http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/
And these are the ... moderates.
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
American special forces not popular with the US backed Syrian rebels
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/
And these are the ... moderates.
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Supafly
Retired Mod
You have more taken to the Trump way of conflict solutions that I would have guessed.
I admit that spontanous reactions like "Just make the sand glow with acouplke nuke warheads and begone with these idiots" is hioghly tempting. But after maximum 5 minutes of clear thught you will realize that the effect would not be de-ecalation, locally, but hyper-escalation, globally.
I mean, you may have a death wish, but if you do, there are more personal ways to go, just by yourself.
I admit that spontanous reactions like "Just make the sand glow with acouplke nuke warheads and begone with these idiots" is hioghly tempting. But after maximum 5 minutes of clear thught you will realize that the effect would not be de-ecalation, locally, but hyper-escalation, globally.
I mean, you may have a death wish, but if you do, there are more personal ways to go, just by yourself.
It's a line from a movie and an internet meme. Lighten up, Francis.
I don't advocate nuking Syria, maybe just sending the kaaba stone back into orbit. Surely, the almighty allah would never allow that to happen.
“Christians and Americans have no place among us,” shouts one man in the video. “They want to wage a crusader war to occupy Syria.”
If indeed they did say this I wonder where they got the idea we might end up being uninvited occupiers? *coughGeorgeBushIraqcough*
classic "Aliens" line kudos to you, sir :hatsoff:
If indeed they did say this I wonder where they got the idea we might end up being uninvited occupiers? *coughGeorgeBushIraqcough*
classic "Aliens" line kudos to you, sir :hatsoff:
You can't blame them, everytime the West (not only the us) gets involved in a war in the middl-east, the life of local populations gets worst.
Sure to instantly create hundreds of thousands of america hating jihadis.
Sure to instantly create hundreds of thousands of america hating jihadis.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
In all fairness it's a confusing clusterfuck of allies. The US supports the Syrian rebels who are fighting the Assad regime and the Kurds. But it also supports the Kurds who fight alongside the Syrian governement forces against Daesh AND the Syrian rebels AND Turkey. The US backs up Turkey, but Turkey is fighting Daesh AND the Kurds. Basically a game of divide and conquer I suppose. Sooner or later someone is going to be pissed off if they fear (mistakenly or not) their enemy gets more support from the US than them.
The US (and all their allies : France, UK, Canada, etc...) have to realise that in most middle-east and maghreb countries, dictators are a lesser evil. That removing them or weakening the regime is helping radical muslim to seize power.
Democracy, freedom is a thing that the people living in these countries have to conquer for themselves, that it is not up to us to give it to them.
To gain their sovereignty towards England and become the US, the 13 colonies had to fight the "red coats".
It took France 3 revolutions and the defeat of Emperor Napoleon 3rd against Otto Von Bismarck's Prussia to get rid of kings and emperors for good and became a republic.
Its only after 2 revolutions that's England became a constitutional monarchy.
Among the countries involved in the Arab Spring, Tunisia is the only one whe the dictator was removed without any foreign intervention and it is the only one where there is now a democratic regime, not a theocracy or a military dictatorship.
I think most conservative will agree that "freedeom is not free". So why are we handing it to people instead of letting theme fight for it by themselves ?
Democracy, freedom is a thing that the people living in these countries have to conquer for themselves, that it is not up to us to give it to them.
To gain their sovereignty towards England and become the US, the 13 colonies had to fight the "red coats".
It took France 3 revolutions and the defeat of Emperor Napoleon 3rd against Otto Von Bismarck's Prussia to get rid of kings and emperors for good and became a republic.
Its only after 2 revolutions that's England became a constitutional monarchy.
Among the countries involved in the Arab Spring, Tunisia is the only one whe the dictator was removed without any foreign intervention and it is the only one where there is now a democratic regime, not a theocracy or a military dictatorship.
I think most conservative will agree that "freedeom is not free". So why are we handing it to people instead of letting theme fight for it by themselves ?
It's great to look at Tunisia as a successful example, but for every one of them, you have more that didn't work out. Look at the first democratically elected government of Egypt after the Arab Spring.
Isn't the problem of "letting them fight for it themselves" the fact that warlords & generals (the ones who can actually "fight") don't always make the best political leaders?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
So you want to drop a nuke on Syria?
