to wish that Iran is "wiped out". The nuclear program facilities need to be targeted, and they probably will be if Israel's leaders are convinced that the job can be done and that containment is not an option. This has nothing to do with dragging anyone to an alleged "lower level".

As for Western "friendship", well...let me just say that I'm glad that at the end of the day when it comes to Israel's security interests it has the capabilities to look after itself.
 
Red Dreams said:
at least we agree the military intervention is a no go. The US wont invade in any case. My preference is the Syrian people sort out what they want for a post Assad government. It wont be perfect as far as the West is concerned...but nothing ever is. The UN would have a huge role in the humanitarian disaster that is already brewing.
Click to expand...

With the many thousands of Islamist fighters being drawn to the country or fostered from Syria itself it won't be the 'people' calling the shots, and some of those arms will be indirectly sourced from the US unfortunately.

Qatar, Saudi and Turkey unleash their dogs for some real life command and conquer so whose left to look out for the people caught in the middle?
 
holyland red said:
Look, this is not tag team WWF. The US has a much wider margin for error, hence their urgency of making sure Khamenai doesn't get his new toys isn't a given. Israel can't "hope" that lot aren't insane, as they publically voice their aspirations for an Israel-free region.

Still, Israel can not wipe out anyone, and has no reason to wish that Iran is "wiped out". The nuclear program facilities need to be targeted, and they probably will be if Israel's leaders are convinced that the job can be done and that containment is not an option. This has nothing to do with dragging anyone to an alleged "lower level".

As for Western "friendship", well...let me just say that I'm glad that at the end of the day when it comes to Israel's security interests it has the capabilities to look after itself.
Click to expand...

so you think..targeting these facilities will have no larger consequence?
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
BBC Fivelive dedicated the opening section of their late news programme to the alleged chemical weapons attack, whilst the editorial slant of the coverage did annoy there was also had an expert of WMD in Syria as a guest, and she pointed out that the reported symptoms are not consistent with sarin which has been suspected in the earlier incidents.

The general trend of the PR in recent times had been a a negative one for the rebels, it is a puzzle to understand why an indiscriminate bombardment of this location would be the moment to introduce chemcial weapons on such scale to the conflict.

I see that the French are calling for direct military intervention in response, well let's see them be at the fore in this plan of theirs.

For years in Afghanistan it was primarily the the US, UK and Canada [with smaller contingents of Dutch and Danish troops i think] in the most dangerous locations, but now Paris is willing to send its into the danger of advanced Russian anti-air systems? Thsi woudl make a change.
Click to expand...

The Syrian air defense system has been overhyped, mainly by Dempsey who didn't want the US air force to get in the mix. Syria has been under several aerial attacks in recent months, and that system of theirs is yet to record any success. Mind you, the French could still improve their stats...This certainly isn't Lybia or Mali.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
With the many thousands of Islamist fighters being drawn to the country or fostered from Syria itself it won't be the 'people' calling the shots, and some of those arms will be indirectly sourced from the US unfortunately.

Qatar, Saudi and Turkey unleash their dogs for some real life command and conquer so whose left to look out for the people caught in the middle?
Click to expand...

Post Iraq/Afghanistan fact is the US cannot be the world's policeman...there is no general support for it here. The reality whether we like it or not is these countries are on their own. What do you think is going to happen to Egypt for example?
Its all unwinding rapidly.
 
Red Dreams said:
so you think..targeting these facilities will have no larger consequence?
Click to expand...

Of course it will, but if you were Netanyahu you'd have to weigh the alternative. That would be managing Israel's security interests when the Iranians and their ME buddies (Hizballah et al.) are armed with nukes.
 
Red Dreams said:
Israel...fortunately is not going to go it alone and start a war they cannot finish alone...imo.
Click to expand...

Preferably, Israel wouldn't be left on its own on this one. Still, as you pointed out in another post the US public would not support opening a new front when the threat is not immediate. The imbecile you had in office prior to the current one made sure of that by going on silly adventures. Therefore, Israel might bein a position that it feels it has no viable option by going alone here (a) because it has no choice, and (b) thinking that US will be dragged into this as a result.
 
holyland red said:
Preferably, Israel wouldn't be left on its own on this one. Still, as you pointed out in another post the US public would not support opening a new front when the threat is not immediate. The imbecile you had in office prior to the current one made sure of that by going on silly adventures. Therefore, Israel might bein a position that it feels it has no viable option by going alone here (a) because it has no choice, and (b) thinking that US will be dragged into this as a result.
Click to expand...

they may have their tiffs...but the US and Israel do work together closely on these things. I seriously doubt any per-emptive strike. It would be impossible to contain such an action without all and sundry joining in.
 
holyland red said:
No, you don't. It's all a Zionist plot to divide the Muslim world.
Click to expand...
The existence of the Islamic sects is one thing, and naming political movements/actions/fights after religious sects is something else.

