jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (146 posts)

Should the U.S. Take Action Against Syria

  1. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Or...
    Here we go again - same old same old
    Or...
    The more things change, the more they stay the same

    Obama and Biden were castrating Bush for talking about moving against Iran - Biden even talked impeachment.

    But here they are planning cruise missile attacks against Syria - Why?

    Administration spokespeople are saying, "We are not going to topple Assad"

    Then why bomb him? We don't even have proof, (yet?), that it was Assad and not the rebels.

    I know it will sound callous because civilians are dying, but given Syria's animus towards the U.S., and the Al Qaeda and Hezbollah identity of the strongest rebel forces - this seems to be a case of our enemies killing each other. And liberal-minded folks decry the U.S playing the role of the world's policeman.

    So...

    GA

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Heard on the news earlier today that if the U.S. does strike Syria, then muslims in America will strike back here.
      What is going on in our country? So much division and anger, that's what. Since 2008, hmmm? Just saying. Obama is no Dr. King.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You heard on "the news" that some unspecified group of "Muslims" with do something.

        Seems legit.

        1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
          Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I hear you. But this was a local station and no "groups" were mentioned, just those living here in America. Sketchy, but meant to invoke more fear and hatred which seems to be the goal of the mainstream media today.

    2. Old Poolman profile image81
      Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They all hate us anyhow so why get involved?  As long as they stick with killing each other we should leave them alone.  If the Muslims in this country start causing trouble they should be rounded up and put in FEMA camps until all of this is settled.
      Of course we must keep in mind that wars do help our economy and certainly help with the unemployment numbers.  Perhaps our President has figured out that a good war right now would take our minds off the "Phony Scandals" he keeps talking about.  My vote would be to follow France into this battle, and we all know that will never happen.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Tom Woods debunks the notion that war helps the economy:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71tPBjrTeJU

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good to hear from you Old Poolman,

        But be nice. No need to stir an already boiling pot.

        And I do like your France suggestion.

        GA

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, I don't think the U.S. should get into this.  For several reasons,  number one of which is that America wasn't attacked by Syria,  and we have a mess of stuff to deal with in our homeland,  and number two is that Obama doesn't even know what the hay he's doing here in America,  much less abroad.   If we had a leader who had some smarts and integrity,  then there might be a good reason to enter the Syrian conflict.    As it is,  our National security and interests should come first, and even those are becoming mighty thin...........

    4. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think the general consensus among Americans is to STAY OUT!

      We've been down this road so many times - and it never ends well.

    5. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      US and UK should stay out of it, of they really want to do something then use the financial might to aid the refugees who are streaming out of Syria, win their hearts, change their minds. And when it's all over they may return to their homeland and action change.
      It's about time we stopped dropping bombs on the people and started attacking their leaders.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Aid approach isn't workable. Seems like most of the time it has been tried in other similar areas - as in areas where NGO oversight isn't possible - all the Aid simply goes to corrupt facilitators and the strongest warlords in the area.

        As for attacking their leaders - oh my. We have already had several bites of that apple - and gotten the worm every time.

        GA

    6. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, GA and audience, from the left, I plead with the President not to get involved.

      My first choice is to stay out entirely, this is a civil war, they have been, are and will always be a certain number of those across the globe at any one time. What would have happened if Lincoln were unsuccessful in keeping France and Britain from involving themselves in the American Civil War on behalf of the Confederacy? 

      Russia's position has merit, if we are so concerned about toppling Assad, who and what will replace him, we could make bad into worse. What gives the US the right to promote instability within any society with which we are not at active war? Russian foreign policy leaders described our role as a monkey with a hand granade in the 'powder room'.

      Obama is smart enough to know better than to unravel years of effort to downscale all of these conflicts, why ratchet them up again? There is no such thing as intimidating a man like Assad. This is his regime, his life, he is not going to be put off because of symbolic action from the US. We would have to arm and send troops in to support the rebels and that is unacceptable. There is no such thing as operating on the perifery, once were in, were in up to our necks. You break it, you own it!

      Because of all these irritating alliances and entanglements that ensnare us,  the next less desirable option is a posse approach similar to what was used by Bush-I back in the early nineties to get after Saddam Hussein. A coalition with our involvement, if any, being minimal relative to our partners might pass muster.

      So, if we are taking a vote, I say to stay out!

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good points Cred. Can you give him a call and ask him to hold off a bit?

        BTW, have you heard that Russia has diverted a carrier to the region now. Oh My.

        GA

    7. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It probably makes more sense to attack Brazil which has 500,000 slaves. They remain on the earth they were born on. if they try to leave, they are shot.

      OH, but 1000 people in Syria matter more than that, right?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "It probably makes more sense to attack Brazil which has 500,000 slaves. They remain on the earth they were born on. if they try to leave, they are shot. "

        What's that all about? News to me.

        http://www.ilo.org/sapfl/News/WCMS_1422 … /index.htm

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Given the context of the post you responded to, I am pressed to see the relevancy. But it is possible of course that you only wished to make a point, regardless of the subject of discussion.

        Your comment did spark an interest though, even if it appears to be less than fully accurate. The ILO estimates were 25,000 - not your stated 500,000, and it appears to have nothing to do with "the soil they were born on," but more with confinement to work sites, (ie. charcoal operations, plantations, etc), to which they were lured with the promise of work.

        As the above is the result of one of those famous "20 minute Google searches" it is possible I missed the research references you have. But 25,000 is a l-o-n-g way from 500,000

        And since you are here, what are your thoughts on the U.S. bombing Syria?

        GA

    8. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No! Do nothing as the only outcome would be artificial and in effective. Let them sort this out themselves. War is horrible and allowing them to experience its' ravages will teach them how desirable it is to be avoided.

    9. lifelovemystery profile image89
      lifelovemysteryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Syria is not a threat to the US. I think what Obama wants it to topple Assad and coronate the MB into Syrian leadership. That gets him closer to a strike on Israel. My vote. No war.

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    I'm inherently non-interventionist, but from a practical stand-point, intervention in Syria doesn't make sense. If your goal is to self-preservation, it is not a good idea to escalate an already volatile situation. And from a humanitarian stand-point it doesn't make sense either, bombing Syria is not going to persuade anybody to be less violent.

    And as you rightly point out, we don't even know for sure it was Assad.  Where's the justification? This whole thing has me experiencing an eerie sense of deja vu - can anybody else hear the echo of "they definitely have WMDs?"

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your point that it doesn't seem to make sense from a practical point of view seems to be a common sentiment. And I agree.

      Also, Israel has released a telephone intercept they claim is from the Syrian guy in charge of Chemical Weapons - the context of which casts doubt that the government did it. hmmm...  Could just be more smoke, or maybe the flicker of a flame for conspiracy buffs.

      GA

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        More conspiracy fun: leaked emails with British arms companies suggest the US government 'backed plan to launch chemical attacks on Syria and blame Assad regime'. The Daily Mail reported on it but the article has since been taken down, here it is on the wayback machine:
        http://web.archive.org/web/201301292138 … Assad.html

        1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
          Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don't doubt that for a second. Ugh.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Let the two bad guys have at it.
    We should just enjoy the show.
    Not step in the ring
    And get fatally punched.
    WHO does that?

    (We the people of the US
    need to feel great sympathy
    For our military men...
    Who have been given an impossible mission.)

  4. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Abso-f'ing-lutely NOT!
    There is NO WAY the U.S. should step into this mess.
    It IS deja vu all over again.


    If Obama insists on contemplating military action, he damned well better get Congress' approval.
    Oh wait. Been there. Faked that, too -- with Iraq.

    I do not want to see troops sent into Syria. We're not even close to recovered from Iraq and not fully out of Afghanistan. And what do we have to show for those?
    Wounded warriors and a big old DEFICIT.

    Hell NO -- We Won't GO!!

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      C'mon MM, tell us how you really feel.

      Not neglecting the ever present "slippery slope" possibility of troops on the ground - at this point the admin's proposed action is strictly destroyer launched guided missiles aimed at strategic targets that would "teach" Assad a lesson.

      Except that after the initial trial balloon announcements, that proposal was modified to include the objective of degrading his ability to use gas again.

      Next action plan modification?

      GA

  5. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    We can't help the world.  At some point, we'll be spread too thin.  No, we should not get involved to any further extent.

  6. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    When the Syrians are winning battles against the takfiris cruel pigs that we are financing, when the NATO report states that more than 70% of the population supports Assad why would he kill children and civilians? In which interest is it? When people will rationally find the answer, they will understand that it is our interest. We killed those children with our denial and apathy as for the reprehensible actions of our governement. After all if we don't kill the Syrians they will build the pipeline that will compete with ours.
    Because we are a nation that doesn't accept competition, that can't bear other countries development and future economical powers since we are buried under our debts, since our country is dying.

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Syria is not our country. When my child gets into a fight with the neighbors kid, I send the kid home. I don't go to his house and start a war there.  We shouldn't give them weapons, aid, buy their products. Nothing! It's exhausting enough taking care of my own house, why try to clean theirs!?
      America needs to stop buying oil from everyone in the middle east! We have the resources for everything we need here. Why do we keep up this dependecy? Ridiculous. No more open borders, it has only created dissention, overcrowding,  lack of employment and overall loss of faith in this great country.
      More importantly, will Obama read this thread?! He should because this is the word on the street from real citizens. How can we share this with him? GM, you started it, any ideas? smile

      1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
        Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, I meant GA. (Apparently no editing in replies, at least not on mobile devices, ha).

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm working on it. Trying to get Credence2 to give him a call.

          GA

      2. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good evening, Ms. Dittmar.  I do not remember ever having the pleasure of exchanging ideas with you in this forum. Please forgive me if I have forgotten. I have been told that at my age memory is the second major faculty to be lost. There is another that goes first but I can never remember which one it is.

        I was drawn to the portion of your post that appears above. In it are 3 points that are worthy of comment: We have resources for everything we need here, America needs to stop buying oil from everyone in the middle east, and questioning why America keeps up this dependency. Please permit me to address all three.

        “We have the resources for everything we need here.

        The proven oil reserves of the USA rank 13th in the world. The 12 nations with more than us have 1,302 billion barrels of reserves compared to our 20.7 billion barrels. {1} However, the USA is the world’s largest oil consumer at 19.2 million barrels per day. Left to our own resources, our total oil reserves would be depleted in less than 3 years. Now let us apply these facts to your third point. {2}

        “Why America keeps up this dependency.”

        Consuming the oil of the top 12 nations first could carry us for about 186 years according to my rusty abacus. <just kidding> smile Today, the USA can choose between dependency on foreign oil or using up its crude oil reserves. When the reserves are gone, dependency is no longer a matter of choice.

        “America needs to stop buying oil from everyone in the Middle East.”

        I hate to be the person that rains on your parade but I must. The USA imports only 20% of its oil from Persian Gulf countries. {3} Sixty-five percent of America’s oil imports come from Canada (28%), Saudi Arabia (13%), Mexico (10%), Venezuela (9%), and Russia (5%). You will find Saudi Arabia with the largest proven oil reserves on the planet in this list and Russia who was formally our cold war adversary. This proves how oil can make for strange bedfellows!

        Some will argue that unproven oil reserves have the potential to radically alter all current and future analysis. Perhaps they are right but, for now, I choose to discuss what is known and to leave the speculation for a time when it yields actual facts.

