or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Syria and the international dilemma...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Syria and the international dilemma...

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

So let's just assume for this discussion that Assad's army indeed used chemical weapons in Syria and that it was not as alleged by Assad's regime used by the rebels.

 

The usual way to go about this is to call the UN-security-council and use a resolution to condemn Syria for it and to decide upon sanctions, be it economical or military ones.

 

Legally states have souvereignity and so as long as a state doesn't attack outside of its country, no other country is allowed to interfere. 

 

After ww2  five states who have atom-bombs assumed an authority that is above the souvereignity of states. When these five atom-bomb-states are in agreement, they can nullify the souvereignity of a state and order an intervention in the name of restoring or defending world-peace/security.

 

Then there's of course the question of the use of abc-weapons. Internationally there are laws against the use of them, but has Syria signed and ratified any of these. If yes, then Syria could be condemned and sanctioned upon these through the security-council.

 

The idea was to prevent another worldwar.

 

But when not in agreement, ie. when one of the five atombomb-states uses its veto-right, souvereignity of a state can't be breached and action against it can only be used in the usual defending one's own state, ie. when and if the neighbour attacks.

 

In Lybia a UN-resolution was used to weaken Gaddaffi's regime untl the rebels could win.

 

In Iraq an older UN-resolution was used as an excuse to intervene.

 

In Afghanistan the US made the case that 9/11-terror-act was committed by Al-Kaida, and that Afghanistan were harboring Al-Kaida or allied with it, so that attacking Afghanistan would be allowed under self-defense.

 

But in the case of Syria there seems to be no legal instrument to use to intervene.

 

In that instance it seems to be a similar case to the Kosovo-conflict, where the Nato intervened to stop the ethnic cleansing of albans through Serbia's government.

 

The Nato made the case that as a regional unity it can decide to intervene when regional stability is at risk. 

 

There are proponents and opponents of that argumentation. Opponents would usually state that even a regional unity like the Nato needs an authorisation through the Security-council except for the case when a Nato-member was attacked.

 

If one would try to reproduce that model of regional-unity-intervention in the case of Syria, then only the neighbours of Syria could do it, ie. only the arabic council.

 

What do you think?

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #2 of 18
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Legally states have souvereignity and so as long as a state doesn't attack outside of its country, no other country is allowed to interfere. 

 

It was confirmed long ago that Assad had hit Turkey. There's your loophole.


What do you think?

 

I think the UN is basically worthless as a power of anything beyond facilitating discussion.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #3 of 18

CNN is at it again.... just like the rest of them, being led by the nose by those in the corporate media who want war.

 

War is excellent for ratings, and advertisers. Lets have some.

War is good for the media's parent companies which profit handsomely from conflict. Lets have some!

 

Left or right, dem or repub - they're all owned and lick military a$$.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 

Propaganda was always part of warfare. Assad's regime is using propaganda and I don't blame rebels of using it as well. 

 

What is interesting though is that the use of chemical weapons is being used as an excuse for an intervention, because Assad's regime supposedly crossed a red line. Had Assad's army merely carpet-bombed the area with conventional weapons and killed ten times as many people, it wouldn't have caused the same irritation.

 

And interesting as well is that other countries when fighting their wars don't face similar limitations, condemnations nor sanctions:

 

When the US fought against Japan, it used two nukes, when the allied forces fought against Germany, they firebombed numerous german cities, when the US fought in Vietnam against the Vietcong, they used napalm to "clean" whole areas.

 

When Saddam Hussein was an ally of the western world, they helped him build up a huge arsenal of chemical weaponry in order to fight against Iran and the US itself supported Saddam Hussein while he used chemical weapons against Iran.

 

So I have two questions: a) What makes chemical weapons different from other hugely devastating weapons? and b) Why are there different standards for different states?

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #5 of 18

*

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 18
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
*

 

Seems like his identity could be discovered fairly easily given the ability to see his combat record and rank… I don't imagine there are many with his exact combination.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Seems like his identity could be discovered fairly easily given the ability to see his combat record and rank… I don't imagine there are many with his exact combination.

 

My guess is that most of these are basically bullshit. How hard is it to get a hold of a uniform and put some propaganda out there?

post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Propaganda was always part of warfare. Assad's regime is using propaganda and I don't blame rebels of using it as well. 

 

What is interesting though is that the use of chemical weapons is being used as an excuse for an intervention, because Assad's regime supposedly crossed a red line. Had Assad's army merely carpet-bombed the area with conventional weapons and killed ten times as many people, it wouldn't have caused the same irritation.