The Jews exist, and they don't like Muslims, but to say that the "Jews bombed the Muslims" when Israel bomb Lebanon or Palestine is stupid to say the least, and if I do it on purpose then there is a goal that I want to achieve, either gather my fellow Muslims to fight the Jews, or persecute the Jews in my territory (that had nothing to do with the bombing) and use that as an excuse.

And nobody said the Zionists invented this concept, nor is Israel the only beneficiary of it right now.

holyland red said:
Yes, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't remember talking about Hamas. Can you remind me?

holyland red said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy is not to agree with somebody about some issue, and disagree with the same person about another issue. Hypocrisy is to have two different opinions about the exact same issue.

I can agree with the US about some issue, and disagree with them about another issue. That's not hypocrisy.

An example for hypocrisy would be to pretend that your objective is to spread democracy in Iran, when in fact Iran did have their first democratically elected government in 1951 only for you topple it through a coup, and install your own dictatorship to protect your interests.

Hypocrisy is to blame Assad for 100,000+ deaths in Syria (when he's clearly fighting Al-Qaeda), while blaming Al-Qaeda for 100,000+ deaths in Iraq, when the US was in charge of the fight.

Hypocrisy is when you pretend that all you care about is the Syrian people, when at the same time you say this:
"The United States should not intervene militarily in Syria’s civil war because rebels battling Bashar Assad’s regime aren’t prepared to promote American interests if the tide shifts in their favor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Wednesday." - which in itself is a pretty honest statement.

And the list goes on...
 
Come on, in both this and the Egypt threads you find the same people defending the indefensible because facing the MB, global jihadists/salafists and the like justifies all measures. You can't blame the Yanks for siding with these elements in Syria while fighting their corner a bit further South, and call the Yanks hypocrites at the same time.

If you can't remember discussing Hamas you're more than welcome to browse the Gaza threads. There are dozens of pages of exchanges whenever Israel fires a few shots- a larger yield than that of a chemical massacre in Syria.

And I'm with you no matter what name you're gonna call the Yanks on the Syria issue. No need to try and educate me. BTW, what would you call letting AQ cross the border to Iraq to fight the Yanks and then "clearly fight AQ"? This murderous campaign has lasted for more than 2 years, with massacres carried out by the regime long before the introduction of AQ to the scene. It's shameful that Arabs use the infiltration of these nutjobs to justify the brutality of Assad and his army and militias.

Incidently, what do you think about the role the Chinese and Russians play in this civil war? Are they hypocrites too?
 
holyland red said:
Come on, in both this and the Egypt threads you find the same people defending the indefensible because facing the MB, global jihadists/salafists and the like justifies all measures. You can't blame the Yanks for siding with these elements in Syria while fighting their corner a bit further South, and call the Yanks hypocrites at the same time.

If you can't remember discussing Hamas you're more than welcome to browse the Gaza threads. There are dozens of pages of exchanges whenever Israel fires a few shots- a larger yield than that of a chemical massacre in Syria.

And I'm with you no matter what name you're gonna call the Yanks on the Syria issue. No need to try and educate me. BTW, what would you call letting AQ cross the border to Iraq to fight the Yanks and then "clearly fight AQ"? This murderous campaign has lasted for more than 2 years, with massacres carried out by the regime long before the introduction of AQ to the scene. It's shameful that Arabs use the infiltration of these nutjobs to justify the brutality of Assad and his army and militias.

Incidently, what do you think about the role the Chinese and Russians play in this civil war? Are they hypocrites too?
Click to expand...

I don't quite get your first paragraph to be honest.

The difference between those rockets and the chemical attack is, we don't know yet who's responsible for the attack, and we seem to have two totally different ideas about who it could be (assuming there was a chemical attack indeed, because that little we know about the incident so far).. And don't worry, there will be much more said about it for a long time to come, once new evidences start to appear..