        Thank you Ms. Dittmar for stimulating the discussion. Your contribution is greatly appreciated at least by me.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=97
        {2} http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0& … 1&l=en
        {3} http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

        1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
          Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sir, thank you for your comments, and I hear you and agree on some points.
          However, our usage and dependency are in part due to the ever expanding population of this country. Other natural resources such as coal and nuclear power were at one time big energy sources for us as we'll as employment opportunities ( let's not even talk about producing our own steel which
          We've given up on: think Allentown/Billy Joel).
          I am not opposed to oil from Our neighbors who are also our good alias such as Canada. But the oil we buy from any middle eastern country only seems to go to their dictators, not their citizens!! One only needs to visit Ottawa or Montreal to see that everyone is healthy and housed, not to mention fairly educated to the world.
          The Middle East leaders are haters of the U.S. and I'm not making that up.
          Let the bad boys war amongst each other and let us ignore it rather than giving them candy and the car keys which only promote more bad behavior ( parenting 101). When they see that on our own or with the help of good people we are doing fine, perhaps they will grow up, allow their daughters to go to school, prosecute rape, feed their poor, stop the violence within. A visions circle that must be broken can only be broken from within that family.
          Spoiled children that throw temper tantrums all the time (as in 1000's of years) should not be given more weapons or power to rant and rave with. Let them eat their oil and miss our wheat. That is all I have to say. Giving, giving, giving is Not the answer. Giving the keys to our door, our jobs, our gullibility! This is not leadership at its finest or worst, this is being victimized and then apologizing for it. Ridiculous.

          1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
            Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Please excuse any typos as I am writing from my iPhone which loves to change and predict without my permission. wink

    2. Roy Patterson profile image59
      Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      After reading yout post and thinking about it, you are right. we need to stay of Syria and let the people decide what they want. In my view, they don't want the radical Muslims in charge of their country..

  7. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    When are american people going to realise that their government has been manipulating and brain washing them for years. Look at the MKUltra projects where the CIA was drugging innocent people (US citizens) without their knowledge and using hypnosis and brain washing tactics on them. When are the American people going to realise that their so called government has been invading and bombing countries for centuries and staging secret coups and puppet leaders all over the world.They are playing chess with the world and sitting back and proud at how their brain washing has worked on the gullible masses, But not for long, not when people who work for wikileaks, Bradley Manning and Snoweden are walking the earth. People with a human heart and integrity. People who are prepared to lose everything just to fight for right. Now do you seriously believe that Bashar Al Assad is the evil culprit in all of this. What ulterior motives do you think the USA may have? Attack a country Syria, a country that has not attacked any other but rather has stood by it's Palestinian neighbours, rejected Capitalism, rejected Imperialism, supported and encouraged the idea of Pan-Arabia and never abandoned the values it was built upon on. REJECTED THE US. Syria a country that has not sold its soul to the US like most of it's greedy Arab neighbours. When are people going to wake up from the brain washing, the arrogance that comes with being an American and look deeper than the voice of their news readers?

    1. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good synthesis.

    2. Roy Patterson profile image59
      Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's hard to wake-up sheep that refuse to wake-up and are more interested in playing with their I-pads, I-phones and watching trash TV than doing something about what's going on with our Government.

  8. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago

    There are more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees from the two-year Civil War in the Syria Arab Republic. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed as documented by the United Nations. Children in Syria are starving to death as the Civil War rages.

    The findings of a US intelligence report revealed that the Syrian government used a nerve agent in an August 21st chemical weapons attack against its own civilian citizens. 1,429 people were killed in the attack, including at least 429 children. The use of chemical weapons is illegal under international law.

    There are 49 countries where Muslims are the majority, and not one has stepped forward to stop the carnage and the slaughter of fellow Muslims. On Friday, the UK lost the respect of the world when it announced that it refused to join an international coalition led by the US to prevent further use of chemical weapons.  Only France and Israel have agreed to assist.

    It is morally reprehensible to turn your back when innocent people are being slaughtered. If this were happening in your country, to you, to your family and to your children, would you want the nations of the world to help or just turn their backs while tens of thousands more are killed?

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't Syria primarily Muslim? So their own people that surround them won't help? Ha. That's because they don't care and they're killing any found Christian too.
      It's not my problem, even the UK don't want to get involved. Obama shouldn't have opened his trap reguarding chemical warfare OVER THERE. At home, yes.
      We promised to bring our troops home in his 1st term.... yep. Not done yet and now he wants to involve us in a war we don't belong in!
      What will stop this? The keystone pipeline!! Let's just stop our involvement over there in terms of buying oil, etc. Let them care for their own, they won't?
      Cause they are ruthlesd.

      1. Writer Fox profile image82
        Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Allison,

        Obama isn't talking about sending troops into Syria.  The U.S. has battle ships stationed in the Mediterranean and the plan is to launch pin-point guided missiles to knock out the chemical weapons production plants.  The plan is to stop the use of chemical weapons, not to determine the outcome of the civil war there.

        1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
          Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the entire world now knows the plan. Our troops will be targets! How about those RIGHT there? Those countries?  Let them stop it, it really is their war, not ours.
          The U.S. should be protecting its own borders here at home, for once!

    2. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Writer fox, the Uk has gained respect from the rest of the world for the first time when they refused to get involved, where as America has lost respect a long time ago, since vietnam war days. It was a false war on communism back then and now its a false war on terror and nuclear weapons

    3. Roy Patterson profile image59
      Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The real truth is that the Syrian government did not use the Cheimical Weapons. They were supplied to the rebels who used them accidentally. We need to stay of of the Syria civil war. We can't be the peacekeepers for the world. If we get involved there is a good chance we will start world war III. There have been hundreds and hundreds of thousands killed in Africa and we did nothing. Now Obama wants to start another war. When will all this end and we realize that we have problems at home and we don't have the money to carry on a war even a limit action war anywhere, anymore.

  9. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Should we sit idly by while a bloodthirsty mass-murdering dictator runs rampant?

    No, we should stop Obama in his tracks!

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agree. Lets get out of the middle east totally!

      1. Writer Fox profile image82
        Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Alison,

        The Middle East is coming to America.  The target of the nuclear weapons Iran is building is the US. 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJ4TYXDKLc

        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Very interesting piece of Zionist propaganda.  Eerily reminiscent of other campaigns of propaganda demonizing a particular class of people.  Psychops at its finest!

          1. Writer Fox profile image82
            Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Walid Phares could hardly be classified as a Zionist by any definition of the word.
            'Cognitive dissidence' applies to you.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image93
              Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ31AhiJ-61w9_99sWI3ojanDB8XTOfTStvqxaiERgumcsAH7bn

              proof USA behind chemical attacks in syria,false flag

              http://youtu.be/XloUnrVSEug

              1. Writer Fox profile image82
                Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's ridiculous.  Are you really that gullible? Shopping online is a good diversion to reality for some:
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tator.html

    2. Roy Patterson profile image59
      Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agree 100%!!!!!

  10. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Anybody think that Iran is attempting to defend themselves against a nuclear armed Israel?  You know, the nation that has no qualms about dropping bombs on civilian populations without a declaration of war! 

    Buh-buh it isn't terrorism when we do it!

  11. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    We are Anonymous.

    In light of recent investigations of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, it appears that the United States Government is involved in an Imperialistic pursuit of the resources of Iran. Iran has an arms treaty with Syria, in which Iran has a commitment to defend Syria and vice versa in times of War.

    The lack of a Central Bank in the country of Iran and the refusal of the Iranian government to become dependent on the Western World has kept the United States Government on a Mission to engage in War with Iran to topple the current Government.

    We have seen the same tactics used in Iraq and Libya to topple regimes that don't fit the United States Imperialistic Ambitions. Militaristically Engineered False Flag Attacks are the method the United States Government Uses to convince a portion of the world that intervention is necessary.

    Chemical Weapons were used to Murder hundreds of Syrian People in a suburb of the Syrian City of Damascus. Although the initial reports claimed that the Assad led Government of Syria was responsible for the attacks, it is now believed by both investigators and other world leaders that the United States backed Syrian National Coalition is responsible for the attacks. It's also believed they are using these war crimes to give an excuse for the United States Government to intervene in the region.

    This Tactic is meant to pull Iran into war with the United States. This tactic will ultimately cause a global conflict in which countries that do not support the criminal actions of the United States may, in fact take the war to US soil. War is not supported by the US majority and has only seemingly been supported by the citizens of the United States in recent years. In this instance it is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of U.S. citizens.

    The Chemical Weapons used against the Syrian People are now shown to be the work of the United States Government by way of the U.S. backed Syrian rebels known as the Syrian National Coalition. This is a blatant False Flag attack and should not be endorsed by the citizens of the United States. There is absolutely no benefit for the American People or the world in general as a result of a war with Syria or Iran.

    As citizens of the world the majority of us are completely opposed to large scale warfare and the impending war with Syria and Iran must be opposed in every nonviolent way at our disposal. The Liberation of the Syrian People should not be decided by the interests of other nations or even a council of other nations. Both Syria and Iran are independent nations and should remain independent nations.

    We have seen the reign of Tyranny in this world too many times before and the collective voice of the people are opposed as we always will be. Please take the time to educate yourselves as non-biased as possible and spread this information to anyone and everyone you can. Our collective voice is and will always be our only hope to liberate this world from the hands of Tyranny.

    We are Anonymous,
    We are Legion,
    We do not Forgive forcing the world into a war based on lies.
    We do not Forget the war crimes that have been committed.
    Proprietors of False Flag Operations,
    Expect Us!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PBMB5cppfM

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here's how we stop them: Stop buying their damn oil!! Stop being dependent on them for oil by drilling our own! Don't send weapons, flip-flops or anything! Close our borders!
      Once we stop buying oil from them, they'll get it. We are funding all these crazy militants and they dont even care about their own people.
      Guess what? I don't either! We have enough problems here at home without getting involved in a 2000 year old battle between mean, mean, mean people.

    2. Roy Patterson profile image59
      Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank You for that post. I couldn't have said it better.  Hundreds and hundreds of thousands were and are being killed in Africa and we did nothing. Now Obama wants us to believe the reason he want to attack Syria is because of the innocent people being killed.Give me a brake, this is just crap. I just hope congress will stop this Obama witch hunt and it will not end well if he gets his way.

  12. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Conspiracies and Facts

    Mention the word "conspiracy" and some people's eyes glaze over, as if there has never been a conspiracy in the history of humanity. We know there have been selfish criminals in our world, but they could never be in our government. Or could they?

    George Bush told us about WMDs in Iraq, but they turned out to be lies. Starting the war in Iraq because Al Qaeda was there was also a lie. Al Qaeda was not there until America went there.

    Recent revelations in the news show us how CIA conspired to topple a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953. This isn't the only crime CIA is guilty of. Yes, and conspiracies! Two or more people getting together to discuss committing a crime.

    And now our government is breaking the law by spying on more than a hundred million Americans. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects against this kind of invasion, but the government is ignoring it. The conspiracy has been revealed by numerous whistleblowers, including Snowden.

    War crimes of American military have been revealed by people like Bradley Manning (another hero and patriot), who is now serving 35 years for revealing those crimes, but the criminals remain free. How sad and maddening that the Corporate Party media never talks about the crimes, but focuses almost entirely on the whistleblower and how bad he is.

    And now Bush is given immunity for his crimes so he can't be sued for war crimes, starting a war in Iraq on false pretenses and against a country that did nothing to the US.

    Obama Marches to War In Syria + Gives Immunity To Bush For Iraq
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWW_Y-66lIs

    Another False Flag Black Op by US?

    America has a long history of False Flag black ops. When a national leader kicks out abusive corporations, America sends in troops or a CIA hit squad to murder the leader, or they finance rebels to overthrow the "oppressive" leader who, in some cases, the people love.