 

And interesting as well is that other countries when fighting their wars don't face similar limitations, condemnations nor sanctions:

 

When the US fought against Japan, it used two nukes, when the allied forces fought against Germany, they firebombed numerous german cities, when the US fought in Vietnam against the Vietcong, they used napalm to "clean" whole areas.

 

When Saddam Hussein was an ally of the western world, they helped him build up a huge arsenal of chemical weaponry in order to fight against Iran and the US itself supported Saddam Hussein while he used chemical weapons against Iran.

 

So I have two questions: a) What makes chemical weapons different from other hugely devastating weapons? and b) Why are there different standards for different states?

 

No difference - they are all weapons of mass destruction - but the previous uses that you mention occurred before prohibition by international treaty (NPT, BWC, CWC etc.).

post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No difference - they are all weapons of mass destruction - but the previous uses that you mention occurred before prohibition by international treaty (NPT, BWC, CWC etc.).

NPT deals with nukes and indeed Syria signed and ratified it and is therefore bound by it.

 

BWC deals with biological weapons and Syria signed but didn't ratify it and is therefore not bound by it.

 

CWC deals with chemical weapons but Syria neither signed nor ratified it and is therefore not bound by it.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No difference - they are all weapons of mass destruction - but the previous uses that you mention occurred before prohibition by international treaty (NPT, BWC, CWC etc.).

NPT deals with nukes and indeed Syria signed and ratified it and is therefore bound by it.

 

BWC deals with biological weapons and Syria signed but didn't ratify it and is therefore not bound by it.

 

CWC deals with chemical weapons but Syria neither signed nor ratified it and is therefore not bound by it.

 

I wasn't commenting on whether Syria can reasonably be held to the provisions of those treaties - just noting that the previous instances that you quoted pre-dated them and thus would not have resulted in penalties, sanctions etc. You asked what the difference is now - and rightly or wrongly, those treaties are the difference.

post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

I wasn't commenting on whether Syria can reasonably be held to the provisions of those treaties - just noting that the previous instances that you quoted pre-dated them and thus would not have resulted in penalties, sanctions etc. You asked what the difference is now - and rightly or wrongly, those treaties are the difference.

 

Ah, ok.

 

But surely during the 80's of last century these laws and treaties existed and yet the US and the western world helped Iraq build up its chemical weapon-arsenal and supported it to be used against Iran. The US back then was actually directly present with military planners and intelligence officers on the battlefield planning strategic bombings against Iran's forces and Iraq conducted these attacks with chemical weapons. 

 

Back then the US argued that using chemical weapons against military targets is not to be condemned because Iraq had to win the war against Iran. But the US also said that they wouldn't tolerate the use of chemical weapons against civilians. 

 

And yet shortly thereafter the Kurds in Iraq used the Iraq-Iran-war to rise up against Husseins' dictatorial regime and Saddam Hussein used these same chemical weapons to quell the rebellion of the Kurds.What did the US then do, when they witnessed their ally Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against civilians?

 

...

 

Nothing, the US tolerated it.

 

Today we have Assad in Syria who probably used chemical weapons to more quickly win a civil war against rebels and accepting civilian collateral damage along the way. Were Assad an ally of the US, the US would tolerate it, if not encourage it. But Assad's regime is an ally of Russia and Iran. So he gets condemned.

 

But legally there is no international law that allows for military action against Assad's regime. Since Syria did not sign the CWC, there are states and governors of states who instead try to make the case that Syria were instead in breach of the 1925 geneva protocol against the use of gas-form-weapons. 

 

But what they did not realize is that the 1925 protocol only prohibits the use between states that ratified this very protocol, if one side of the conflict did not ratify the protocol no party is bound by it. And it certainly does not apply to conflicts within one and the same state.

 

The only remaining norm that could play a role is the R2P-initiative and endorsed by the general assembly of the United Nations in 2005. It followed the crimes in the Rwanda-conflict as there was an international call for an ability to intervene to protect humans when the state is failing to do so or the one attacking the civilians.

 

It's a norm that aims to make souvereignity of states depend on their willingness to protect their citizens. 

 

At the beginning of this initiative it was even aimed at establishing a mechanism under which it would be possible to act even in the case of a security-council-blockade, but that got shot down later on and even the R2P-initiative needs a blessing by the security council if states want to use military force under that banner.