You can't say that Al-Qaeda was crossing the borders freely in the past ten years, and at the same time say that Al-Qaeda only appeared late in Syria in the fight against Assad.

We're not using Al-Qaeda as "justification", nor did Assad kill 100,000+ Syrians. (Do you know that about 40,000 of those 100,000 are Syrian army members?)

The situation is exactly like it was with the US in Iraq. 100,000+ Iraqis were killed in Iraq after 2003. There were honest Iraqis who were simply fighting the occupying forces too. Not everybody was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Now can you please answer my question: Who was to blame? Who was the murderer who killed those 100,000+? Answering this question helps you understand our position in this conflict.

Before giving you my opinion about Russia and China on the Syrian issue, can you name the worst things they've done in this conflict so far? Also keep in mind, it's much harder (and less meaningful) to call a country "a hypocrite", when they're not trying to act like the policeman of the world.
 
Danny1982 said:
I don't quite get your first paragraph to be honest.

The difference between those rockets and the chemical attack is, we don't know yet who's responsible for the attack, and we seem to have two totally different ideas about who it could be (assuming there was a chemical attack indeed, because that little we know about the incident so far).. And don't worry, there will be much more said about it for a long time to come, once new evidences start to appear..

You can't say that Al-Qaeda was crossing the borders freely in the past ten years, and at the same time say that Al-Qaeda only appeared late in Syria in the fight against Assad.

We're not using Al-Qaeda as "justification", nor did Assad kill 100,000+ Syrians. (Do you know that about 40,000 of those 100,000 are Syrian army members?)

The situation is exactly like it was with the US in Iraq. 100,000+ Iraqis were killed in Iraq after 2003. There were honest Iraqis who were simply fighting the occupying forces too. Not everybody was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Now can you please answer my question: Who was to blame? Who was the murderer who killed those 100,000+? Answering this question helps you understand our position in this conflict.

Before giving you my opinion about Russia and China on the Syrian issue, can you name the worst things they've done in this conflict so far? Also keep in mind, it's much harder (and less meaningful) to call a country "a hypocrite", when they're not trying to act like the policeman of the world.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is meant to highlight the inconsistency in supporting Assad's in his supposedly all out war on Muslim fundamentalism while supporting the latter in a nearby front. If (Sunni) fundamentalism is a threat than this applies to other ME corners.

There is a difference between allowing AQ travel across the Syria-Iraq border and having AQ fighting on the ground in Syria. The Syrian crisis was well underway when the latter started.

I never ever justified or supported the US invasion of Iraq. You are welcome to do a quick search. I always thought it was ill-advised and shameful. It's regretful though that people are blinded by their hate for the US, even if justified, to the extent they support its enemies no matter what. You will also find that I never quoted numbers and attributed blame in the current Syrian crisis. Whether it's 10,000 or 100,000 that he killed, Assad shouldn't rule that country anymore. Unfortunately, the alternatives are probably worse.
 
Danny1982 said:
Before giving you my opinion about Russia and China on the Syrian issue, can you name the worst things they've done in this conflict so far? Also keep in mind, it's much harder (and less meaningful) to call a country "a hypocrite", when they're not trying to act like the policeman of the world.
Click to expand...

Both countries put their interests ahead of those of the murdered Syrian people. Hardly shocking, but failing to acknowledge that while calling the Yanks hypocrites is...hypocricy.
 
The Russians and Chinese are a different side to the same coin the Yanks are on. Both sets of powers have backed their horse based on regional interests, both sets of power could not care less for the Syrian people.
 
Kaos said:
The Russians and Chinese are a different side to the same coin the Yanks are on. Both sets of powers have backed their horse based on regional interests, both sets of power could not care less for the Syrian people.
Click to expand...

Exactly, yet they don't get half the shit the Yanks are getting on here. Hypocricy anyone?
 
holyland red said:
The first paragraph is meant to highlight the inconsistency in supporting Assad's in his supposedly all out war on Muslim fundamentalism while supporting the latter in a nearby front. If (Sunni) fundamentalism is a threat than this applies to other ME corners.

There is a difference between allowing AQ travel across the Syria-Iraq border and having AQ fighting on the ground in Syria. The Syrian crisis was well underway when the latter started.

