America may rescue muslims from killing eachother again

[Masihi]

"America preaches to muslim countries about their conduct"

"The shocking images of bodies of children who were attacked with chemicals weapons by Assad’s army evoke in the heart of every Jew the memory of the Holocaust and the horrors our nation suffered just 70 years ago. The desire to intervene in Syria to stop the horror is a worthy human reaction that originates from the heart of every civil person, and certainly from the heart of every Jew.

The situation in which a head of state dares to use chemical weapons in such a cruel way and in violation of all international treaties is dangerous, and the absence of a response by the international community, headed by the US, may be perceived as giving legitimacy to the use of such weapons. The US, as the leader of the free world, preaches to the world’s countries about their conduct, preserves American interests while obligating a country to apologize to another, promotes American interests, and more. But alongside these rights that come with being a superpower, the US is obligated to lead the free world in accordance with the guidelines of international law and serve as the world’s “police officer.”

Waiting for the American cop - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

 

[HonestTruth]

Hans Blix said he has not been presented with any evidence linking Assad's military with the use of outlawed chemical weaponry:


Hans Blix: U.S. has “poor excuse” for Syria incursion now - Salon.com



Where are UN reports to confirm these allegations?

Satellite photos?

Recorded email or other wireless communications?

Other evidence to prove these allegations? Anything???

 

[Zoness]

My thoughts on the pure politics of the situation:



Once again Obama has managed to blunder into another foreign policy disaster. He makes a tough speech during an election warning Syria "don't you dare use chemical weapons" and "don't you dare cross this red line". There was no coherent thought about what to do if Assad actually did use chemical weapons, the warning was purely for domestic consumption to make Obama look tough.


The Syrians use a small attack to see if Obama is really serious and find out as expected Obama backpedaling and making excuses for why a chemical attack really isn't a chemical attack. So then they escalate. Now what is Obama supposed to do? Israel and other allies like Japan and the Philippines are watching to see if the USA's word is good. Obama's bluff is called and he has no idea what to do.


Say we bomb Syria. Then what? The USA isn't going to invade Syria, so what if Assad flips the USA the finger? Keep bombing? Take Assad out and replace him with who? Walk away and say we taught them a lesson? Establish a no fly zone? Do nothing and forcibly point out that the USA under Obama has no spine and won't keep it's word?


Russia and China are not going to become directly involved, but both have plenty of ways to make life miserable for the USA and any who support the attack. What is Europe going to do if Russia announces Nato support of this attack might mean natural gas supply disruptions this winter? Think Tsar Putin won't hesitate to use every tool in his arsenal to make his displeasure felt when Russian prestige is at stake? Is the US or Nato going to attack an Russian navy ship as it lands surface to air batteries for Assad? And does anyone think Iran is going to sit by quietly? All it takes is one Silkworm across the bow of a Western tanker in the Gulf and watch the economic disruptions play out.


This doesn't even begin to cover what to do about who controls Syria. Do we let Assad stay in power or topple him and pray hard that there is some "moderate" still alive who will step into the power vacuum? What happens if an Al-Qaeda group grabs power? Or what happens if Assad decides to escalate and release more attacks and Iran lets Hezbollah off it's leash?


It is all well and good to say there will be consequences. But you had better damn well have an answer when someone asks "what now?". Long story short, there is no way this will turn out good.

 

[football5680]

We just need to stay out. Launching an attack would just bring more countries into the war and it wouldn't do anything to resolve the situation. The country is too divided and there is no way to quickly stabilize it regardless of who wins. We don't know who would take over anyway.

 

[HonestTruth]

The conservative website WND reports that it is the rebels who launched chemical weaponry attacks:


Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies


Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

Contrary evidence arises as U.S. considers punishing Assad regime





Rebel attack?
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
A video posted on YouTube, embedded below, shows Free Syrian Army, or FSA, rebel forces launching a Sarin gas attack on a Syrian village.


Another video posted on YouTube shows what appears to be Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.
As seen below, a screen capture from the video shows rebel civilian forces placing a suspicious blue canister on top of a rocket-launching device.

A separate YouTube video from Syrian television shows a government-captured arsenal of what appears to be nerve gas weapons seized from a rebel stronghold in Jobar, Syria.


The image below shows canisters in the seized rebel arsenal from Jobar that appear to resemble the canister launched by rebel forces in the first image above.
Syrian TV news report of rebel weapons seized in Jobar, Syria

A close-up from the Syrian television news report, seen below, shows a chemical agent identified as having been made by a “Saudi factory.”
Syrian TV news report showing chemical agents identified as manufactured in Saudi Arabia



A report from the Russian Arabic-language channel RT Arabic shows captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia and gas masks, supporting Russian claims that the rebels are the culprits in the alleged chemical attack.