    We have E. Howard Hunt confessing on his deathbed about his participation in the murder of JFK. Government conspiracies do exist, and we have had a corrupt government for far longer than I used to think possible.

    Selfish people will do what selfishness demands. That includes the Normalcy Bias that makes some people ignore uncomfortable facts.

    Facts like, 9/11 was an inside job. If you're not familiar with that FACT, then let me break it down for you in a nutshell. And if you think, like some hubbers, that facts are conspiracies, and that all of those 9/11 facts (conspiracies?) have been debunked, then you're in for a shock.

    Three (3) buildings on 9/11 collapsed in New York. The 2 towers and WTC7, which stood a towering 47 stories. There are dozens of facts that eliminate the official conspiracy theory as a reason for their collapse. Most of them are detailed at http://AE911Truth.org, a website of thousands of scientists, engineers and architects who have staked their reputations on these facts and their implications.

    But let's look at just one set of glaring facts:
    FACT 1) WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors
    FACT 2) Free fall means zero resistance from all supports (100% of potential energy converted to kinetic energy)
    FACT 3) Solid steel never, EVER offers ZERO resistance

    Debunkers DEBUNKED! Wake up people. The NIST scientists lied. The Corporate Party media lied. The government lied.

    Why would a seasoned federal prosecutor, then as mayor of New York (Giuliani) commit a major felony by destroying crime scene evidence at the largest crime scene in American history?

    Why would the top military officers responsible for the massive  security failures on 9/11 all receive promotions instead of courts martial? Rewarding incompetence? Were those rewards also acts of incompetence, or payment for complicity?

    Why would NIST scientists start their timer on the free fall of WTC7 at an artificially early starting point and then take the average rate of acceleration. That's drylabbing. That's scientific Fraud!

    Government scientists were treating the laws of physics like they do in cartoons. As I said, solid steel never, ever offers zero resistance, except in cartoons and government reports.

    If there's nothing to cover up, then why the multiple instances of appearance of coverup?

    But free fall in a building collapse can only have happened from controlled demolition. That's the only way that solid steel can offer zero resistance. And it takes months to prepare even one building for controlled demolition.

    David Chandler, physics teacher, in one of his YouTube videos, shows falling debris from one of the tower collapses suddenly take a sharp turn in mid-air, only possible if the debris had an attached explosive charge that went off late. More evidence of explosive demolition.

    Could our own government have been complicit in the murder of American citizens? In 1962, the top military guy, Lemnitzer, proposed several 9/11 like scenarios for tricking America into war with Cuba. Though he didn't specifically recommend murdering innocents, many of his proposals involved explosives that could've resulted in injury or death of innocents. Operation Northwoods would most certainly have led to casualties amongst our boys invading Cuba. That's a crime! That's treason. No wonder Kennedy canned his ass.

    Should the U.S. Take Action Against Syria?

    Hell no! Why should we have attacked Libya? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan? We had no business in any of those countries. When you really dig, you find that the real terrorists are Americans. American empire building. We're doing the same things that we condemned in Russia during the Soviet era.

    Obama has lied incessantly. Why should we believe his government about sarin gas in Syria?

    Turkish troops found sarin gas in a rebel house -- not Syrian government bunkers! America has been supporting the rebels, many of whom are Al Qaeda! When did America start siding with the terrorists?

    Obama has his "Kill List" with American citizens on it, trashing the 4th Amendment! Obama goes to war without a declaration by Congress, bypassing the Constitution. Obama even had the gall to say that Gitmo prisoners should stay there even if found INNOCENT!

    I voted for Obama in 2008. I knew something was fishy when he received the Nobel Peace prize before he had done anything. And he has not only continued our wars of aggression, but has created new wars of aggression, drone strikes murdering innocent men, women and children. And now has the gall to call out Assad and accuse him of using sarin gas. What if we're being lied to, again? What if the sarin gas was supplied by America by the CIA as another in their long line of Black Ops, False Flag operations to stimulate public outrage?

    Learn something from a Syrian girl who hates Assad, but definitely does not want Americans in Syria.

    SyrianGirl debates FSA on Australian show 'Insight'
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEPadG0pQk

    I love America, but I hate the lying bastards that are ruining the nation with crimes against the world, and destruction of the American currency through skyrocketing and accelerating national debt toward oblivion. If you don't wake up and do something about all this madness, then you are just as complicit.

    1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that you should never have voted for Obama, a man with absolutely no experience what so ever, who hates America, lied about being a Christian, loves the Muslim nations and has ruined our economy not to mention our healthcare system. He is a moron that has filled his cabinet with the same. But, that is what manipulators do. Fool you!
      Have a good day.... Maybe there's a Labor day sale on guns somewhere? Might need one someday soon, yikes!!

      1. Ranzi profile image86
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Allison i dont know you but with all due respect, lone just wrote a whole article with proven facts and your closed mind is only worried about obama being muslim? You are turning a blind eye similar to a women who turns a blind eye on the crimes of a rapist psycho killer husband.

    2. peeples profile image89
      peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lone, I agree with 99% of this. It's all sadly true. What we will end up doing if we continue at this rate is really pissing off another country. Then it won't be USA attacking it's own anymore. It seems they are setting us up for failure.

    3. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Was that a Hub you just wrote there Lone? Lol.

    4. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hey there, LoneStar.

      Once again you have dragged out the weary claim that your arguments originate from “thousands of scientists, engineers and architects who have staked their reputations on these facts and their implications.” It should be obvious even to you that this statement speaks only to their sincerity and says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of their conclusions. 

      Obviously, this statement totally ignores the fact there are a substantial number of scientists, engineers and architects on the record stating categorically that WTC7 did not collapse due to controlled demolition. I would speculate that your saying they “staked their reputations” is suppose to add some psychological measure of imaginary proof to their speculations. 

      By all means, let us examine what you call “glaring facts:”
      FACT 1) WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors.
      FACT 2) Free fall means zero resistance from all supports (100% of potential energy converted to kinetic energy)
      FACT 3) Solid steel never, EVER offers ZERO resistance.”

      FACT 1 is absolutely FALSE and FACT 2 and FACTS 3 do nothing to change this.

      Here are a few facts you should verify for yourself about WTC7:

      FACT: Large perimeter columns from the WTC1 hit WTC7 as the tower collapsed.

      FACT: Unlike the other shorter buildings damaged from the WTC1 collapse, only Building 7 had fires raging out of control, had a hole and a gash 20 to 40 floors high on the south face, and a the massive load of 40 stories above them.
      (WTC7 center building below)
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8346328_f248.jpg
      FACT: NYFD saw the building was beginning to lean to the South and by mid-afternoon ordered all firefighters and rescue teams away from the building.
      FACT: WTC7 collapsed under its own weight around 5 p.m. {1}
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8346331_f248.jpg
      Eye witnesses reported seeing a 20 to 40 story gash carved out of the south side of WTC7. This picture indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. Notice the Northern walls (foreground of debris) lying on the top of the rubble. The majority of the building fell to the south-east corner (upper left of the debris pile) based on debris locations. This is consistent with a normal collapse by fire.

      "There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. {2}
      .
      Therefore, all attempts to explain how and why they collapsed are purely hypothetical. Never the less, your post, without indicating any first hand training or knowledge of controlled demolition, uses uncertain theories to slander government officials. It uses hypothetical conjecture to accuse hundreds of people including the Mayor, NYC firefighters, policemen, journalists, and eyewitnesses, of conspiracy to cover up mass murder. It places you within a group who do not believe such serious charges demand levels of certainty that go above and beyond the norm. “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof," Sadly, you have none.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
      {2} http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind … on=548:548  Preface

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    That's a very tough question on which reasonable people can differ. I'm inclined to think that failure to act in some way to show Syria and the world that use of poison gas and other WMD are illegal under international law would be a mistake. On the other hand, steps short of a military strike might be sufficient.

    1. Writer Fox profile image82
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In a complete reversal, President Obama announced he will seek congressional authorization for intervention in Syria. It seems that Obama made this decision in a late Friday afternoon walk on the White House lawn with his Chief of Staff. Speaking last night to the press in the Rose Garden, Obama said the operation would be limited in duration and strong to deter future chemical attacks. But he had decided to seek a final authority from Congress to attack – this, after the British Parliament forced British Prime Minister David Cameron to drop plans for immediate military intervention.

      Obama's testosterone levels have fallen. As Commander in Chief, Obama has the constitutional authority to order military action without the backing of Congress. He wants to wash his hands of the responsibility and history will record this indecisive moment.

      French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said on Sunday that France would not act alone in Syria but will await a decision by the U.S. Congress on whether to launch an attack against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.  "France cannot go it alone", Valls told Europe One Radio. "We need a coalition." 

      Obama's reversal of resolve has made him a joke in Syria. Syria's Ambassador to the U.N. Bashar Ja'afari says that both U.S. President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron "have climbed a tree and don't know how to get off."

      The Arab League and Saudi Arabia has called for the United Nations to take action against Syria:

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013 … syria.html

      Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that it will back U.S. military action.

      Meanwhile, it was disclosed that the FBI has increased its surveillance of Syrians living in the U.S. ahead of a possible U.S. military attack on Syria, The New York Times reported on Sunday. The domestic intelligence agency and the Department of Homeland Security have also alerted Federal agencies and private firms that any U.S. strike could trigger cyber attacks, according to the report. Hackers who claim to support Syrian President Assad and collectively known as the Syrian Electronic Army have made several disruptions in recent months on American companies, including The New York Times. The newspaper said that FBI agents are set to interview hundreds of Syrians in the coming days.

      Congress will not be in session until September 9th to vote on military action. Obama's delay has given the advantage to a ruthless regime which has been given time to use the chemical weapons it has stored before they are destroyed.

      Why has this happened?  Because Obama has succumbed to Soviet pressure. The blood of innocent victims will be on his hands.  It's a sad day for America.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        From a different perspective, I think he did the smartest political move since getting elected.

        1. I don't support bombing Syria - it's not our place to butt in as the "world's policeman" we are so frequently lambasted for.

          *Why us and not any of the Mid-East nations? Why are they saying "We support you America," but are hiding behind money and logistical contributions only? Why won't one of them lead the way and let us support them instead?

        2. He is following the stance he, Biden, and the Democrat party have espoused from day 1. Like it or not, he is "walking his talk."

        3. I don't think American citizens see this as something we should do.

        4. It looks like he found the best possible way out after letting himself get cornered into his "Red Line" position.

        5. If America really does want to bomb Syria - let them say so through Congress. In a situation where the U.S. is not under immediate threat, it is the right way to make this decision.

        So, as this different perspective sees it - he did the right thing.

        ps. I don't think Russian, (the Soviet Union is no more), pressure had anything to do with it.


        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I concur, GA.
          Many say that the President is carefully passing the buck to avoid the political consequences of taking unilateral action, even if it has the advantage of sending an immediate message to Assad. Even if we had Britain as an ally and a cooperative UN, Obama  is still wise to run it through Congress, so as to not be criticized for practicing cowboy diplomacy later

          1. Roy Patterson profile image59
            Roy Pattersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Congress isn't going to OK a war with Syria with 90+% of the people against it. Congressmen know elections are coming up next year and most want to be re-elected.

        2. Alison Dittmar profile image61
          Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          GA it's called Passing the buck to Congress and takes him right off the hook.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, constitutionally speaking it would be more  correctly called doing the right thing. And I think it is also more correct to say that his decision got America off the hook.

            But your response does prompt the question of why you think he's just passing the buck?