Drop a nuclear bomb on Syria.
Why? What did the Syrians do to you?
We have no business in Syria. We are there bombing them and blowing up civilians, children.
Blowing them up, burning them up, destroying as much as possible not because Syria was ever a threat to the US in the slightest bit.
We attacking Syria for the same reasons we attacked these countries- (sadly it's an incomplete list)
Afghanistan 2003 for 9/11
Yemen in 2002
Phillipines in 2002
Iraq in 2003 for 9/11
Liberia 2003 for regime change
Haiti 2004 for regime change
Pakistan 2005
Somolia 2006 for regime change
Syria 2008
Yemen 2009 again
Libya 2011 for regime change
Iraq 2014 again
Syria 2014 again
And their still trying for Syria and Iran.
#1 Reason- Israel. We do it for israel. If only The People knew just how much influence that place had on our GOV.
It's a country run by "former" Mossad terrorists, propagandists, and war mongers. Israel and Aipac have more control over US politicians than anybody. They want to see every Arab country destroyed and destabilized and they use our young people's blood to do it. The American people go into more and more debt for them.
#2 The Central Banks owned by the Rothschilds, Rockefellers. They are still a few more countries on their list who's money supply is not controlled by them. Syria is one of them. Plus they get to loan all the money war costs with interest of course.
#3 What Ike called the Military Industrial Complex. Thats all the GOV agencies and politicians and private businesses that make Trillions off of war.
Getting rich off of other people sufferings and death. Going on 15 years of non stop wars. The money just keeps rolling right in.
So when I hear people talk about mass murder of thousands or millions of people including children who have done nothing to them or their country, and then in the next sentence talk about those evil Nazis or some other bullshit someone shoved down their throats I just think of how brainwashed and naive so many people really are.
They think they know so much but in reality they don't know shit.
Sheeple. Manipulated controlled and owned and they don't even know it.
The US is not invited in Syria. Russia is.
The US is there against the will of the Syrian Gov and the people.
That is by all definitions an invasion. An act of aggression.
The media tells the world we are there to help but we are actually there to Kill the PREZ and install another US puppet leader.
And while we're there we are blowing up hospitals and people homes with them inside and saying "Oops" we though they were ISIS.
THe US is the bad guys in this one, all the way
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-syria-situation-worsening-warns-us-141723100.html
They [Israel] want to see every Arab country destroyed and destabilized
Funny. Israel has nukes but doesn't use them even though many of their neighbors want to see them eradicated from the face of the earth.
Do you think the poor put upon Arab countries that openly wish them dead would exercise the same restraint if they had nukes?
Funny. Israel has nukes but doesn't use them even though many of their neighbors want to see them eradicated from the face of the earth.
Do you think the poor put upon Arab countries that openly wish them dead would exercise the same restraint if they had nukes?
Bingo.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to meesterperfect again.
Same reason why other countries don't use nukes against each other. Isreal would launch theirs.
Same reason why other countries don't use nukes against each other. Isreal would launch theirs.
If the situation were reversed. If Israel's enemies in the region were nuclear armed and Israel wasn't. We'd be redrawing maps today.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
That's a lot of what if's and assumptions, Strict. There's no way of knowing that
Just taking them at their word and with their actions and what is written in their holy book as an indicator. 1948 War of Independence, The 1967 Six Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur were all fought with Israel's annihilation and the jews driven into the sea as one side's goal. How can there be any doubt that if the tables were turned and Israel was at the mercy of a nuclear armed Iran with no threat of a nuclear exchange, that Iran would show restraint? Israel would be an irradiated wasteland right now, insha allah.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
Because you would have to take much more in account then just "flipping the tables" about who has nuclear weapons without it having any effect on everything else. For the surrounding countries to have nukes and Israel not, you would have to have an entirely different past for instance. Let's just have a look at Israel, you'll get the gist of where I'm going with this.
It means that Israeli's wouldn't have been so obsessed with getting nukes from the beginning as they were in the 1950's and that means another mindset, including in politics.
