People who do you support, ISIS, so called moderate rebels like Al Nusra (Al Qaeda), or Assad?

originally posted by: Groot
I support the President of the USA and the American troops.

Translation: I am a sheep that blindly follows baaaa baaaa baaaaaaaaaaa

a reply to: Azureblue

why are we, the west, continually supporting the 'moderates.' when we have never been told what is so evil about the current Syrian regime?

didnt you watch the news? assad gassed a bunch of babies

None of them .
Not my concern .
Fence it off and let em all slaughter each other to their hearts content .

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: starwarsisreal

None!

There are no good guys in Syria.

We should just stay away, have them kill each other, then show up and kick the sh#t out of the winner.

I thought of that too, but unless the "winner" of their civil war was successful at eliminating all opposition in the course of winning, we're still in the same boat.

As soon as we take out the "winner," whatever is left of one of the other groups takes over.

It's "Wack-A-Mole" on an international scale.

a reply to: Flatfish

The only way to win a "no-win" situation, is to not play at all.

last I heard, Assad was elected...he did not assume power in a Regime Change 'revolution' (engineered by Globalists)

at the same time al Nursra & AQ & IS-ISIS are avowed human rights offenders... all these groups claim to be superior to everyone else, and have no qualms with practicing genocide on Christians, Jews, Homosexuals who get trapped behind their lines

imperfect civil laws, rules, by the consent of the people
or
enacting self serving laws from a supernatural source

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: starwarsisreal
Hmm, didn't mean to type all of this. No one's reading all of this lol. This is awkward... In short, Assad's the lesser of many evils. I'd rather see all outsiders leave Syria, all of the paramilitaries and mercs disarmed, and then see a new wave of elections there. Let the Syrian people decide their fate after that.

I read every word. I can't argue against any of it and your points are believable. Well done.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
People who do you support, ISIS, so called moderate rebels like Al Nusra, or Assad?

For those who don't know who Al Nusra is, it's an Al Qaeda offshoot which is the same organization that launched attacks against the US.

Al Nusra

Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (Arabic: جبهة النصرة الله-ليثيوم أهل الشام من مجاهدي الشام في الساحات الجهاد‎‎, transliteration: Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-ahli ash-Shām min Mujahideen ash-Shām fi Sahat al-Jihad, "The Victory Front for the People of the Levant by the Mujahideen of the Levant on the Fields of Jihad",[35] often abbreviated to JN), known as the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (Arabic: جبهة فتح الشام‎‎, transliteration: Jabhat Fataḥ al-Šām) after July 2016, and also called al-Qaeda in Syria or al-Qaeda in the Levant,[36][37] is a Sunni Islamist terrorist organization fighting against Syrian Government forces in the Syrian Civil War, with the aim of establishing an Islamist state in the country.[38] The group announced its formation on 23 January 2012.[39]

en.wikipedia.org...

Lately I have been seeing that some people are calling for Assad to be bombed.

Here's the problem, if Assad is taken out of power then your left with Jihadists. There are no moderate rebels left in Syria.

Even the US admitted there are no moderate rebels:

The Russian air force in Syria has flown straight into the West’s fantasy air space. The Russians, we are now informed, are bombing the “moderates” in Syria – “moderates” whom even the Americans admitted two months ago,no longer existed

It’s rather like the Isis fighters who left Europe to fight for the “Caliphate”.Remember them? Scarcely two months ago, our political leaders – and leader writers – were warning us all of the enormous danger posed by “home-grown” Islamists who were leaving Britain and other European countries and America to fight for the monsters of Isis. Then the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees began trekking up the Balkans towards Europe after risking death in the Mediterranean – and we were all told by the same political leaders to be fearful that Isis killers were among them.

www.independent.co.uk...

In fact I'm pretty sure many Jihadis are probably cheering for the US to take out Assad because then they can seize power.

If the Jihadists won then there will be dire consequences including more refugees coming to the West and even the Far East (Japan took some refugees and they have been having problems too)

This is a tired old question. Don't have to support any of them. They don't represent all there is over there so this is one of those questions.