            Do you disagree with his actions? Do you think the U.S. is under immediate threat, or attack from Syria?

            Are you familiar with authorities he has as commander-in-chief to wage war?

            GA

            1. Alison Dittmar profile image61
              Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I am familiar with  the authority he has, however in this case I feel getting involved is unwarrented and because he has already "blown the whistle" so to speak in regards to where our ships will be, when we will strike, where we will strike, etc. he looks foolish if he does not move forward. I do not think that the U.S. is under immediate threat from Syria at all. Hence, if he puts the decision on Congress, it takes him off the hook. Now it is not his decision, but Congress. Especially vital IF an attack on the U.S. does occur.... I just wonder about the notion or rumor that Muslims living in America will attack here if he does bomb. Hardly seems plausible, neighborhood wise, but an explosion or something could happen. Maybe he wants something to happen? Just a thought.

  14. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    For those with an open mind. For those who are curious about what Bashar al assad has to say: FULL INTERVIREW

    zvestia: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?

    Bashar al-Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

    Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries - estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.

    The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.

    Izvestia: Yet, Western mainstream media claim that the terrorists control 40% to 70% of Syrian territory; what is the reality?

    Bashar al-Assad: There isn’t an army in the world that can be present with its armament in every corner of any given country. The terrorists exploit this, and violate areas where the army is not present. They escape from one area to another, and we continue to eradicate them from these areas with great success. Therefore, I reiterate, the issue is not the size of the territories they infiltrate but the large influx of terrorists coming from abroad.

    The more significant criterion to evaluate success is - has the Syrian Army been able to enter any area infiltrated by terrorists and defeat them? Most certainly the answer is yes; the army has always succeeded in this and continues to do so. However, this takes time because these types of wars do not end suddenly, they protract for prolonged periods and as such carry a heavy price. Even when we have eradicated all the terrorists, we will have paid a hefty price.

    Izvestia: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?

    Bashar al-Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.



    Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

    Izvestia: The Syrian government claims a strong link between Israel and the terrorists. How can you explain this? It is commonly perceived that the extremist Islamists loathe Israel and become hysterical upon hearing its name.

    Bashar al-Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

    If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel!

    Izvestia: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?

    Bashar al-Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?

    From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn’t. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.

    To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

    Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

    Izvestia: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

    Bashar al-Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence - what evidence is it going to gather from afar?

    They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

    As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings.

    During the last few weeks, we have worked with the Commission and set the guidelines for cooperation. First of these, is that our national sovereignty is a red line and as such the Commission will directly liaise with us during the process. Second, the issue is not only how the investigation will be conducted but also how the results will be interpreted. We are all aware that instead of being interpreted in an objective manner, these results could easily be interpreted according to the requirements and agendas of certain major countries. Certainly, we expect Russia to block any interpretation that aims to serve American and western policies. What is most important is that we differentiate between western accusations that are based on allegations and hearsay and our request for an investigation based on concrete evidence and facts.

    Izvestia: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

    Bashar al-Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour.

    All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

    The situation in Libya also differs to that of Egypt and Tunisia, and Syria as I have said is very different from all these. Each country has a unique situation and applying the same scenario across the board is no longer a plausible option. No doubt they can wage wars, but they cannot predict where they will spread or how they will end. This has led them to realise that all their crafted scenarios have now spiralled out of their control.

    It is now crystal clear to everybody that what is happening in Syria is not a popular revolution pushing for political reform, but targeted terrorism aimed at destroying the Syrian state. What will they say to their people when pushing for military intervention: we are intervening in Syria to support terrorism against the state?!

    Izvestia: What will America face should it decide on military intervention or on waging a war on Syria?

    Bashar al-Assad: What it has been confronted with in every war since Vietnam… failure. America has waged many wars, but has never been able to achieve its political objectives from any of them. It will also not be able to convince the American people of the benefits of this war, nor will it be able to convince the people in this region of their policies and plans. Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

    Izvestia: Mr. President, how is your relationship with President Vladimir Putin? Do you speak on the phone? If so, what do you discuss?

    Bashar al-Assad: I have a strong relationship with President Putin, which spans back many years even before the crisis. We contact each other from time to time, although the complexity of events in Syria cannot be discussed on the phone. Our relationship is facilitated through Russian and Syrian officials who exchange visits, the majority of which are conducted away from the glare of the media.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, are you planning to visit Russia or invite President Putin to visit Syria?

    Bashar al-Assad: It is possible of course; however the current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria, there are casualties on a daily basis. When circumstances improve, a visit will be necessary; for now, our officials are managing this relationship well.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, Russia is opposing the US and EU policies, especially with regards to Syria, what would happen were Russia to make a compromise now? Is such a scenario possible?

    Bashar al-Assad: Russian-American relations should not be viewed through the context of the Syrian crisis alone; it should be viewed in a broader and more comprehensive manner. The US presumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was perpetually destroyed. After President Putin took office in the late 90s, Russia began to gradually recover and regain its international position; hence the Cold War began again, but in a different and subtler manner.

    The US persisted on many fronts: striving to contain Russian interests in the world, attempting to influence the mentality of Russians closer to the West both in terms of culture and aspiration. It worked diligently to eliminate Russia’s vital and powerful role on many fronts, one of which is Syria.

    You may be wondering, like many Russians, why Russia continues to stand by Syria. It is important to explain this reason to the general public: Russia is not defending President Bashar al-Assad or the Syrian government, since the Syrian people should decide their president and the most suitable political system – this is not the issue. Russia is defending the fundamental principles it has embraced for more than a hundred years, the first of which is independence and the policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Russia itself has suffered and continues to suffer from such interference.

    Additionally, Russia is defending its legitimate interests in the region. Some superficial analysts narrow these interests to the Port of Tartous, but in reality Russia’s interests are far more significant. Politically speaking, when terrorism strikes Syria, a key country in the region, it would have a direct impact on stability in the Middle East, which would subsequently affect Russia. Unlike many western governments, the Russian leadership fully understands this reality. From a social and cultural perspective, we must not forget the tens of thousands of Syrian-Russian families, which create a social, cultural and humanitarian bridge between our two countries.

    If Russia were to seek a compromise, as you stipulated, this would have happened one or two years ago when the picture was blurred, even for some Russian officials. Today, the picture is crystal clear. A Russia that didn’t make a compromise back then, would not do so now.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, are there any negotiations with Russia to supply fuel or military hardware to Syria? With regards to the S-300 defence system contract in particular, have you received it?

    Bashar al-Assad: Of course, no country would publically declare what armaments and weapons it possesses, or the contracts it signs in this respect. This is strictly classified information concerning the Armed Forces. Suffice to say that all contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation. Russia continues to supply Syria with what it requires to defend itself and its people.

    Izvestia: Mr President, what form of aid does Syria require from Russia today? Is it financial or perhaps military equipment? For example would Syria request a loan from Russia?

    Bashar al-Assad: In the absence of security on the ground, it is impossible to have a functioning and stable economy. So firstly, the support that Russia is providing through agreed military contracts to help Syrians defend themselves will lead to better security, which will in turn help facilitate an economic recovery. Secondly, Russia’s political support for our right of independence and sovereignty has also played a significant role. Many other countries have turned against us politically and translated this policy by cutting economic ties and closing their markets. Russia has done the complete opposite and continues to maintain good trading relations with us, which has helped keep our economy functioning. Therefore in response to your question, Russia’s supportive political stance and its commitment to honour the agreed military contracts without surrendering to American pressure have substantially aided our economy, despite the negative bearings the economic embargo - imposed by others, has had on the lives of the Syrian people.

    From a purely economic perspective, there are several agreements between Syria and Russia for various goods and materials. As for a loan from Russia, this should be viewed as beneficial to both parties: for Russia it is an opportunity for its national industries and companies to expand into new markets, for Syria it provides some of the funding necessary to rebuild our infrastructure and stimulate our economy. I reiterate that Russia’s political stance and support have been instrumental in restoring security and providing the basic needs for the Syrian people.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, do these contracts relate to fuel or basic food requirements?

    Bashar al-Assad: Syrian citizens are being targeted through their basic food, medical and fuel requirements. The Syrian government is working to ensure these basic needs are available to all Syrians through trade agreements with Russia and other friendly countries.

    Izvestia: Returning to the situation in Syria and the current crisis. We are aware that you successively issue amnesties. Do these amnesties include rebels? And do some of them subsequently change sides to fight with the Armed Forces?

    Bashar al-Assad: Yes, this is in fact the case. Recently, there has been a marked shift, especially since the picture has become clearer to many that what is happening in Syria is sheer terrorism. Many have come back into the mainstream of civil life, surrendering their weapons and benefitting from the amnesties to help them return to their normal lives. Most remarkably, there are certain groups who have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it; these people were either misled by what was propagated in the media or were initially militarised under threats from the terrorists. It is for this very reason that from the start of the crisis, the Syrian government has adopted an open door policy to all those who wanted to U-turn on the initial route they took against their country. Despite the fact that many people in Syria were opposed to this policy, it has proven to be effective and has helped alleviate some of the tension from the crisis.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

    Bashar al-Assad: The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally - Russia and China, regionally - Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

    In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilised and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilisation or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

    Turkey is a different case. It is pitiful that a great country such as Turkey, which bears a strategic location and a liberal society, is being manipulated by a meagre amount of dollars through a Gulf state harbouring a regressive mentality. It is of course the Turkish Prime Minister who shoulders responsibility for this situation and not the Turkish people with whom we share a great deal of heritage and traditions.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, what makes Russian-Syrian relations so strong? Is it geopolitical interests? Or that they jointly share a struggle against terrorism?

    Bashar al-Assad: There is more than one factor that forges Syrian-Russian relations so strongly. First of which is that Russia has suffered from occupation during World War II and Syria has been occupied more than once. Secondly, since the Soviet era, Russia has been subjected to continuous and repeated attempts of foreign intervention in its internal affairs; this is also the case with Syria.

    Thirdly but no less significantly is terrorism. In Syria, we understand well what it means when extremists from Chechnya kill innocent civilians, what it means to hold under siege children and teachers in Beslan or hold innocent people hostage in Moscow’s theatre. Equally, the Russian people understand when we in Syria refer to the identical acts of terrorism they have suffered. It is for this reason that the Russian people reject the Western narrative of “good terrorists and bad terrorists.”

    In addition to these areas, there are also the Syrian-Russian family ties I mentioned earlier, which would not have developed without common cultural, social and intellectual characteristics, as well as the geopolitical interests we also spoke of. Russia, unlike the Europeans and the West, is well aware of the consequences of destabilising Syria and the region and the affect this will have on the inexorable spread of terrorism.

    All of these factors collectively shape the political stance of a great country like Russia. Its position is not founded on one or two elements, but rather by a comprehensive historical, cultural and intellectual perspective.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, what will occur in Geneva 2, what are your expectations from this conference?

    Bashar al-Assad: The objective of the Geneva conference is to support the political process and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. However, this cannot be accomplished before halting the foreign support to terrorism. We expect that the Geneva conference would start applying pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria, to stop the smuggling of weapons and the streaming of foreign terrorists into the country. When this is achieved, political steps can be easily pursued, most imperative of which is initiating a dialogue between Syrians to discuss the future political system, the constitution, various legislations and others.

    Izvestia: Thank you for your sincerity and for such a transparent discussion durinFor those with an open mind. For those who are curious about what Bashar al assad has to say: FULL INTERVIREW

    zvestia: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?

    Bashar al-Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

    Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries - estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.

    The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.

