Syria: This is not a revolution. Stop this nonsense.

[Woeler]

Alright, so Syria is the new target I gues. The chemical weapons Assad is said to be using is a big fat propaganda lie. The last time news about chemical weapons came from Syria it turned out the rebels used them.

Why would Syria's Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?

If Assad were going to use chemical weapons, wouldn't he use them against the hired mercenary army trying to oust him? What does he gain attacking women and children? Nothing! The gain is all on the side of the US Government desperate to get the war agenda going again.

As I type these words, US trained and equipped forces are already across the border into Syria, and US naval forces are sailing into position to launch a massive cruise missile attack into Syria that will surely kill more Syrians than were claimed to have died in the chemical attack.

The US Government is listening to Wall Street and Israel and doesn't care about what the American people think.
But what we, The People can do, must do, is send a message to the world that we do not believe the war-starting lies by the US Government. We know this is just another one of the same lies we were told about Saddam's nuclear weapons. In one country they are fighting Islamic terrorists and in the other they are funding them.

And please, stop saying this is a revolution. This is not a revolution. A revolution is done by the people, not by importing foreigners (with Islamic ideas) to rebel against the leader and the people.

The only one protecting civilians is Assad himself. The islamic rebels are executing non-believers, coptic christians and even the ''wrong kind'' of muslims every single day. There are even videos on the net of rebels executing children.

This war must not start. There will only be one loser, no matter who wins. Assad won't be the loser, the islamic nutcases won't be the losers, the west won't be the losers. No, the Syrian people will be the losers. They are going to lose their homes, they are going to lose their families and they are going to lose their future.

You don't have any business in Syria. GTFO.

Oh, and on a sidenote: Assad is the most secular dictator in all of Africa.

[Regulus]

Woeler!

I haven't actually read up on this, but if it turns out to be an excuse to start another war, I wouldn't be surprised. It's certainly not like it would be the first time.

I suppose the true question is this: what is it that Syria has that we want to take from them?

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"]Woeler!

I haven't actually read up on this, but if it turns out to be an excuse to start another war, I wouldn't be surprised. It's certainly not like it would be the first time.

I suppose the true question is this: what is it that Syria has that we want to take from them?[/quote]

Regulus!!!

I haven't actually done any research on Syria's natural resources. I'll see what I can find after I come back from work.

[Simbaholikov]

If it's not for Natural Resources then it's definitely because they want another US-aligned puppet government in the Middle East - much like Israel is - and to put pressure on Iran for it's supposed 'Nuclear Weapons Development', as is America's way.

Also 'amuses' me that Western governments, and especially America, are practically ignoring all the bad things the rebels are doing. So lets see, the rebels have in the past months: Fired 2 missles at a Russian passenger jet, been found to have chemical agents in their some of their hideouts, kidnapped UN peacekeepers, mutilated and eaten the bodies of government soldiers, and possible links to Al-Qaeda.
The Government has been accused of Chemical Attacks on civilians, which is unconfirmed.
And yet the majority of Western governments want to aid the rebels? Riiiight, sound logic right there. Bravo.

Also seems America hasn't learnt the lesson from the last time it gave aid to terrorists, the Soviet War in Afghanistan when the CIA trained and gave weapons to the Mujahideen, the Mujahideen ultimately turned around and used it against America.

'Forget not the lessons of the past.'

[DGFone]

In Syria, it really is a case of basically black vs black morality.

On one side, you have a dictator willing to kill his own people. Poison gas or not, he is massacring his own people.

On the other side we have the rebels. Most of them are regular people who are fed up with the dictator. But at the same time, many are also willing to kill their own people. This is the side that will also stop at nothing to see Syria become the next Great Muslim Holy Land. Radical Muslim Holy Land.

So what do I say we do? Nothing.

If we have to do something, then we need to remove the leaders on both sides. If not even more people.

And really, Woeler, again with this US nonsense? Last I recall, Syria was in civil war since... when did Libya go to civil war? 2011? Just after Libya went into civil war, Syria went to civil war as well. Libya had money, which is why the entire Western world, not just the US, went after Gaddafi. Everyone, even Europeans, wanted a bit of his $$$.

The fact that Washington DC is discussing whether to go in or not now, versus two years ago, shows you how much we are considering going there for profit. If there was any cash to gain in Syria, we would have been there long before. Like in Libya. Ultimately, you need to remember that it's not just the US here, but to quote Simbaholic: "Western governments".

If the US will invade, it will do so along with the UK, France, and a number of other Western countries as well. So you might as well remove that insulting picture you put up, seeing that it's not just the US that is considering getting involved versus acting alone out of greed.