 

 

So if the security-council agreed, they could use that 2005-initiative as pretext to protect civilians in Syria because of the fear Assad's regime could use chemical weapons against its citizens again.

 

But that won't happen, because of Russia's veto. 

 

And yet the US wants to intervene, not because Assad's regime broke a law, except for this 2005-"R2P"-norm it broke none.

 

But because Obama/US publically set up a "red line" and Assad's regime crossed it. Doing nothing would mean the US would lose its face, its credibility, its projected power-potential. The prospect of states ignoring a superpower like the US without punishment, that's what drives Obama/US to war. 

 

It's not the use of chemical weapons, allies of the US did it before with US' help, it's this blatant slap in the face that the US/Obama can't let get through unanswered. Knowing that there is no legal basis for intervention is probably why Obama seeks the approval of the Congress first. 

 

The question is: Is it worth to go on an illegal intervention-war (as short as it may be), killing probably a multitudes of those killed in the chemical attack only to restore the US' face?

 

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

I wasn't commenting on whether Syria can reasonably be held to the provisions of those treaties - just noting that the previous instances that you quoted pre-dated them and thus would not have resulted in penalties, sanctions etc. You asked what the difference is now - and rightly or wrongly, those treaties are the difference.

 

Ah, ok.

 

But surely during the 80's of last century these laws and treaties existed and yet the US and the western world helped Iraq build up its chemical weapon-arsenal and supported it to be used against Iran. The US back then was actually directly present with military planners and intelligence officers on the battlefield planning strategic bombings against Iran's forces and Iraq conducted these attacks with chemical weapons. 

 

Back then the US argued that using chemical weapons against military targets is not to be condemned because Iraq had to win the war against Iran. But the US also said that they wouldn't tolerate the use of chemical weapons against civilians. 

 

And yet shortly thereafter the Kurds in Iraq used the Iraq-Iran-war to rise up against Husseins' dictatorial regime and Saddam Hussein used these same chemical weapons to quell the rebellion of the Kurds.What did the US then do, when they witnessed their ally Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against civilians?

 

...

 

Nothing, the US tolerated it.

 

Today we have Assad in Syria who probably used chemical weapons to more quickly win a civil war against rebels and accepting civilian collateral damage along the way. Were Assad an ally of the US, the US would tolerate it, if not encourage it. But Assad's regime is an ally of Russia and Iran. So he gets condemned.

 

But legally there is no international law that allows for military action against Assad's regime. Since Syria did not sign the CWC, there are states and governors of states who instead try to make the case that Syria were instead in breach of the 1925 geneva protocol against the use of gas-form-weapons. 

 

But what they did not realize is that the 1925 protocol only prohibits the use between states that ratified this very protocol, if one side of the conflict did not ratify the protocol no party is bound by it. And it certainly does not apply to conflicts within one and the same state.

 

The only remaining norm that could play a role is the R2P-initiative and endorsed by the general assembly of the United Nations in 2005. It followed the crimes in the Rwanda-conflict as there was an international call for an ability to intervene to protect humans when the state is failing to do so or the one attacking the civilians.

 

It's a norm that aims to make souvereignity of states depend on their willingness to protect their citizens. 

 

At the beginning of this initiative it was even aimed at establishing a mechanism under which it would be possible to act even in the case of a security-council-blockade, but that got shot down later on and even the R2P-initiative needs a blessing by the security council if states want to use military force under that banner.

 

 

So if the security-council agreed, they could use that 2005-initiative as pretext to protect civilians in Syria because of the fear Assad's regime could use chemical weapons against its citizens again.

 

But that won't happen, because of Russia's veto. 

 

And yet the US wants to intervene, not because Assad's regime broke a law, except for this 2005-"R2P"-norm it broke none.

 

But because Obama/US publically set up a "red line" and Assad's regime crossed it. Doing nothing would mean the US would lose its face, its credibility, its projected power-potential. The prospect of states ignoring a superpower like the US without punishment, that's what drives Obama/US to war. 

 

It's not the use of chemical weapons, allies of the US did it before with US' help, it's this blatant slap in the face that the US/Obama can't let get through unanswered. Knowing that there is no legal basis for intervention is probably why Obama seeks the approval of the Congress first. 

 

The question is: Is it worth to go on an illegal intervention-war (as short as it may be), killing probably a multitudes of those killed in the chemical attack only to restore the US' face?