I never ever justified or supported the US invasion of Iraq. You are welcome to do a quick search. I always thought it was ill-advised and shameful. It's regretful though that people are blinded by their hate for the US, even if justified, to the extent they support its enemies no matter what. You will also find that I never quoted numbers and attributed blame in the current Syrian crisis. Whether it's 10,000 or 100,000 that he killed, Assad shouldn't rule that country anymore. Unfortunately, the alternatives are probably worse.
Click to expand...

But I don't support the MB. I actually thought that they will quickly become a dictatorship of their own, and foresaw a dark future for Egypt..

If Al-Qaeda were passing in significant numbers, then you can't control their presence in Syria. By the way, you're mistaken if you think that Al-Qaeda's presence in Syria only came late in the conflict. It was only made public later on, when they thought they've solidified their positions and there is no need to be secretive about it anymore.. Also, you're wrong if you think that Al-Nusra front is the only fraction that is affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

The thing is it's not only about your support for the invasion or not.. You have to go as far as you're going in this case, i.e. send a drone to bomb Bush and his family.

And for your information, I was against the US policy in Iraq, from start to finish really (and by start I mean back before 1980).. But in their fight against Al-Qaeda in Iraq I still wanted the US to win.

And you're right about your last statement. Much worse. And that's basically the reason behind our position in this conflict.
 
holyland red said:
Both countries put their interests ahead of those of the murdered Syrian people. Hardly shocking, but failing to acknowledge that while calling the Yanks hypocrites is...hypocricy.
Click to expand...

I've already made my point. Every single country in the world care about their interests ahead of anything else.. There is only one country though that is trying to play the role of the policeman of the world, and everybody knows who that is.
 
Danny1982 said:
But I don't support the MB. I actually thought that they will quickly become a dictatorship of their own, and foresaw a dark future for Egypt..

If Al-Qaeda were passing in significant numbers, then you can't control their presence in Syria. By the way, you're mistaken if you think that Al-Qaeda's presence in Syria only came late in the conflict. It was only made public later on, when they thought they've solidified their positions and there is no need to be secretive about it anymore.. Also, you're wrong if you think that Al-Nusra front is the only fraction that is affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

The thing is it's not only about your support for the invasion or not.. You have to go as far as you're going in this case, i.e. send a drone to bomb Bush and his family.

And for your information, I was against the US policy in Iraq, from start to finish really (and by start I mean back before 1980).. But in their fight against Al-Qaeda in Iraq I still wanted the US to win.

And you're right about your last statement. Much worse. And that's basically the reason behind our position in this conflict.
Click to expand...

Hamas=MB, yet it got plenty of support on this board simply because it fighting the bad guys. Did any of its supporters on here really give a shit about the price your ordinary Palestinian paid for the exercise? Like feck they did, other than use it for criticizing Israel/US.

The Der'aa protests were spontaneous, and were brutally crushed by Assad. There was no hint of AQ there.

AQ is also present in Sinai and Gaza, and I recall people on here blaming Husni Mubarak for "being on Israel's payroll" guarding it's Sothern border. Again, the US can't be solely blamed for inconsistency here.
 
Danny1982 said:
I've already made my point. Every single country in the world care about their interests ahead of anything else.. There is only one country though that is trying to play the role of the policeman of the world, and everybody knows who that is.
Click to expand...

My gut feeling is that even you would rather live in a world with the Yanks rather than China/Russia playing the role of global police. One thing I've noticed here is that the biggest critics of the US/West choose to enjoy the freedom they offer and live there. You claim to support Assad for lack of better alternatives. Following the same logic you should pledge allegiance to the flag...
 
holyland red said:
Hamas=MB, yet it got plenty of support on this board simply because it fighting the bad guys. Did any of its supporters on here really give a shit about the price your ordinary Palestinian paid for the exercise? Like feck they did, other than use it for criticizing Israel/US.

The Der'aa protests were spontaneous, and were brutally crushed by Assad. There was no hint of AQ there.

AQ is also present in Sinai and Gaza, and I recall people on here blaming Husni Mubarak for "being on Israel's payroll" guarding it's Sothern border. Again, the US can't be solely blamed for inconsistency here.
Click to expand...

Exactly like the protests that happened in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.. The escalation that happened after that though is something else.
 
Danny1982 said:
Exactly like the protests that happened in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.. The escalation that happened after that though is something else.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. You side with a mass murderer because the Yanks don't care when their ally oil sheiks abuse human rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.