    Izvestia: Yet, Western mainstream media claim that the terrorists control 40% to 70% of Syrian territory; what is the reality?

    Bashar al-Assad: There isn’t an army in the world that can be present with its armament in every corner of any given country. The terrorists exploit this, and violate areas where the army is not present. They escape from one area to another, and we continue to eradicate them from these areas with great success. Therefore, I reiterate, the issue is not the size of the territories they infiltrate but the large influx of terrorists coming from abroad.

    The more significant criterion to evaluate success is - has the Syrian Army been able to enter any area infiltrated by terrorists and defeat them? Most certainly the answer is yes; the army has always succeeded in this and continues to do so. However, this takes time because these types of wars do not end suddenly, they protract for prolonged periods and as such carry a heavy price. Even when we have eradicated all the terrorists, we will have paid a hefty price.

    Izvestia: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?

    Bashar al-Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.



    Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

    Izvestia: The Syrian government claims a strong link between Israel and the terrorists. How can you explain this? It is commonly perceived that the extremist Islamists loathe Israel and become hysterical upon hearing its name.

    Bashar al-Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

    If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel!

    Izvestia: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?

    Bashar al-Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?

    From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn’t. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.

    To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

    Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

    Izvestia: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

    Bashar al-Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence - what evidence is it going to gather from afar?

    They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

    As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings.

    During the last few weeks, we have worked with the Commission and set the guidelines for cooperation. First of these, is that our national sovereignty is a red line and as such the Commission will directly liaise with us during the process. Second, the issue is not only how the investigation will be conducted but also how the results will be interpreted. We are all aware that instead of being interpreted in an objective manner, these results could easily be interpreted according to the requirements and agendas of certain major countries. Certainly, we expect Russia to block any interpretation that aims to serve American and western policies. What is most important is that we differentiate between western accusations that are based on allegations and hearsay and our request for an investigation based on concrete evidence and facts.

    Izvestia: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

    Bashar al-Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour.

    All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

    The situation in Libya also differs to that of Egypt and Tunisia, and Syria as I have said is very different from all these. Each country has a unique situation and applying the same scenario across the board is no longer a plausible option. No doubt they can wage wars, but they cannot predict where they will spread or how they will end. This has led them to realise that all their crafted scenarios have now spiralled out of their control.

    It is now crystal clear to everybody that what is happening in Syria is not a popular revolution pushing for political reform, but targeted terrorism aimed at destroying the Syrian state. What will they say to their people when pushing for military intervention: we are intervening in Syria to support terrorism against the state?!

    Izvestia: What will America face should it decide on military intervention or on waging a war on Syria?

    Bashar al-Assad: What it has been confronted with in every war since Vietnam… failure. America has waged many wars, but has never been able to achieve its political objectives from any of them. It will also not be able to convince the American people of the benefits of this war, nor will it be able to convince the people in this region of their policies and plans. Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

    Izvestia: Mr. President, how is your relationship with President Vladimir Putin? Do you speak on the phone? If so, what do you discuss?

    Bashar al-Assad: I have a strong relationship with President Putin, which spans back many years even before the crisis. We contact each other from time to time, although the complexity of events in Syria cannot be discussed on the phone. Our relationship is facilitated through Russian and Syrian officials who exchange visits, the majority of which are conducted away from the glare of the media.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, are you planning to visit Russia or invite President Putin to visit Syria?

    Bashar al-Assad: It is possible of course; however the current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria, there are casualties on a daily basis. When circumstances improve, a visit will be necessary; for now, our officials are managing this relationship well.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, Russia is opposing the US and EU policies, especially with regards to Syria, what would happen were Russia to make a compromise now? Is such a scenario possible?

    Bashar al-Assad: Russian-American relations should not be viewed through the context of the Syrian crisis alone; it should be viewed in a broader and more comprehensive manner. The US presumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was perpetually destroyed. After President Putin took office in the late 90s, Russia began to gradually recover and regain its international position; hence the Cold War began again, but in a different and subtler manner.

    The US persisted on many fronts: striving to contain Russian interests in the world, attempting to influence the mentality of Russians closer to the West both in terms of culture and aspiration. It worked diligently to eliminate Russia’s vital and powerful role on many fronts, one of which is Syria.

    You may be wondering, like many Russians, why Russia continues to stand by Syria. It is important to explain this reason to the general public: Russia is not defending President Bashar al-Assad or the Syrian government, since the Syrian people should decide their president and the most suitable political system – this is not the issue. Russia is defending the fundamental principles it has embraced for more than a hundred years, the first of which is independence and the policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Russia itself has suffered and continues to suffer from such interference.

    Additionally, Russia is defending its legitimate interests in the region. Some superficial analysts narrow these interests to the Port of Tartous, but in reality Russia’s interests are far more significant. Politically speaking, when terrorism strikes Syria, a key country in the region, it would have a direct impact on stability in the Middle East, which would subsequently affect Russia. Unlike many western governments, the Russian leadership fully understands this reality. From a social and cultural perspective, we must not forget the tens of thousands of Syrian-Russian families, which create a social, cultural and humanitarian bridge between our two countries.

    If Russia were to seek a compromise, as you stipulated, this would have happened one or two years ago when the picture was blurred, even for some Russian officials. Today, the picture is crystal clear. A Russia that didn’t make a compromise back then, would not do so now.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, are there any negotiations with Russia to supply fuel or military hardware to Syria? With regards to the S-300 defence system contract in particular, have you received it?

    Bashar al-Assad: Of course, no country would publically declare what armaments and weapons it possesses, or the contracts it signs in this respect. This is strictly classified information concerning the Armed Forces. Suffice to say that all contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation. Russia continues to supply Syria with what it requires to defend itself and its people.

    Izvestia: Mr President, what form of aid does Syria require from Russia today? Is it financial or perhaps military equipment? For example would Syria request a loan from Russia?

    Bashar al-Assad: In the absence of security on the ground, it is impossible to have a functioning and stable economy. So firstly, the support that Russia is providing through agreed military contracts to help Syrians defend themselves will lead to better security, which will in turn help facilitate an economic recovery. Secondly, Russia’s political support for our right of independence and sovereignty has also played a significant role. Many other countries have turned against us politically and translated this policy by cutting economic ties and closing their markets. Russia has done the complete opposite and continues to maintain good trading relations with us, which has helped keep our economy functioning. Therefore in response to your question, Russia’s supportive political stance and its commitment to honour the agreed military contracts without surrendering to American pressure have substantially aided our economy, despite the negative bearings the economic embargo - imposed by others, has had on the lives of the Syrian people.

    From a purely economic perspective, there are several agreements between Syria and Russia for various goods and materials. As for a loan from Russia, this should be viewed as beneficial to both parties: for Russia it is an opportunity for its national industries and companies to expand into new markets, for Syria it provides some of the funding necessary to rebuild our infrastructure and stimulate our economy. I reiterate that Russia’s political stance and support have been instrumental in restoring security and providing the basic needs for the Syrian people.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, do these contracts relate to fuel or basic food requirements?

    Bashar al-Assad: Syrian citizens are being targeted through their basic food, medical and fuel requirements. The Syrian government is working to ensure these basic needs are available to all Syrians through trade agreements with Russia and other friendly countries.

    Izvestia: Returning to the situation in Syria and the current crisis. We are aware that you successively issue amnesties. Do these amnesties include rebels? And do some of them subsequently change sides to fight with the Armed Forces?

    Bashar al-Assad: Yes, this is in fact the case. Recently, there has been a marked shift, especially since the picture has become clearer to many that what is happening in Syria is sheer terrorism. Many have come back into the mainstream of civil life, surrendering their weapons and benefitting from the amnesties to help them return to their normal lives. Most remarkably, there are certain groups who have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it; these people were either misled by what was propagated in the media or were initially militarised under threats from the terrorists. It is for this very reason that from the start of the crisis, the Syrian government has adopted an open door policy to all those who wanted to U-turn on the initial route they took against their country. Despite the fact that many people in Syria were opposed to this policy, it has proven to be effective and has helped alleviate some of the tension from the crisis.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

    Bashar al-Assad: The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally - Russia and China, regionally - Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

    In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilised and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilisation or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

    Turkey is a different case. It is pitiful that a great country such as Turkey, which bears a strategic location and a liberal society, is being manipulated by a meagre amount of dollars through a Gulf state harbouring a regressive mentality. It is of course the Turkish Prime Minister who shoulders responsibility for this situation and not the Turkish people with whom we share a great deal of heritage and traditions.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, what makes Russian-Syrian relations so strong? Is it geopolitical interests? Or that they jointly share a struggle against terrorism?

    Bashar al-Assad: There is more than one factor that forges Syrian-Russian relations so strongly. First of which is that Russia has suffered from occupation during World War II and Syria has been occupied more than once. Secondly, since the Soviet era, Russia has been subjected to continuous and repeated attempts of foreign intervention in its internal affairs; this is also the case with Syria.

    Thirdly but no less significantly is terrorism. In Syria, we understand well what it means when extremists from Chechnya kill innocent civilians, what it means to hold under siege children and teachers in Beslan or hold innocent people hostage in Moscow’s theatre. Equally, the Russian people understand when we in Syria refer to the identical acts of terrorism they have suffered. It is for this reason that the Russian people reject the Western narrative of “good terrorists and bad terrorists.”

    In addition to these areas, there are also the Syrian-Russian family ties I mentioned earlier, which would not have developed without common cultural, social and intellectual characteristics, as well as the geopolitical interests we also spoke of. Russia, unlike the Europeans and the West, is well aware of the consequences of destabilising Syria and the region and the affect this will have on the inexorable spread of terrorism.

    All of these factors collectively shape the political stance of a great country like Russia. Its position is not founded on one or two elements, but rather by a comprehensive historical, cultural and intellectual perspective.

    Izvestia: Mr. President, what will occur in Geneva 2, what are your expectations from this conference?

    Bashar al-Assad: The objective of the Geneva conference is h support the political process and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. However, this cannot be accomplished before halting the foreign support to terrorism. We expect that the Geneva conference would start applying pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria, to stop the smuggling of weapons and the streaming of foreign terrorists into the country. When this is achieved, political steps can be easily pursued, most imperative of which is initiating a dialogue between Syrians to discuss the future political system, the constitution, various legislations and others.

    Izvestia: Thank you for your sincerity and for such a transparent discussion during this interview.

    Bashar al-Assadg this interview.

    Bashar al-Assad

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for posting the interview. Very interesting.

    2. Alison Dittmar profile image61
      Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You best read Writer Foxes reply below, but let me say the one point that stuck out in that interview below was this: that Syrias allies are Rusdia, China and Iran. Hmmm? I must repeat myself, keep out of it.

  15. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago

    Do you realize that you just violated the copyright of Voltaire Network by posting that here?  You can't post that interview without a citation and it cannot be posted on a commercial site, which this is! You need to hit the delete button on your post and just give a link to the article.

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    If we do nothing would it promote WWIII? If not, the answer is obvious.

  17. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago

    Children starving to death in Syria:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ldren.html

  18. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago

    It has just been reported that the U.N. counts 6.2 million Syrians displaced by the Civil War, more than 1/3 of the population:

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … risis?lite

  19. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    This is who America is supporting, a psychotic cannibal who opens a wounded soldier's chest, takes out his liver and heart and proceeds to eat his fresh heart.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06 … ddle-east/

    Shocking footage

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Glenn Beck is a pathethic simpleton loser.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Awesome opinion.  Do you think you might opine at a later time concerning the content of the video?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It sucks.