What we should ask "is it ok for Assad to destroy these tribes and these cities?" Why? I say take this are away from him and make several states out of it and don't buy into this question of who's the less of evils.

originally posted by: St Udio
at the same time al Nursra & AQ & IS-ISIS are avowed human rights offenders... all these groups claim to be superior to everyone else, and have no qualms with practicing genocide on Christians, Jews, Homosexuals who get trapped behind their lines

Just for the record, those Wahhabi groups (Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and ISIS/Daesh) kill even more Muslims than anyone else. Al Nusra and ISIS/Daesh have been particularly fond of killing Kurds, who are almost all Sunni Muslims. They also blow up mosques and destroy shrines and graves for Islamic historical figures.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: starwarsisreal
Hmm, didn't mean to type all of this. No one's reading all of this lol. This is awkward... In short, Assad's the lesser of many evils. I'd rather see all outsiders leave Syria, all of the paramilitaries and mercs disarmed, and then see a new wave of elections there. Let the Syrian people decide their fate after that.

I read every word. I can't argue against any of it and your points are believable. Well done.

a reply to: crazyewok

Or he agrees with the stated reasons?

You really have no need to be that antagonistic.

Despite Assad being a bad man, I support Assad because the SAR is the internationally recognized government in Syria. The SAR flag is the one that flies at the UN headquarters.

Us trains people in Afghanistan to use jihad tactics against the Soviets latter comes back to bite us in the form of al queda.
Us destabilizes a regime in Iraq breeding sectarian violence between the religious factions that Saddam kept stable.
Us covertly topples the regime in Libya creating the perfect breeding ground for al queda to metamorphosis into Isis.

Anybody seeing a terrible pattern here?
Maybe it would be wise to reflect on some words allegedly from Einstein.
. “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: Azureblue

why are we, the west, continually supporting the 'moderates.' when we have never been told what is so evil about the current Syrian regime?

didnt you watch the news? assad gassed a bunch of babies

.... and you believed that? The media never lies do they?

I cannot beleive you said that without beleiving that you are either extremely naieve, a sheeple, or you are a willing or forced tool of those responsbile for the genocide that has occured in Syria.

a reply to: Azureblue

That's a pretty harsh reply. This is not the Mud-Pit.

It was military intelligence that determined that Assad was responsible for the gas attacks, not the media.

If you had watched the interviews with high level people involved in the decision, which is actually ignored by most media, they described the evidence that led to their findings. This evidence included watching from satellite as the planes left the hangar (which was bombed), then dropped bombs on civilians, resulting in a chemical cloud. The chemical cloud was viewed via satellite, and shown to come from the bomb, dropped from the plane, which came from Assad's military hangar.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This evidence included watching from satellite as the planes left the hangar (which was bombed), then dropped bombs on civilians, resulting in a chemical cloud. The chemical cloud was viewed via satellite, and shown to come from the bomb, dropped from the plane, which came from Assad's military hangar.

Ok great show the public! If that evidence exists then I will praise Trump for doing the right thing.

But I need the evidence! The word of the goverment is not good enough.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Azureblue

That's a pretty harsh reply. This is not the Mud-Pit.

It was military intelligence that determined that Assad was responsible for the gas attacks, not the media.

If you had watched the interviews with high level people involved in the decision, which is actually ignored by most media, they described the evidence that led to their findings. This evidence included watching from satellite as the planes left the hangar (which was bombed), then dropped bombs on civilians, resulting in a chemical cloud. The chemical cloud was viewed via satellite, and shown to come from the bomb, dropped from the plane, which came from Assad's military hangar.

sorry I sound harsh but:

the US or that of any partner, militree intelligence never lies, never uses video editing tools, never takes the camera off the plane from the time it was parked in the hanger till they saw the bombs come out it? One continuous uncut roll of high def fim that conclsuviely proves sysria did it?

confirms by shape and sight of the plane that it was a Syrian plane and did not belong to a third party and that not one single plane was owned and operated by another country or militree force that was painted up in Syrian livery? They proved beyond reasoanble doubt this was not the case?

How did they know what was going to happen if they did not know in advance? How they could be there to filim it all as one continuous uncut reel of film if they did not know it was going to happen? (keep this in mind for all other terro events)

What is the motive for the Syrian govt to carry out this action? What purpose is served? How does it win friends and influence people in the international community when it desperately needs their help?

So, Syria kills some kids so the US comes in and kills many more kids. (Sounds to lke "anything you can do I can do better, to me.")

Please point out the stregnths and advantages of this action and to whom this accures to?

THere is another post on this forum that went up today containing a video in which some offical of the US govt saying their goal is to destablalise the Syrian Govt and they are very nice people and they dont lie and do bad things right?

Please explain what any civil war in Syria has got anything to do with the US, Britian, Australia, NZ Canada etc?

Perhaps you might also be kind enought to explain why Syria was named as one of the axis of evil as were a few other countries who dont have central banks which are owned and controlled by that same people who own all the other central banks in the world.

thanks