 

 

The CWC was not approved until 1992 but, in any case as you noted, Syria never signed it. The first use of CW was, however, originally banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which Syria is a signatory, and recent interpretation (1995) under international law have established that the GP does cover internal conflicts. Syria might be argued not to be bound by it if the rebels had used CW first, but otherwise they were. Nuclear weapons and other techniques, such as intensive bombing, were not covered but, on reflection, my earlier point about the lack of treaties covering CW use was incorrect.

 

Reagan's administration may have been tacitly complicit to some extent in Iraq's use of CW against Iran, in that they continued to supply intelligence data on Iranian forces, but I'm unaware of any evidence that they assisted in production of the Iraqi CW stockpile. But you are correct that use has not always been met with military intervention, even though it breached the Geneva Protocol. 

 

Of course one can argue that, while an action may breach international law, there is no obligation for other countries to intervene militarily since, presumably, that is a response of last resort. To posit that the decision is influenced by the status of the offending party (ally or not) is just speculation, but believable - there are generally better ways to put pressure on allies. To further suggest that it is purely a decision made to save face seems a very weak hypothesis, and one that also contradicts the previously posited explanation - perhaps founded more in dislike of the administration than actual evidence? There are often good reasons to defend a line in the sand beyond simple avoidance of embarrassment.

 

As for whether it is worth intervening - good question. Lack of intervention in other conflicts, especially involving attacks on civilians, has led to condemnation, but so has intervention. It's hard to please everyone. On the legality, it seems unlikely to be an issue if it is clearly targeted at dissuading or interdicting further breaches of the GP.

post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

Reagan's administration may have been tacitly complicit to some extent in Iraq's use of CW against Iran, in that they continued to supply intelligence data on Iranian forces, but I'm unaware of any evidence that they assisted in production of the Iraqi CW stockpile. But you are correct that use has not always been met with military intervention, even though it breached the Geneva Protocol. 

 

 

There's a lot of material which suggests the Reagan Administration helped Iraq acquire chemical weapons - made pretty clear in this article here:

 

Quote:   (extracted)

"The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch’s brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

 

The Reagan Administration did everything to insure Iraq acquired chemical weapons, barring the direct export of complete weapons. (Although, there's no evidence available to suggest that that did not happen either - anything can happen when protected by classification). 

 

By claiming multiple/alternate/legitimate use re. the components supplied to build CW, the Reagan Administration could stay within the law.... sort of. A rough analogy - committing a crime itself, and being an accessory (before and/or after the fact) to that crime.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 18

Kerry has redeemed himself, somewhat, in my eyes, by saying that if the Islamists get a hold of chemical weapons, that he'd send in US ground troops. Everything needs to be done to get rid of those fanatics. They are not representative of the majority of Muslim's, they are putting at risk the majority of Muslim's both financially and physically. Muslim's need to do their best to get rid of the extremist views in their religion. They are the one's who can stop them as peacefully as possible. The West will do it through force and meddling with their politician's. Until Muslim's themselves fully reject them, the violence will only get worse. 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

The CWC was not approved until 1992 but, in any case as you noted, Syria never signed it. The first use of CW was, however, originally banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which Syria is a signatory, and recent interpretation (1995) under international law have established that the GP does cover internal conflicts. Syria might be argued not to be bound by it if the rebels had used CW first, but otherwise they were. Nuclear weapons and other techniques, such as intensive bombing, were not covered but, on reflection, my earlier point about the lack of treaties covering CW use was incorrect.

 

Reagan's administration may have been tacitly complicit to some extent in Iraq's use of CW against Iran, in that they continued to supply intelligence data on Iranian forces, but I'm unaware of any evidence that they assisted in production of the Iraqi CW stockpile. But you are correct that use has not always been met with military intervention, even though it breached the Geneva Protocol. 

 

Of course one can argue that, while an action may breach international law, there is no obligation for other countries to intervene militarily since, presumably, that is a response of last resort. To posit that the decision is influenced by the status of the offending party (ally or not) is just speculation, but believable - there are generally better ways to put pressure on allies. To further suggest that it is purely a decision made to save face seems a very weak hypothesis, and one that also contradicts the previously posited explanation - perhaps founded more in dislike of the administration than actual evidence? There are often good reasons to defend a line in the sand beyond simple avoidance of embarrassment.

 

As for whether it is worth intervening - good question. Lack of intervention in other conflicts, especially involving attacks on civilians, has led to condemnation, but so has intervention. It's hard to please everyone. On the legality, it seems unlikely to be an issue if it is clearly targeted at dissuading or interdicting further breaches of the GP.