          1. Ranzi profile image86
            Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes Glen looks a bit over the top, but let‘s focus on content of footage

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As I've said previously what to do about Syria is a tough question which has no easy, riskless answer. We don't know whether the video is authentic, who the individual in it is. And if it is authentic it certainly doesn't prove that anybody, let alone most of the insurgents as Beck claims, besides the individual depicted in it is, eating the heart and liver of government supporters.

              Ben Swann: Glenn Beck Calling For A U.S. War In Syria And Another War In Iraq
              Submitted by emalvini on Tue, 08/13/2013 - 13:16
              in

                  Daily Paul Liberty Forum

              Ben Swann: Glenn Beck Calling For A U.S. War In Syria And Another War In Iraq

              32 minutes ago | Politics, Swann TV, US | Posted by Ben Swann
              August 13, 2013

              If you regularly follow my work, you know that I have written and talked about Al Qaeda in Syria for about 2 years now. I was the first reporter to confront President Obama to his face about the fact that al Qaeda fighters in Syria were the real force behind the so called Syrian “civil war”.

              When polled, 80% of Americans reject going to war with Syria.

              As recently as one month ago, I created a Full Disclosure episode to explain how strong the presence of al Qaeda truly is in Syria. Explaining that the best funded, best equipped and best positioned force to take over the country from the Assad regime is not the Free Syria Army but Al Nusra Front, the Syrian wing of al Qaeda in Iraq.

              Today, on Glenn Beck’s national radio show, Beck and Blaze TV commentator Buck Sexton talked about this growing problem of Al Qaeda in Syria and the growth of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The position that Beck and Sexton took… that Al Qaeda must be stopped. Sexton advocated sending U.S troops to Syria to stop Al Qaeda (as if the Assad regime would want U.S troops on Syrian soil) and that we must do the same to put down Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beck, agreed that we must stop al Qaeda but first we have to get our troops recuperated and refreshed.

              http://www.dailypaul.com/295739/ben-swa … ar-in-iraq

              If my memory is correct, Beck was a strong supporter of George Bush's foolish, costly, lying invasion of Iraq. He is an idiot clown.

              Why are we citing Glenn Beck and not the NY Times?

              Debating the Case for Force
              By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
              Published: September 2, 2013 Comment

              "President Obama made the right decision to seek Congressional authorization for his announced plan for unilateral military strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons. There has to be a vigorous and honest public debate on the use of military force, which could have huge consequences even if it is limited in scope and duration.

              " If he is to win Congressional backing, Mr. Obama and his top aides will have to explain in greater detail why they are so confident that the kind of military strikes that administration officials have described would deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from gassing his people again (American officials say more than 1,400 were killed on Aug. 21) rather than provoke him to unleash even greater atrocities.

              "They will also have to explain how they can keep the United States from becoming mired in the Syrian civil war — something Mr. Obama, for sound reasons, has long resisted — and how military action will advance the cause of a political settlement: the only rational solution to the war.

              "There is little doubt that President Obama wants to take military action. As Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday of Mr. Obama, “He believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.”

              "On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled hear testimony from Mr. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Monday, Mr. Obama got tentative support from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has been pushing for even broader military action and arming the rebels. Mr. McCain said Congressional rejection of military action would be “catastrophic” and would undermine the credibility of the president and the United States.

              "It is unfortunate that Mr. Obama, who has been thoughtful and cautious about putting America into the Syrian conflict, has created a political situation in which his credibility could be challenged. He did that by publicly declaring that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line that would result in an American response. Regardless, he should have long ago put in place, with our allies and partners, a plan for international action — starting with tough sanctions — if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons. It is alarming that Mr. Obama did not.

              "Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility to uphold treaties outlawing chemical weapons use, has failed to act in any way following the August attack, largely because of the opposition of Russia, Mr. Assad’s chief ally and arms supplier, and China. It is appalling that Russia and China have not been the focus of international outrage and pressure.

              "The Arab League, representing some of the world’s most anti-Assad governments, on Sunday toughened its previous position when it called on the United Nations and the international community to take “necessary measures” against Syria’s government. But, feckless as ever, the League did not specify what measures it supported and, on Monday, the League’s secretary general said there should be no military action without a green light from the United Nations."

              Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board »


              http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opini … ef=opinion

              1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
                Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I keep saying that if we leave these folks alone they can settle their own problems. People in the Middle East would respect a "NO" vote by Congress on fighting Syria. What's that place matter, anyway?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, civilized nations outlawed poison gas in 1925. Therefore, it seems that Assad's use of sarin should not be ignored. Moreover, President Obama's and U.S. credibility are on the line as a result of his "red line" statement several months ago. He has been fairly criticized for making that statement, and he may well regret it now.

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As if Obama is concerned about his credibility!  At least he has no concern with his credibility with the American people!


                    1) Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval

                    In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.

                    2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton – just like Bush did

                    In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of using kickbacks to get foreign contracts.

                    3) Has an administration full of lobbyists, after promising he wouldn’t have any

                    While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.

                    4) Has close ties to Wall St., but pretends to support Occupy Wall St.

                    Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.

                    5) Broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay

                    Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

                    6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout just like Bush

                    While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill. The bailout rewarded irresponsible and illegal behavior. It redirected resources from more productive uses to less productive uses. It punished the hard working taxpayers who had played by the rules and obeyed the law. It created horrible incentives, and sent the wrong message. The bailout was evil because it rewarded the bad people and punished the good people. No society that does this can expect to remain free or prosperous. Instead of bailing out these corrupt corporations, we should have let them cease to exist, like we did with Enron.

                    7) Waged the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president, which was the opposite of what he had promised

                    In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

                    However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.

                    In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote: “The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.” In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote: “Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

                    In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against  Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients. In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana. In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA. In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords. During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.

                    In July 2013, the DEA conducted multiple medical marijuana raids in Washington state, including the cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle.

                    In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana.  Obama’s marijuana smoking wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine – how cold hearted can a person be?

                    8) Nominated a six-time tax cheater to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws

                    Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.

                    Prior to his nomination, Geithner had:

                    1) Illegally failed to pay more than $34,000 in social security and Medicare taxes

                    2) Illegally declared the cost of his children’s summer camp as a form of day care.

                    3) Illegally failed to pay the early withdrawal penalty when he took money out of his retirement plan

                    4) Illegally declared non-eligible items as a charitable deduction

                    5) Illegally declared something which was ineligible as a small business deduction

                    6) Illegally declared utility expenses which had actually been for his personal use

                    9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives, then pretended to be outraged about it

                    Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”

                    10) Expanded Bush’s unconstitutional government faith based programs

                    Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.

                    11) Supported Bush’s unconstitutional Patriot Act

                    In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.

                    12) Increased the national debt more in one term than Bush did in two

                    The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

                    13) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges

                    In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power toindefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.

                    14) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping

                    President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.

                    15) Avoided prosecution of Wall. St criminals

                    Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, during his entire first term, his administration did not file any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.

                    16) Had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process

                    Obama had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process.

                    The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution for doing this.

                    U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.

                    17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employees

                    In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.

                    18) Stole money from retired teachers and police officers

                    During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, wrote, “Upsetting this fixed hierarchy among creditors is just an illegal taking of property from one group of creditors for the benefit of another, which should be struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds.” Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, wrote that Obama’s treatment of secured creditors was “dangerous to the rule of law.” The Economist wrote that Obama’s actions could “establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?” Francis Cianfrocca, the CEO of Bayshore Networks, wrote that Obama’s actions were “an astonishingly reckless abrogation of contract law that will introduce a new level of uncertainty into business transactions at all levels, and make wealth generation more difficult going forward… An extraordinary uncertainty has been created when the most powerful man in the world can rewrite contracts and choose winners and losers in private negotiations as he sees fit. Since this is an unquantifiable uncertainty, and not a quantifiable risk, its effect on business and investor confidence will be large and unpredictable. As in the 1930s, a time when government also cavalierly rewrote private contracts, the prudent approach for business will be to invest minimally and wait for another administration.”

                    19) Supported release of convicted mass murderer

                    In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.

                    20) Illegally put thousands of guns into hands of criminals

                    In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals
                    http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/252-d … z2cQcqrrrw


                    lol

                    Besides all that, where is the evidence that Assad had anything to do with this atrocity?

                    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG_9buKt6hzLOpsUoE7uzCFaorOB1YBpZVo3j5AhbYcLhCIq4j

                  2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
                    Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, Ralph. Wasn't it McCain and Graham who pushed Obama into giving the "red line' speech. And he'll eat that when Congress votes. Or, it will show that American legislators still think the U.S. is exceptional and does not have to obey the laws of history and the facts of reality.

                  3. Alison Dittmar profile image61
                    Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know if Syria is a civilized nation, not the the U.S. or the Europeans. If so, what the heck is a guy like Assad doing in charge?!

                2. Alison Dittmar profile image61
                  Alison Dittmarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And, Obama does whatever he wants. And he wants to destoy this country!! Wake up already. For all we know this is just a ploy to take our  minds off of ObamaCare which by the way, Congress does not have to use. Disgusting bunch of them really.
                  Again, can we for once let the MIddle east take care of itself and guard our own borders??!!

  20. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?

    By Jim Naureckas


    Let's compare a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (8/30/13), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called Mint Press News (8/29/13).

    The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack" on August 21. The Mint report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack." Which of these two versions should we find more credible?

    The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism–particularly when it's making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in his address that "our intelligence community" has been "more than mindful of the Iraq experience"–as should be anyone listening to Kerry's presentation, because the Iraq experience informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on distortion of evidence and deliberate suppression of contradictory facts.

    Comparing Kerry's presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell's speech to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by Twitter messages and YouTube videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons–a question that indeed had been in some doubt, but had already largely been settled by a report by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for "neurotoxic symptoms."

    On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry's presentation was much more vague and circumstantial. A key point in the government's white paper is "the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media." It's unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?

    In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development–the point at which, as Kerry put it, "all hell broke loose in the social media"? Unless there's some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it's very unclear why we should think there's any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.

    When the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

    Another key claim is asserted without substantiation: "Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21, near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin." How were these personnel identified, and what were the signs of their operations? How was this place identified as an area used to mix sarin? Here again the information provided was far less detailed than what Powell gave to the UN: Powell's presentation included satellite photographs of sites where proscribed weapons were being made, with an explanation of what they revealed to "experts with years and years of experience": "The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions," he said, pointing to an annotated photograph of bunkers that turned out to be storing no such thing. Powell's presentation graphically demonstrated that US intelligence analysts are fallible, which is part of why presenting bare assertions without any of the raw materials used to derive those conclusions should not be very convincing.

    Kerry did offer an explanation for why the report was so cursory: "In order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly." It is not clear, however, why intelligence methods that produced visual and audible evidence that could be shared with the public 10 years ago cannot be similarly utilized today. It does point to why the $52 billion the United States spends on surveillance annually, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden (Washington Post, 8/29/13), provides relatively little information that's of value to American democracy: The collection of information is considered so much more valuable than the information collected that it rarely if ever can be used to inform a public debate. Instead, as we discuss the dreadful question of whether to launch a military attack on another country, we are offered an undemocratic "trust us" from the most secretive parts of our government–an offer that history warns us to be extremely wary of.

    http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/whi … -credible/

    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlwlxDlmCdO9CPFy4n-Ob6p3Zvox2ihQ_KlPBGDFQdiRbDAn7Q

    How many times will the American people fall for the "I got your nose" trick?

    1. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are the American people the most gullible people in the world?

