The USA is against terrorism. We all know this. In the fight against terrorism the USA will invade countries, kidnap people from countries like Pakistan, and use drones to kill terrorists.
When the USA funds the overthrow of a regime, supplies weapons and money to insurgents who are committing atrocioties and using suicide bombers the USA comes pretty close to supporting terrorism.
I have no respect for the current Government of Syria but would they be justified in taking appropriate action on US soil?
Are you out of your mind? The Syrian government is attacking and exterminating its own people on its own soil, just to keep a despot in power.
America has been involved in Syria because of the terrorists hiding out there to aid and abet more attacks on us. Otherwise, we care about Syria because of the humanitarian disaster Assad has created.
America didn't start the humanitarian evil. Syria did it to itself and refused any real help. They arrogantly demanded weapons and money that they will eventually use against us. They do not even have a cohesive group that can represent all Syrians and run the country if Assad is taken down. Thus, we don't have a dog in the fight.
And anyone who suggests that any foreign entity should attack America on our own soil is America's enemy and is my enemy too. I didn't volunteer for military service and put my life on the line to support armchair anti-american chicken hawks.
What terrorists have been hiding out in Syria to aid and abet attacks on the USA? I've never heard that in any reports. Syria had been an ally of the USA for years, they even sent troops to liberate Kuwait. Strange how friendship quickly disappear.
The USA has been supporting terrorism and dictators abroad for decades so if it suffers what the CIA call 'blowback' it can hardly be surprising
I think the major problem with Americans is that they have so much loyalty to their way of thinking and so obsessed with American superiority that objectivity when it comes to other people is lost. For any free thinking American, it is so easy to see that American policies towards anything or anyone are not based on principles. Look at what they did to Gaddafi and compare that to what they are doing to Bahrain, a self confessed pure monarchy.
Supporting the insurgents in Syria isnt driven by principles but by interest. The US wants to see Bashar gone no matter what the cost. Why do they want to see Bashar gone? The story is long but the short answer is that Mr. Assad does not play to the American tunes the same way the Bahraini authorities do.
Supporting the insurgents while completely refusing offers of talk is one centimeter from supporting terrorism. The problem is that this is another complication that the US miscalculated. It is far harder to remove the Syrian regime than it was to remove Gaddafi. Also the Russians and the Chinese are adamant to make sure that the US doesnt pass through this one with the same ease it did in LIbya.
The simple fact is that if the US chooses to, the conflict in Syria can be stopped in a few days. Not wanting to do so is simply a evidence that the USA doesnt care about the lives lost on a daily basis; the USA is only interested to see its objectives met. Cost of lives and livelihoods doesn't matter.
I note no-one is denying that the American government is supporting and supplying the Syrian opposition. The Syrian opposition is using various tactics including terrorist tactics.
Are we saying that terrorists are not always terrorists? Where is the line?
Are we saying a country being attacked by terrotists may not use military means against the countries who are supplying the terrorists? But the USA does! Where is the line?
I have the impression that our own government is behind the uprising in Syria, just as it was in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia, not to mention Yemen. Since Obama has come into office we have seen what is thought to be popular uprisings in those Countries. However, it is clear to me that our CIA used Google, Facebook and Twitter to create an online popular uprising. The facts were published in our newspapers and spoken about in our press. When it was not in Obama's best interest to continue coverage, our main stream media quit covering it.
Now, fast forward, we have deposed three dictatorships in the Middle East already, Yemen and Syria are still in flux. We support the "Rebels" in Syria and the current Government of Yemen. What will happen in these two Countries is yet to be seen. Most likely, these Countries will lose at their current Government level, be overthrown so to speak, just as Egypt, etal, have been. The problem for Obama is: The Islamic Extremist elements within each of those Countries are seeking power, and will likely get it. This was impossible under the "Necessary Dictatorships", which previously existed. (Our Old Policy) Now, we see a problem in Syria and all of these Countries that was brought about by Obama's foriegn relations policies.
I believe the outcome is not in our national interest, and, we are indirectly supporting terrorism in those Countries by our naive foriegn policy actions in supporting the overthrough of the Countries I've named above. Islamic Extremism has an opening now and they are moving in for a takeover. This is something Hillary, Obama and Penetta never saw coming.
So, it's my belief we are supporting terrorists indirectly and not purposefully. We simply have no reason or right to have mettled around in the first place. I also believe the Syrian Government is correct when labeling the Rebels as Terrorists: at least most probubly are, and others represent a misled public reading Twitter and Facebook. Oh yes, Google was previously accused of changing their search algorithm in those countries to turn up websites and information seeming to support popular uprisings.
Do some Internet research and you'll see I'm right.
While I don't support us giving direct military aid just as the US most of these actions were UN resolutions and it's absolutely right to aid the removal of oppressive and brutal dictatorships at least one of which has sponsored terrorist attack on Americans.