 

 

The 1925 protocol like all of these protocols was clearly meant for relations between states and not for internal conflicts. For these interstate relations all the countries signed the treaty and Syria as well.

 

The other interesting thing regarding that protocol it was meant to only be bounding against states that also ratified the protocol. 

 

Of course because times change as well as necessities, politics, societies, it's understandable and even necessary to reinterpret laws, treaties and protocols and give them new meaning, new life. 

 

But if a considerable reinterpretation/new meaning is proposed for a protocol it needs to be re-signed and re-ratified according to these if states should be bound under that new interpretation/new meaning as well.

 

And as to Reagan and other western states helping Saddam build up his chemical weapon-industry, there are lots of resources that detail exactly how the western world has done exactly that.

 

As to the saving-face-aspect: Emotions and psychology do imho play a role in international politics even to this day. 

 

According to law Syria has done nothing wrong, as there is no law that prevents Syria to use all of their weapons in their fight against rebels, including chemical weapons.

 

But there is law and then there is morality, the feeling of right and wrong, and the international community helped by international media feels that it is wrong, maybe even evil, for Assad's army to use chemical weapons against rebels and civilians inbetween that don't have a protection against these form of weapons.

 

And it is this accumulated international feeling that something wrong happened, a feeling that calls for something to be done to right it again, that the US and France want to use to justify their intervention.

 

Feelings of right and wrong are not unimportant, morality is after all what preexists before a law gets created, otherwise laws would be not evolving. So clearly there is a strong feeling of wrongness that wants to be expressed in a law, the laws already exist but the feeling calls for these laws to be applied on any state, if it signs it or not, if it ratifies it or not.

 

So what this calls for is the end of souvereignity of states and for an establishment of a sort of world-justice and world-government.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
 

Kerry has redeemed himself, somewhat, in my eyes, by saying that if the Islamists get a hold of chemical weapons, that he'd send in US ground troops. Everything needs to be done to get rid of those fanatics. They are not representative of the majority of Muslim's, they are putting at risk the majority of Muslim's both financially and physically. Muslim's need to do their best to get rid of the extremist views in their religion. They are the one's who can stop them as peacefully as possible. The West will do it through force and meddling with their politician's. Until Muslim's themselves fully reject them, the violence will only get worse. 

 

 

Kerry has done nothing of the kind, and the most likely reality is a different scenario to what is being blared out by the administration and its media lackeys. Most accounts recall chemical weapons being used by, and captured from, the al Qaeda linked rebel militias (Islamists), and not Assad's military. Putin's analysis seems to make the most sense -  he claims that Assad has everything to lose from using chemical weapons while having the upper hand militarily - an insane  "shoot yourself in each foot, twice, and then again" course of action - and he stands to lose his 13 year grip on the reins of power in Syria. Even though Assad  doesn't quite qualify as one's "favorite uncle",  his regime at least is relatively secular, in comparison to the type of rule that might be imposed if the rebel groups gain power... and guess what? The US is supporting the hardcore Muslim (al Qaeda) faction.... just as they did in Libya to depose the relatively secularly oriented Col. Gadhafi. Similarly in Iraq, that war deposed a relatively secular regime, and now there's Islamist factions hacking that country apart in a bid for power.

 

The relentless al Qaeda scaremongering and propaganda from the US/UK and the media makes no sense - when the evidence is taken into consideration. Successive US administrations appear to regard the grouping as mostly allies, except for 9/11, when they were assigned as the convenient/timely enemy - ie according to what is/was politically expedient at the time. Logic dictates that the Obama Administration is LYING this country into war. Hey, maybe Assad's fed up with all the privilege and perks of power and wants out....in a way that nobody's thought of before. Really, you can't make this kind of shit up!


Edited by sammi jo - 9/4/13 at 2:51pm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 18

The real dilemma is that if Assad falls, every minority in Syria is going to be slaughtered.  Alawites, Shiites, Christians - will all be targeted if the rebels (many of whom are extremists, including Al Qaeda fighters) win...  

 

We've already seen this in Egypt, where the MB tolerated and subtly encouraged violence against Coptic Christians, and it could have been much worse if not for the army...  In Syria, if Assad and the army falls, there will be no one to protect the minorities.

post #18 of 18

Who protected the Jews when Hitler reigned over Europe murdering them like cattle in the field!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Syria and the international dilemma...