On Aug. 23, LiveLeak.com hosted an audio recording of a phone call broadcast on Syrian TV between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” in Homs, Syria, and his Saudi Arabian boss, identified as “Abulbasit.” The phone call indicates rebel-affiliated terrorists in Syria, not the Assad government, launched the chemical weapons attack in Deir Ballba in the Homs, Syria, countryside.
The terrorist said his group, which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, needed to buy weapons to attack Homs.
The Saudi financier, who was in Cairo, asked the Syrian terrorists to give details about his group and how it will receive the money. The Saudi admitted his support to terrorists in Daraa and the Damascus countryside. The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.
The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.
Russian media sources have consistently reported Syrian military have discovered rebel warehouses containing chemical weapons agents and have documented rebel chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian civilians the military.



-----------



Wouldn't any sense for Assad to use these as his forces are winning the battles, have rebels on the run, and knows that his forces are being monitored by satellites surveillance.

Therefore, it is a good bet that this report is accurate.





And how interesting that previously the conservatives were all so gung-ho during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years but many are suddenly anti war this time around.

 

[Zoness]

And how interesting that previously the conservatives were all so gung-ho during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years but many are suddenly anti war this time around.

That's an easy one, its because Obama is doing it and they're thinking "STOP DOING THE THINGS WE LIKE".

All of this said, I don't trust WND one bit but I agree; why would Assad want Western intervention in a war that he is winning? It's a bit too suspicious for me to write off.

 

[HonestTruth]

That's an easy one, its because Obama is doing it and they're thinking "STOP DOING THE THINGS WE LIKE".

All of this said, I don't trust WND one bit but I agree; why would Assad want Western intervention in a war that he is winning? It's a bit too suspicious for me to write off.

So my question is, why are the news media reporting these incidents as if it was Assad's forces that are deploying that outlawed weaponry?

Why aren't they using the same sources RT and other international media are using in order to give more balance to the reports and to sway the American viewpoint?


All this is far too fishy for me. It's time for Americans to question whether Chuck Hagel and Kerry are speaking the truth and to question these biased news reports.

 

[HonestTruth]

Zoness,

All of this said, I don't trust WND one bit

And how interesting that WND (one I normally don't trust, as well) - a right wing source - is using Russia Today for its report.

That should convince many who are clamoring for intervention that there is much credibility to the reports that it is the opposition, not Assad, who are using these outlawed weapons.

 

[simplegifts]

While I am all for giving humanitarian aid to the victims on both sides of the fight. I say no to weapons and our people!!

Sign the petition:

ACT for America

To President Barack Obama:
Don't drag us into another Middle Eastern civil war
Don't arm the Syrian Rebels

 

[TG123]

While I am all for giving humanitarian aid to the victims on both sides of the fight. I say no to weapons and our people!!

Sign the petition:

ACT for America

To President Barack Obama:
Don't drag us into another Middle Eastern civil war
Don't arm the Syrian Rebels

Thank you so much for this petition, Woodrowli. For once we 1000% agree on something. I signed it, and hope others sign it also. God bless you.

 

[TerranceL]

And how interesting that previously the conservatives were all so gung-ho during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years but many are suddenly anti war this time around.

And the liberals who were so anti-war who went to the streets in the millions to protest a war they didn't want all of a sudden have better things to do.

 

[TerranceL]

I seriously doubt Assad did this, it makes no sense. Why would he do it? To see if we were going to do what we said?

We go to war with people who are our own allies for petes sake. Why wouldn't we go to war given half a reason?

 

[Masihi]

Interesting host of replies.

Im of the opinion all players in the middle east (except israel) want an excalation of the war. Certainly, neighboring countries could care less of their own brothers and not come to their rescue (ie arab league).

I also see the West coming to the realization that any good efforts to stop a war (afghanistan comes to mind), is only met with hatred and the fighting continues even after the troops have gone.

Today the UK parliament rejected the idea of their involvement in the syrian war. They have come to their senses that there is no stopping a religious war. The people the brits try to help would hate them and keep fighting eachother after they have left. British sentiment favors todays parliament decision.

Coming to a muslims aid is history.

 

[TG123]

"America preaches to muslim countries about their conduct"

"The shocking images of bodies of children who were attacked with chemicals weapons by Assad’s army evoke in the heart of every Jew the memory of the Holocaust and the horrors our nation suffered just 70 years ago. The desire to intervene in Syria to stop the horror is a worthy human reaction that originates from the heart of every civil person, and certainly from the heart of every Jew.

The situation in which a head of state dares to use chemical weapons in such a cruel way and in violation of all international treaties is dangerous, and the absence of a response by the international community, headed by the US, may be perceived as giving legitimacy to the use of such weapons. The US, as the leader of the free world, preaches to the world’s countries about their conduct, preserves American interests while obligating a country to apologize to another, promotes American interests, and more. But alongside these rights that come with being a superpower, the US is obligated to lead the free world in accordance with the guidelines of international law and serve as the world’s “police officer.”

Waiting for the American cop - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

I find the title of your post to be extremely ironic. America isn't and has very rarely been trying to "save" Muslims.