It means that there never would have been a collaboration between France and Israel, which does have an impact on France's nuclear program too. There would never have been a collaboration between Israel and Britain as well. Would the Suez Crisis have happened? To quote wiki: "When Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, France proposed Israel attack Egypt and invade the Sinai as a pretext for France and Britain to invade Egypt posing as "peacekeepers" with the true intent of seizing the Suez Canal (see Suez Crisis). In exchange, France would provide the nuclear reactor as the basis for the Israeli nuclear weapons program." Since in this hypothetical case Israel never had nuclear weapons, France would never have proposed it to Israel. Maybe Britain and France would have collaborated with the surrounding countries? Who knows.
It means Israel wouldn't have been able to prevent neighbouring countries from developing a WMD program (Begin Doctrine), which raises the question if they would have had a capable army and or intelligence.
It would mean some pacts between the US and Israel would never have been signed. Which means different politics. And so on and so on.
In other words the entire situation in the Middle East would be different. But there is no way of knowing how and what as we have no idea of how the world would have evolved in the past ~70 years.
Which doesn't mean there is no reason for concern. For example if Daesh was able to get their hands on some uranium to create a dirty bomb or something. I'll give you that.
Absolutely. But what's the alternative ? Removing dictators and let the people choose their leader throught elections has led Iraq and Lybia to chaos and alloiwed ISIs to take control of a big chunk of these countries.
On the wat to democracy, many nations happen to stumble a few times before thei finally make it for good.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Too much to respond to here now.
Plus a lot of speculation would be needed so I'll back off.
I will say I don't think anyone has plans on attacking israel, nukes or not. Including and especially Iran.
That's mostly propaganda. Israel playing the matyr card as usual to get sympathy and ......whatever.
But, if it wasn't for israel's guard dog , The USA, Arab countries very well might attack them. But it would have nothing to do with religion.
(Keep in mind prior to 48 and especially 67 Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in that area in relative peace.
They'd hang out, watch each others kids for cryin out loud.)
They would fight them over what they have done to the indigenious people of the area.
The people with the deeds to the property they stole by force. They would fight israel not out of aggression, but to control israels aggression. Same as the Allies supposedly did in both WW's. Exactly the same.
So there is your motive. If anything israel wants to destabilize all countries on and near their border (Although they don't even actually have a legal border) to prevent them from preventing their ever growing theft of other peoples land.
Then maybe later they'll start taking their land too. Who's gonna stop them? ISIS?
And think about this. If ISIS is a radical Muslim group who hates Jews and wants them "eradicated" why do they never attack israel?
That question actually answers a lot.
Hmm. Maybe ISIS and their predecessors are actually paid mercenaries from all over. Arabs, Euros, North Africans, maybe even Americans and Jews also. The question then would be who's arming and paying them.
We all know who.
PS before anyone in any thread accuses me of hating Jews. I don't. Only the men who run israel.
(And actually a lot of Jewish people feel the same way).
Same as all the people who's countries the US has attacked these past 15 years shouldn't hate the American people , just the ones who control the GOV.
Plus a lot of speculation would be needed so I'll back off.
I will say I don't think anyone has plans on attacking israel, nukes or not. Including and especially Iran.
That's mostly propaganda. Israel playing the matyr card as usual to get sympathy and ......whatever.
But, if it wasn't for israel's guard dog , The USA, Arab countries very well might attack them. But it would have nothing to do with religion.
(Keep in mind prior to 48 and especially 67 Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in that area in relative peace.
They'd hang out, watch each others kids for cryin out loud.)
They would fight them over what they have done to the indigenious people of the area.
The people with the deeds to the property they stole by force. They would fight israel not out of aggression, but to control israels aggression. Same as the Allies supposedly did in both WW's. Exactly the same.
So there is your motive. If anything israel wants to destabilize all countries on and near their border (Although they don't even actually have a legal border) to prevent them from preventing their ever growing theft of other peoples land.
Then maybe later they'll start taking their land too. Who's gonna stop them? ISIS?
And think about this. If ISIS is a radical Muslim group who hates Jews and wants them "eradicated" why do they never attack israel?
That question actually answers a lot.
Hmm. Maybe ISIS and their predecessors are actually paid mercenaries from all over. Arabs, Euros, North Africans, maybe even Americans and Jews also. The question then would be who's arming and paying them.
We all know who.
PS before anyone in any thread accuses me of hating Jews. I don't. Only the men who run israel.
(And actually a lot of Jewish people feel the same way).
Same as all the people who's countries the US has attacked these past 15 years shouldn't hate the American people , just the ones who control the GOV.
Similar threads