  21. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    To all the ignorant Americans out there who keep on saying things like, is Syria even a civilised socitety and talking crap about them been backwards and primitive, well you are all so clueless I feel sorry for your brainwashed media zombie brains.

    1.Syria is a secular state, christians and muslims co exist and religion is not allowed to get involved in politics
    2.Men and women can go out party in night clubs, date, drink alcohol dress how they want
    3.Women can wear bikinis on the beach
    4. Just a few years ago Bashar Al Assad banned women covering their faces
    5. Women have gender equality in the work and public life
    6. Man and women can go out in public, be friends and can and can date
    7. Syria has hundreds of churches and thousands of nuns and priests. Christians are treated equally

    Now let's see who your US government is helping, extremist muslims who are trying to over take the country and inflict sharia law. Do you know what Sharia law is? Like you see in Saudi, women have to cover up, cant drive, cant wear make up, they will bulldoze down all the churches, men and women cant even go out for a coffee or be in the same car together if not married. And you will go to prison for wearing a crucifix and killed for not believing in God.

    Bashar Al-Assad is trying to stop all this..

    ARE THESE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT??

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings Ranzi,
      I think the point of your post, ie. the 7 points, is a helpful contribution to this discussion.

      I never thought of Syria as backward or uncivilized, but neither did I think it was as you have pointed out.

      Of course I did one of those famous "20 minute Google searches" - and discovered once again how dangerous assumptions are.

      So perhaps I am now a slightly less ignorant American, Thanks
      GA

      1. Ranzi profile image86
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hey no worries, I dont blame you. I'm a lebanese Australian and many times I'm even gullible to media. But I've been to Syria many times and my Syrian friends told me that many support him, over 70% and that they are so fearful about been over taken by extremists. They say he wasn't perfect before, but now they see him as a hero who is fighting terrorism, not sold like the rest of the arabs  and  they respect that he is the only arab leader standing up to the west.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You seem knowledgeable and perhaps you missed my question:

          What is the monetary system like under Bashar Al Assad? Specifically regarding taxes and interest rates.

    2. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is the monetary system like under Bashar Al Assad? Specifically regarding taxes and interest rates.

      1. Ranzi profile image86
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I guess it would have been better if he sold his country to Saudi. But I guess human freedom is more important

        1. Ranzi profile image86
          Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But I'm not too sure to be honest

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Can you go to Syria and get a credit card from a Syrian Bank, max it out and have to pay back the charges plus 15% interest?

            1. Ranzi profile image86
              Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why?

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because you claimed that Americans are ignorant and gullible.

                I admit I am ignorant of the monetary system of Syria.

                I cannot get my head around it, I cannot understand it.

                It seems like a hybrid between an international system and an internal system.

                I was wondering if you knew more about it. Whether it was going to lean one way or another in the future.

                It's germane for me because in the future people will say, it was a dispute, or it was a civil war. Then later someone will claim, it was all about oil or control of oil. Oil being a commodity translates to money. Others will say and have said I believe, that other peripheral countries are playing  roles.

                In a dispute such as this in the middle eastern area, there could be other factors, such as deliberate destabilization of the area by outside forces.

                1. Ranzi profile image86
                  Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry I'm not the best person to ask about the monetary system in Syria. I can't even get my head around it in my own country Australia. At the same time this war is about control of the middle east. Bashar Al Assad in the only Arab leader at the moment not to be sold by US power and Saudi money, he is the only one who supports Palestine and goes against Israel, so it is in America's best interest to go against him and cause propaganda on what's happenig in Syria. Americans were lied to in Afghanistan, you were lied to again in Iraq and then again in Libya. Don't let it happen again

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Personally  I feel no reason to get involved on either a side that allegedly uses chemical weapons or a side that allegedly uses proxy bombs or cannibalism.

                    It has just been my experience of 50 years of life that a common motive is money.

        2. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What do you mean by "selling country to Saudi"?

          1. Ranzi profile image86
            Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The people that Assad is fighting are the same wahabi extremists who are funded by Saudi. They want to make Syria just like Saudi, with Sharia law and spread extreme fundamental Islam all over to more modern secular Arab countries such as Syria, and  Lebanon. Bashar Al Assad is standing on principle and won't let his country and people be destroyed by those people who for years have been trying to take over. The Assad regime even made any extreme religious group illegal in Syria years ago and these people are resentful

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Civilized societies don't use poison gas on their citizens nor on their enemies.

      1. Ranzi profile image86
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why are you led by propaganda? Why would the president poison his own people, when the majority idolise him. UN report shows that 72% will re-elect him again. Don't you know that the media have been feeding us with lies? Are you not aware of the scandal Al jazeera was pulling when they were paying people to play dead and wounded just so they could film and make lies about the government. Research it yourself. He has more support in his country than you beloved president Obama has. Yes and the rebels are not civilised. Bashar al Assad is fighting to maintain of what was once a civilised society in his country.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM#t=206

        I may have to write an article just to prove my point and at least show the truth to the minority with an open mind and who sick of being fooled

        1. Ranzi profile image86
          Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And isn't the US a civilised society? So why did it use gas on the iraq citizens Fallujiah?
          Or why did it stay silent when Israel was using poison gas on the civilians is Gaza
          I'm sure you have also heard about the collateral damage video leaked by manning?
          Why has the US thrown bombs over 50 countries?
          Oh I know because those people from third world countries are primitive, ethnic and like animals, who cares about their lives! Like they cared about the lives of stolen Africans to help build their country or when they cared about the lives of the natives and now actually it seems like they couldn't care less about YOUR life as a US citizen because when counter attacks happen on your soil like they did in sep 11th they're just going to continue waging more wars and enemies and creating more monsters like osama and Al Qaida.
          Yes the US is leading by example and playing chess with the US citizens and the world. You must be proud

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ranzi, Your credibility would improve if you identified the sources for your outlandish claims:

          Here is one of my many sources:

             
          Allies’ Intelligence on Syria All Points to Assad Forces
          By DAVID E. SANGER and STEVEN ERLANGER
          Published: September 3, 2013
          The British say there have been 14 Syrian chemical attacks since 2012 and the last, the most horrific, killed “at least 350” civilians. The Americans count fewer attacks, but put a stunningly higher, quite precise number on the casualties from the attack two weeks ago: 1,429.

          The French argue that only President Bashar al-Assad and the closest members of his clan can order chemical attacks; the Americans say that, at least when it comes to the Aug. 21 attack that has triggered the Congressional debate over an American armed strike, it is unclear where the orders came from.

          In short, the differences in intelligence estimates among the United States and its closest allies are considerable but, in the end, perhaps not that meaningful. All come to the same basic conclusions: the attacks involved sarin gas, only the Assad government had control over the chemical agents, and whether it was premeditated or the result of “sloppiness,” as one senior American official put it, the results were devastating.

          Members of Congress, emerging from unclassified and classified briefings, say they have little doubt that Mr. Assad’s government was responsible for the attacks; even those who cite the example of the huge intelligence errors made about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq concede this case is different. Iraq was about assessing whether weapons existed; Syria is all about who used them, and whether a strike would prevent — or encourage — their use again.

          But the very public way that the Americans, French, British and Israelis have published their evidence underscores the huge sensitivities around the intelligence itself, as well as the questions it prompts.

          The issues are made more difficult by the fact that chemical weapons can be delivered in many ways, from small rockets to helicopters (the intelligence reports argue both have been used at different times), and the effects are sometimes hard to detect.

          There was no mistaking the effects, though, in the Aug. 21 attack, in which there were so many dead, and so much forensic evidence, that there is little credible argument that sarin gas was not used. The question is whether the Obama administration reacted too slowly to earlier attacks, and whether Congress will decide that, no matter how horrendous the effects, it is not a problem for America to solve.

          A look at the intelligence judgments made public by France, Britain and the United States is generally consistent, if still laden with caveats about how and how surely the governments came to their conclusions.

          On Aug. 29, the British government released a declassified assessment from the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Jon Day, addressed to Prime Minister David Cameron, saying that it was “highly likely” that the Syrian government carried out the chemical warfare attacks of Aug. 21.

          The letter noted that Britain had previously judged that the Syrian government had “used lethal C.W. on 14 occasions from 2012,” adding that “this judgment was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review.”

          “A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.”

          As for the attack on Aug. 21, Mr. Day wrote, there was a lot of “open source reporting of C.W. use,” including videos, photographs and testimonials. “As a result, there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties on a larger scale than hitherto (including, we judge, at least 350 fatalities), took place.”

          For Washington, the total was considerably higher, saying that “a preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.”

          The British judged that “there is no credible intelligence or other evidence” to substantiate claims that the Syrian opposition either used chemical weapons or even has them.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/world … es.html?hp

  22. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Syria is also a country with a government that just gassed a suburb and killed every man, woman, child and pet animal in there.  I don't support either side but any regime that gasses an entire community should experience consequences.  Bad ones.

    1. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      See still gullible! Have you even done your own research about the other side? or you're just laying on your sofa, watching CNN, eating pizza while discussing how the world can be made a better place.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemical-w … da/5347297

  23. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    For all that want to see how the media has mislead tus once again and see how the majority of Syrian people love and support their president.  please watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM#t=206

    Did you even know that Footage taken of thousands of people in support of their president Bashar and their disdain at Al Jazeera propaganda was manipulated by the western media and later shown to the world as protesters who are marching against their president?

    There seems to be more support for the Syrian president than there is for Obama.  So who do you think will win? A syrian patriot fighting against terrorism and imperialism, or a naive young American soldier who doesn't really know what he is fighting for?

  24. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago

    According to a statement released by the U.N. today, the Civil War in Syria has forced over two million people out of the country and over four million others are displaced within its borders, making Syria the nation with the largest number of people without homes.  "Syria has become the great tragedy of this century, a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history", U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said, speaking about the impact of the civil war. "About half the population of Syria has needed humanitarian aid", Mr. Guterres said, "putting Syria’s crisis at a level unseen in recent decades."  He added that almost 5,000 citizens a day on average are flowing out of Syria, many of them with little more than the clothes they are wearing on their backs.

    More than 97% of Syria's refugees are hosted by countries in the immediate surrounding areas.  Hundreds of wounded Syrians are being treated free of charge in Israeli hospitals. The U.N. agency counted at the end of August: 716,000 Syrian refugees were in Lebanon, 515,000 in Jordan, 460,000 in Turkey, 168,000 in Iraq, and 110,000 in Egypt. IT SAID THAT OVER HALF OF THE REFUGEES WERE CHILDREN. And these numbers only represent refugees who are registered with the U.N.  Actual numbers are presumed to be considerably higher.

    France released an intelligence report documenting that chemical weapons were used by Assad in a massive and coordinated attack in Damascus, confirming similar reports from the U.S.

    "The German Intelligence Agency Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) has enough evidence in its possession to conclude that Syrian President Assad ordered the chemical attack in Syria", Germany’s Der Spiegel reports, quoting the results of a secret security briefing.   

    Turkey says it is ready to take part in any international action against the Assad regime, even outside of the United Nations.

    As Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, President Obama doesn't need the approval of Congress to launch cruise missiles against Syria's chemical weapons facilities.  What he needs is a compassionate heart and a backbone.

    1. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes all this is because your government is siddng with Saudi and terrorists who are killing people, using sharia law, raping women, cutting off peoples limbs and torturing them, Of course they will flee, wouldn't you if terrorists were threatening your life and were like parasites all over your country.

      1. Writer Fox profile image82
        Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My government sides with righteousness.

        I live in Jerusalem, Israel.

        And you, madam, have little insight into the situation in Syria.  The world is not witnessing the effects of Saudi influence, but of Iranian control.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I locked the Curmudgeon in the closet, so this is a serious question.