The US gives military and political support to Israel, which makes the lives of Palestinian Muslims and Christians in the West Bank unbearable and which kills them in Gaza. It launched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2 predominantly Muslim countries, which have resulted in tens of thousands of people killed as "collateral damage" and contributed to creating an environment that is even more violent than it was before the invasion (especially this is true in Iraq). In Egypt, the US gave weapons and support to Mubarak, who murdered and tyrannized his people. They did the same and continue to do the same to regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other countries. The US government helped overthrow a popular leader in Iran and helped the Shah come to power. It helped Saddam Hussein invade Iran, and provided him with weapons and support as he did so. Most of the victims were Iranian Muslims.

America has done terrible harm to Muslims in the middle east, and to Christians in these regions also, who also suffered like everyone else in these countries because of American foreign policy.

It has also done and continues to do terrible harm to Christians in South and Central America, who suffer due to horrible poverty caused to a large part by unfair US and Canadian imposed free trade agreements, as well as by military human rights violators in Colombia and Honduras who murder people with support from the United States military and government. In the 1970s and 1980s, US-backed military dictatorships murdered over 30,000 Argentineans, 70,000 El Salvadorans, and 300,000 Guatemalans, as well as thousands of Hondurans, Chileans, and other people whose murderous leaders were receiving American help for "fighting communism".

Now "fighting terrorism" is the justification for killing civilians and backing dictators, from the middle east to the Americas.

America isn't 'rescuing' Muslims or Christians in the middle east or South and Central America. On the contrary, it oppresses them.

The US should stop backing terrorism and conducting terrorism through its foreign policy and military support to murderers as well as their military invasions. If they did so, I would laugh less whenever I heard the line that they are going out to "rescue" people.

 

[HonestTruth]

Al-Nusra terrorists are the ones committing horrendous crimes against the government and the people of Syria:


Al-Nusra Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These criminal terrorists who attacked a Christian religious school and beheaded a Catholic bishop are allies of al-Qaeda:


Opinion: Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria - CNN.com

Peter Bergen




Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting al-Assad.

A number of them are battle-hardened from other conflicts such as the Iraq War.

Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate is also well supplied as it benefits from the support of Sunni ultra-fundamentalists in the wealthy Gulf states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.






---------




They have also attacked and murdered innocent minority groups:




Jihadists from al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front kill 450 Kurdish civilians in northern Syria [Silvia Cattori]




militants from al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front attacked Tal Abyad district of Raqqa governorate on Monday, killing 330 women and elderly men as well as 120 children.
The massacre comes a week after al-Nusra militants attacked two Kurdish villages in Aleppo and took around 200 civilians hostage.








Note how little attention is given to this terrorist group or its atrocities by the controlled television news media which continues to blame Assad for their actions.

The pro war Washington Post claims it has conclusive evidence that Assad used chem weapons. This is PRECISELY what they said about Saddam in the lead up to Bush's war on Iraq. BUT WHERE IS THAT EVIDENCE?

Not a shred of evidence has been presented to Congress, to the UN, or to the news media. Again, we are seeing the same pattern of propaganda, distortions, and down right lies used by the government and its media to stir up war hysteria.

The best thing to do is to get out of there now before it is too late.

 

[HonestTruth]

And the liberals who were so anti-war who went to the streets in the millions to protest a war they didn't want all of a sudden have better things to do.

Really?

Where are the pro war protests by liberals?

Up to just a few months ago Occupy Wall Street was repeatedly attacked by the right wingers and the controlled media for criticizing warmongering. I have yet to see any liberal demand war or intervention in Syria.

Have you read democraticunderground, commondreams, thenation, or other liberal websites?

All condemn interventionism in Syria.

 

[Eudaimonist]

While I can understand the motivation to send in troops for humanitarian reasons, I'm very dubious that taking military action against Syria is in America's best interests, or anyone's best interests.

Barack Obama shouldn’t bomb Syria: The good option is to do nothing. - Slate Magazine


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TerranceL]

Really?

Where are the pro war protests by liberals?

Up to just a few months ago Occupy Wall Street was repeatedly attacked by the right wingers and the controlled media for criticizing warmongering. I have yet to see any liberal demand war or intervention in Syria.

Have you read democraticunderground, commondreams, thenation, or other liberal websites?

All condemn interventionism in Syria.

I'm not sure why you think this somehow conflicts with my statement.

I never said they supported the war. I said, now that a democrat is wanting to go to war for no reason at all their silence is deafening.

 

[HonestTruth]

I'm not sure why you think this somehow conflicts with my statement.

I never said they supported the war. I said, now that a democrat is wanting to go to war for no reason at all their silence is deafening.

There have been antiwar protests in Washington DC and NYC but the controlled pro war media refused to report it.

 

[Rationalt]

And the liberals who were so anti-war who went to the streets in the millions to protest a war they didn't want all of a sudden have better things to do.

I was wondering the same about the liberals/leftists.