Posted on 08/30/2013 5:04:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Also not proven, so far. Why would Assad, who was supposedly winning, risk the ire of the world for using chemical weapons?
I'm skeptical he did. It is the "revolutionaries" (AlQaida) who has everything to gain from breaking a few eggs...
“When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families...”
And the author makes a statement of fact with NO facts on which to base such an erroneous claim. This is yellow propaganda in its most putrid form.
My gut feeling is that the rebels or somebody else did this. Not Assad.
Talk about a schizophrenic paragraph. Does she think we should go after assad or not? If the rebels are 'swollen' with terrorists nobody can trust" what they hell would we help them for?
“When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families, everyone could agree that even in a civil war — where passions burn hottest — that’s inhumane, and it’s not forgivable.”
This sentence, stated as a fact is nothing but a bald faced lie. There is proof Assad did not do it, no proof he did do it, although obama would have bombed them based on a lie which he knew to be a lie.
Amen Brother. I like the quote on your personal page: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.”
Even if it is true that Assad used chemical weapons, for the US to take action to side with AlQaeda is asinine.
A false flag. Assad had nothing to do with it. Also, those doing it will, with the assistance of the Obama administration, in time be over here doing the same thing.
Absolutely right - this is a hand’s off situation for sure.
Assad = bad guys
Rebels = bad guys
Likely every one of these people hates the west and would slit our throats as soon as look at us.
Let ‘em have at it, then deal with the “winner”.
Frankly, I could give a crap what one Muslim does to another. Interfering in their petty squabbles is not worth the life of one American Soldier or the cost of a simple bullet.
I hope assad wins, he’s been in power for years and we have had no trouble with syria
I’ve been trying to make this point for 2 yrs.
Not helping the rebels in the beginning left them desperate for help as time went on. The mb & alqaeda were glad to fill the vacuum.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Killing 100,000+ by bombs/bullets/torture is acceptable - killing a 1,000 or so with gas is inhumane. Makes as much sense as the Geneva Convention ruling against the original hot M-16 ammo because it would tear an arm or leg off as it killed a person - must have intact corpses to be humane about it - oh...wait...poison gas leaves the corpses intact and bombs and torture leave bits and pieces strewed about. I get so dang confused these days.
That statement might be a little overreaching. Syria has been harboring terrorists for many years and taking part in many nefarious actions in the Middle East.
FMJ only, no hollow points, etc. Explosives OK, napalm not. No germs, no chemicals, no radiation...
I don't reckon it makes you any deader, one way or the other, just harder to box up.
People look at it that way, but any more, it is prudent to think about it. The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. That might be helpful, but it makes shaky ground for friendship on occasion.
Ms. Fields' conclusion is absolutely correct today, and was also correct at the onset of Syria's civil war. Assad is a bad actor, but his secular dictatorship is much preferable to the chaos of the irrational Islamists who would inevitably replace him.
I agree. But it’s an arabic saying. And while the word “friend” may not be accurate, as long as his gun is pointed at your enemy, unfortunately that’s what counts when you’re running low on fighters & ammunition.
“I hope assad wins, he’s been in power for years and we have had no trouble with syria”
Ha. Yeah, that’s right...he just acts innocent as he aids & abets hezbollah and the Iranian regime. No problem there as far as you’re concerned.
I also hope Assad wins, though we have had trouble with his Baathist government (and even more with his father's regime before him). But that trouble was manageable because the Assads are rational, and their regimes are secular and non-suicidal.
Like the secular fascist Egyptian government of Mubarak, Assad's Syria has officially been belligerent toward Israel. But as rational players, both regimes reached cooperative arrangements with Jerusalem that avoided disastrous wars - because they wanted to survive. While not friendly, the relationships were manageable. Does anyone believe that Islamist alternatives would lead to anything but total war? I think not.
Assad = Bad
Rebels = Catastrophic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.