[TheLionPrince]

[quote="Simbaholic"]Also seems America hasn't learnt the lesson from the last time it gave aid to terrorists, the Soviet War in Afghanistan when the CIA trained and gave weapons to the Mujahideen, the Mujahideen ultimately turned around and used it against America.

'Forget not the lessons of the past.'[/quote]

Not exactly. After the Soviet-Afghan War, some factions of the Mujahideen fought each other for control of Afghanistan in the Afghan Civil War with members joining the Afghan Northern Alliance (which was supported by the U.S. among other nations) and the Taliban. Not to mention, the Afghan Northern Alliance opposed the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, which supported the Taliban.

As for this theory that U.S. is invading Syria like we supposedly invaded Iraq for their natural resources, this is not exactly true since the U.S. didn't gain much of Iraq's natural resources after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. Back in June, The New York Times reported that China is currently the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq buying nearly half of their oil production. This goes without saying that back in April 2011, President Obama enacted an economic sanction on Syria in the form of Executive Order 13572.

[Woeler]

[quote="DGFone"]In Syria, it really is a case of basically black vs black morality.

On one side, you have a dictator willing to kill his own people. Poison gas or not, he is massacring his own people.[/quote]

Assad is not killing civilians on purpose. Assad is killing jihadist rebels. Rebels who do kill his people. This whole ''evil dictator'' thing is propaganda nonsense. Is he a nice guy? Probably not. Is he a killing machine? No. Is he worse than islamists? No.

[quote="DGFone"]On the other side we have the rebels. Most of them are regular people imported foreign jihadists who are fed up with the dictator wanting to install an islamist state. But at the same time, many are also willing to kill their own people. This is the side that will also stop at nothing to see Syria become the next Great Muslim Holy Land. Radical Muslim Holy Land.[/quote]



[quote="DGFone"]And really, Woeler, again with this US nonsense? [/quote]
Yest, yes it is. Because the more my university forces me to study international relationships, the more I begin to hate the country.

[quote="DGFone"]Last I recall, Syria was in civil war since... when did Libya go to civil war? 2011? Just after Libya went into civil war, Syria went to civil war as well. Libya had money, which is why the entire Western world, not just the US, went after Gaddafi. Everyone, even Europeans, wanted a bit of his $$$.[/quote]
This is not a civil war and this is not a revolution. This is an ideological rebellion created by foreigners.

[quote="DGFone"]The fact that Washington DC is discussing whether to go in or not now, versus two years ago, shows you how much we are considering going there for profit. If there was any cash to gain in Syria, we would have been there long before. Like in Libya. Ultimately, you need to remember that it's not just the US here, but to quote Simbaholic: "Western governments".

If the US will invade, it will do so along with the UK, France, and a number of other Western countries as well.[/quote]
No, this is the US's fault, again. Nobody is in anybodies business until the US comes along and starts (falsely) accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The US is already concluding things while UN inspectors have barely begun to research the situation. The last time chemical weapons were used it turned out the rebels used them.

This is the technique that has always been used. Scream as loud as you can until the UN gets involved, and with the UN other countries have to get involved. The UK or France wouldn't even have thought of going there if it weren't for these false accusations and war-plans.

[quote="DGFone"]So you might as well remove that insulting picture you put up, seeing that it's not just the US that is considering getting involved versus acting alone out of greed.[/quote]
I don't know. It's a pretty entertaining image.

Lesson 1 people,
Syrians


Not Syrians


Alrighty people, peace out. I visit again next weer or so. Have looooots of stuff to do.

[DGFone]

I was going to write a wall of text critical of Woeler's above post, but all I can really say is this:

Oh jeez...

[SlayerOfLight]

Those rebels are bloodthursty jihadists. Imagine what would happen to non-islamic people when those jihadist cockroaches take over... But of course the bloody U.S doesn't think about that, because all they're thinking about is WAR and obtaining more resources. The Syria government even denied using chemical weapons, and there's little to no evidence at all that the Syrian president Assad is behind the poison gas... Nothing more then excuses for going to war.

[Azdgari]

Am I on a different planet than people? Was there not a confirmed chemical weapons attack in Syria? Nobody, wherever they are, gets to violate the world's rules on using chemical weapons. Intervention shouldn't even be a question. The Assad regime has long admitted to developing and possessing chemical weapons, they failed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, prior military officials have admitted being ordered to use them, etc etc etc. And this is the same Assad was in hot water from Human Rights Watch for regularly torturing and killing dissidents, yeah? I appreciate a devil's advocate but Assad's been a repressive dictator long before the US cared about his atrocities and his mismanagement of the country led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. And in response Nicholas, yes, the rebellion does have troubling ties to Al-Nasru. But those are still pocketed and certainly not dominant--classifying the entire rebellion as "bloodthirsty jihadists" is inaccurate and unbecoming.