          What Iranian control do you mean? Fermenting the rebellion, or backing Assad?
          What does Iran gain in either case?

          Also, as an Israeli, do you support a purely punitive limited strike?

          GA

          1. Writer Fox profile image82
            Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Iran controls Syria and Lebanon.  It is no secret.  Russia is backing Iran, always has and always will, and that is no secret.

            Iran's objective is leadership in the Muslim world and conquering the entire world for Islam.   

            The Israeli government supports taking out the chemical weapons capability in Syria and the nuclear capability in Iran.  Nothing more and nothing less.

            1. Ranzi profile image86
              Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think you mean Iran the only country that protects syria and lebanon from Israel

              1. Writer Fox profile image82
                Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You must have been quite young when you fled Lebanon, so I'll fill you in on a little history. The 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War is two weeks away. On Yom Kippur, 1973, Syria attacked Israel with 1,500 tanks and 1,000 artillery pieces advancing against 60 Israeli tanks on the front line. Syria deployed 50,000 troops against 6,000 Israelis. Egypt simultaneously attacked Israel's southern border with 70,000 troops against 500 Israelis.  Egypt sent 1,200 tanks and 1,000 artillery pieces against less than 100 tanks on Israel's front line.

                The attackers were assisted by troops from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan Kuwait and Lebanon.  Pilots and fighter aircraft were sent from Pakistan, North Korea and the Soviet Union.  Over 900 enemy aircraft entered Israeli airspace which was defended by 350 jets.

                Against insurmountable odds, Israel won. In less than three weeks of fighting. You can read of the humiliating Arab defeat here:
                http://hub.me/afqq0

                Israel has fought the entire Arab world with its Soviet assistance three times and emerged victorious.  And Israel is prepared at every moment to do it again.

                On June 7, 1981, Israel flew into Iraq and bombed its nuclear reactor under construction in Osirak. Iraq could not respond.

                On September 6, 2007, Israel flew into Syria and bombed its nuclear reactor under construction.

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8348293_f248.jpg

                Syria was impotent to even fire a shot in the air. 

                Syria's existence is by the good graces of Israel, which could obliterate the entire country in less than hour.

                And now, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be dealt with.

                1. Ranzi profile image86
                  Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why don‘t you take your own advice. If you want to brag about the victories of Israel you will need to do it on another thread instead of highjacking this one.  smile

                  1. Writer Fox profile image82
                    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    This thread is about the aggression of the Assad regime (father and son) and it is appropriate to speak of its history in that regard.

                2. Ranzi profile image86
                  Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Fox you stated “And now, irans nuclear ambition will be dealt with“ And here I was thinking you keep on calling for US action because your human heart cared about the UN humanitarian crisis of poor syrian women and children.

        2. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              On 22 May 2012, an FSA brigade kidnapped 11 Lebanese pilgrims coming from Iran.[171] Four of them were killed in an airstrike by the Syrian Air Force and the rest were released unharmed.[172]

              On 20 July 2012, Iraq's deputy interior minister, Adnan al-Assadi, said that Iraqi border guards had witnessed the FSA take control of a border post, detain a Syrian Army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs before executing 22 Syrian soldiers.[173]

              On 21 July 2012, Turkish truck drivers said that they had their trucks stolen by members of the FSA when it captured a border post. They said that some of the trucks were burnt and others sold back to their drivers after the goods were looted.[174]

              The United Nations report on war crimes states that the FSA's execution of five Alawite soldiers in Latakia, post-July 2012 was a war crime. The report states, "In this instance, the FSA perpetrated the war crime of execution without due process."[158]

              On 13 August 2012, a series of three videos surfaced showing executions of prisoners, apparently by rebel forces, in Aleppo province. In one video, six postal workers were being thrown off the main postal building in Al-Bab to their deaths, purportedly by FSA fighters. The gunmen claimed they were shabiha.[175][176][177][178]

              On 9 September 2012 the FSA exploded a car bomb near al-Hayat Hospital and the Central Hospital in Aleppo. According to Syrian state media, at least 30 people were killed[179] and more than 64 wounded.[180] The FSA claimed that the Army had occupied the hospital buildings and were using them as a base.[181]

              On 10 September 2012 the FSA's Hawks of Syria brigade executed more than 20 Syrian soldiers captured in Hanano military base.[182]

              On 2 November 2012 the FSA's al-Siddiq Battalion kidnapped and executed prominent Syrian actor Mohammed Rafeh. It claimed he was a member of the shabiha and was carrying a gun and military ID.[183][184]

              In May 2013, a video was posted on the internet showing a rebel cutting organs from the dead body of a Syrian soldier and putting one in his mouth, "as if he is taking a bite out of it". He called rebels to follow his example and terrorize the Alawite sect, which mostly backs Assad. Humans Rights Watch (HRW) confirmed the authenticity of the footage, and stated that "The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime".

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syria … llegations

          1. Ranzi profile image86
            Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for this

        3. Ranzi profile image86
          Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jumping to assumptions  I see. Are you talking about the same righteous Israel that destroyed my country Lebanon in 2006 by bombing it and killing 1000 civilians? (I was there) The same Israel that sponsors the biggest terrorist organisations zionism. The same Israel that drags the US to fight its battles in the MA and where American tax payers money is going?  You are sitting here preaching about the US going in and declaring war on Syria, talking about the poor victims.. Bashar Al Assad is a saint compared to the war crimes Israel has committed. I can see now as an israeli it is in your best intetest to see the last arab country that helps the palestinians your country massacred destroyed. Well where was the US when the palestinian people got killed, terrorised and kicked out of their land? Or was it not a big enough humanitarian crisis that 7 million palestinians were refugees by 2003. Palestinian persons are one of the largest displaced populations in the world today. Where was the US when israel was using poison gas in gaza on civilians?. .i guess it wasn‘t a humanitarian issue then and it is now in syria? Where was the US when the israel military forces adopted “shoot to kill policy“   and im not going to go into the invasion of homes where palestinian women were raped in front of their children and husbands and men tortured, kidnapped and killed in front of their families. In the end I have nothing against you as maybe you‘re an innocent person born into a culture or race you didnt choose and were raised this way, as Im sure your views would have been different if you were born into a palestinian family or even to an african one. But I do condemn the mistreatment of the palestinian people had to face at the cost of building a righteousness Israel.
          J

          1. Writer Fox profile image82
            Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            None of this is correct.   If you want to talk about Lebanon's problems, you need to start another thread instead of hijacking this one.  That's the forum protocol. And when you do, I'll be happy to respond to you there.

  25. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    As I do not support a military strike against Syria, I am dismayed by what took place in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today.

    With Kerry as the administration's  spokesman - it appears to boil down to "saving face." Oh, and showing other rogue nations that gas attacks are a no-no.

    I heard nothing that implied any danger or national security threats to the U.S. (I don't buy the "looking weak" national security threat rational)

    Over and over the justifications all boiled down to "we, (the U.S.), will look weak if we don't do what we said we would."

    The Republican's even seem to be supporting it. From my perspective, I can only say thank goodness we have the House. They are usually less easily bought.

    But then again, maybe I am the one that is wrong. Maybe I am the only one that sees this as a "Dare" being called. Geesh, how bad is it when the august body of the Senate looks like kids on a playground?

    GA

  26. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    The very most that I see the president attempting is a 'thump on the head' for Syria, but the war hawks are after regime change, instead of a just a costly reminder to Assad about the use of chemical weapons. I am not interested in toppling Assad, that is not my concern and the people of Syria will have to conduct its civil war like countless nations before them, in autonomy.

    I think that pursuit of that enforcement of this violation by Assad is best addressed by an international body like the UN who has the jurisdiction to make decisions that cross over international borders, in response to international directives. I am leary of our assuming the mantle here. Assad needs to be reminded, but acting unilaterally still sends the wrong message to everyone, friend or foe, the damage which may well exceed that of Assad getting away with the gassing of his opposition.  So, I am not really keen on the President's approach.

    I resent the McCains and the Rumsfelds as arm chair warriors. We cannot continue this course of  constant  intervention as part of our foreign policy, I am not particularly interested and I cannot afford it.

  27. 60
    TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago

    Hey—the GOP finally voted yes on something . . .

    https://sphotos-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/565001_642099829157771_1264890005_n.jpg

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They are never to be left out when it comes to beligerancy and sabre rattling. It is tragic that with all the obstruction on the domestic front when it comes to waging war, the GOP are always front and center.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not all of the GOP are in favor of this action.
        The way the congressional factions are lined up is kinda weird. But then, everything about our Congress is weird.
        It sickened me to watch John McCain go on Leno to plead his case to the American people.
        He went to Syria, dontcha know, and knows who are the "good guys."

        This is a slippery, slippery slope. One minute we'll be "saving face" and the next we'll be losing our right arm. It's a frigging TRAP.
        The only good thing I can say about Obama's response is that he had the good sense to involve Congress in the decision. Had he struck on his own -- with 60+ percent of Americans against the action -- forgedabout it.
        Not that this in any way assures the GOP will cooperate with him on anything. They will just have one less thing to pillory him with...
        roll

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, MM, and we all are supposed to believe that he has vetted Assad's opposition to the point that they will insist upon a representative democracy when Assad falls.

          Much like the old vision of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick each seasons and while assuring Charlie Brown she won't this year do what she has been doing each season past,  she without fails pulls the ball the moment he extends his foot, Charlie Brown falling onto his round little head.

          So how many times does Lucy get us to fall for the same antic each and every season?

          Obama is politically shrewd, if he were to do all of this unilaterally, he would be subject to a thrashing in public opinion. While I think that he should stay out of this matter, at least he can share the responsibility for moving forward with Congress. And as you say, while they will not support him, they cannot blame him for carefully dotting all the 'I"s and crossing all the "T's

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It just shows how far apart our government is and the uselessness of its' existence. The Democrats are very much the same way on the other side yet greatly unorganized in their actions. It would help greatly if they were there for our benefit and not their masters.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We just got to figure a way on how we can blame it on Bush, fracking or gun control. We might have to get shrill. We must avoid personal responsibility whatever the cost may be.

        1. 60
          TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can't parse your post.  I sense the cynicism and the snide tone but what are you trying to say in plain English and what does personal responsibility have to do with Syria?

  28. 60
    Whosays101posted 3 years ago via iphone

    Honestly I don't think we should not that I'm against help out other countries but I think before we send our men out there to fight we should about the USA and how many problems we have with money , homeless people , the economy etc. I mean we have so much going on here that we can't focus on another country right now we have problem that the government needs to worth about we can't have are people keep helping other countries because no one else wants to help and I'm trying to trash talk other countries but everytime we help other countries out it put America in more debt than it should be in .

  29. 60
    TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago

    Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-m … :1:Default

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, this is funny.  I support the plan to send Congress.

      1. 60
        TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Goodie!

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I had no idea that my support meant that much to you!  You're welcome.

  30. sannyasinman profile image83
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Some information you may not have seen on mainstream news media

    Syrian rebels take responsibility for accidental chemicals release
    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_3 … udis-1203/

    Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack could be A False Flag
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … _QMhF8I9HE

    Growing number of US soldiers don’t want to attack Syria
    http://www.businessinsider.com/justin-a … z2dhuOVQ32

    British Cyprus spy station would have picked up the incriminating intercepts about Assad authorising Sarin attack, says former British ambassador, but it didn’t, because there was none.
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ … conundrum/

    1. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for this. People also need to see the other side instead of being spoon fed BS media

 
working