Google is a private company and has every right to arrange their search results as they wish, furthermore I completely back the move. Democracy is always better than dictatorship and the people complaining about getting rid of those monsters stink of sheltered lives without any experience of growing up in a country where your government will kill you for exercising free speech.
Every nation's people have the right to self determination and Syria is no exception.
What can't you understand about our National Security Interests. Is it in our Security Interest to have Radical Islam in power with Shiria Law attacking the USA and oppressing their own people? (Womens Rights and all of that.)
My point here is that Obama has put the Whole middle east in flux: likely all of these countries will become radical to US and Isreal too. Also, if we have caused these uprisings to depose dictators who have been friendly to U.S. interests, and in result, caused the death we see, are we justified in our current foriegn policy creating and supporting it? I think not.
Yes we absolutely are correct in supporting democracy, certainly people in the Middle East are going to vote differently to your or I but that is their business and their right.
What don't you get about growing up in a government that kills people for speaking against it and somehow in your mind supporting a democratic government is worse? That is totally immoral in every way shape or form.
We should fight tyranny not support it because it's convenient.
Yet there doesn't seem to be any consistency with which kinds of governments the US military pledges its support to. Bahrain is an equally brutal regime but the US treats it as a beacon of liberty. Whatever the states' reasons for meddling into Syria, it is nothing to do with promoting democracy.
The first part of your comment is absolutely correct, the US does support dictatorship and has in the past, I have never supported that, it's wrong.
As for the reasons... you may be right, maybe the motives are not as pure at they first appear and it certainly would not surprise me but I believe the result will be positive anyhow if it does bring about a democracy,
Democracy isn't everything, you know. Many a democratic government has violated liberty to horrific extents, including the United States; to say that if democracy is achieved, all of the exploits to get to that point where worth it is dismissive and dangerous. It's dismissive because it disregards the massive human damage that goes into these operations, and dangerous because it is this kind of mentality that has predicated the expansion of the American empire that causes all this human damage.
The West's failures to promote democracy by force in the past are too numerous to count - in most of these countries, and no need to look past Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are no better now then they were before the invasions. On the other hand, where there has been peaceful negotiation between these countries and leading by example, in the case of Soviet Russia and China, change has occurred. This may take longer, but it provides a greater foundation for lasting change, instead of immediate and tumultuous change that de-stabilises the country.
Maybe the Syrian people are not ready for a revolution yet. We have certainly seen signs of dissent, probably rightful, but certainly exaggerated. This is because the West needs an excuse to get involved - it is one of the only nations in the middle-east that is not subject to American military occupation. This is but one of the West's methods - if the propaganda persuades enough of the population that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear strike, despite their nuclear program being perfectly peaceful and offering no aggression to anybody, they can excuse an invasion of very useful land.
Either way, it is not what the native population are asking for. All they see is a foreign country's military occupying their lands, and acquiring their resources, apparently to promote a political view that they don't necessarily share.
One side not being all right, doesn't make the other side all right. Any government that bombs its own people has lost the mandate to rule.
Well then: these radical islamists need to suit up, form and Army seperate themselves from the general population and take on the Army of Syria, win lose or draw. They should quit fighting from among the general population and apply rules of engagement as required by the Geneva Convention.
What the... This is a revolution and a guerrilla or largely poorly armed and untrained civilians fighting a military, if they wan to be slaughtered by a military that has already shown they are willing to massacre thousands then they should do as you suggest.
The problem here is you seem to be putting the two sides on an equal measure, the government in Syria is illegitimate and undemocratic, it has zero right o exist and should stand down, thus bombing civilians because the rebels are amongst them is not just and it's not collateral, it's the massacre of innocents by a force with no right to exist.
Also this being a revolution and not a conflict between two nations the Geneva convention does not apply plus the Geneva convention applies to signatories only.
by Deforest2 years ago
When Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky titled his "The terrorists are us. The islamist state "big lie"" do you agree/disagree and why? You'll find his article below."Under the auspices of...
by Susie Lehto5 weeks ago
More than 50 tomahawk missiles were launched from US Navy destroyers, targeting an airfield near Homs, the report said, citing a US official.More to follow..* http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-07/repo …...
by PrettyPanther15 months ago
I live in Oregon, so I have been closely following the occupation of the Malheur Refuge by "militants." Here is a detailed timeline: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … ne_of.htmlNone...
by The stallion10 months ago
People all over the world think that we Pakistanis are all terrorists. I beg to differ! I know that recently there have been quite a few terrorist activities around the world which were supposedly associated with...
by magodis5 years ago
We sri lankans were under the threat of bombs at any time of the day before May 2009. This was normal for 30 years (more than my age). So my life was always under threat of a blast. So I know Sri Lanka must have peace...
by James Smith4 years ago
Despite how unsustainable and morally hazardous the welfare state is, it does not begin to reach the moral bankruptcy of unwavering support of the state military. For conservatives, it is good and just to complain about...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.