Does bombing Syria make us Al-Qaedas ally?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Hi

I'm sometimes the guy that defends our government, but i'm really on the fence about this Syria thing.

The more I think about it I can't believe we are even considering military force on Assad when he is basically fighting Al-Qaeda.

You guys all remember Al-Qaeda right, Osama Bin laden, 9/11 , our biggest enemy and the biggest terrorist organization in the world?

If we bomb Syria we are helping al-Qaeda overthrow a country..

We are still fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and we are going to help them in Syria? How can we bomb them in one country for 10 years saying they are still a huge threat to us, and help them overthrow Assad in another country at the same time?

If Assad used chemical weapons he has got to go, I'm sure most will agree on that. I would not put it past him either, but I also wouldn't put it past the rebels (al-Qaeda) to use them and blame Assad..

I honestly can't see how we can justify helping al-Qaeda get their own country..

What do you guys think?




posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Assad thinks bombing him makes us al Qaeda allies. It doesn't make us allies but that's the issue - if we do this we could strengthen them. Then who has the chemical weapons - avid anti westerners.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 


If they go in with military force maybe they should just bomb everybody Assad and the rebels since we can't decide who's side we are on..



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
We were already using Al-Qaeda as an 'ally' to begin with.
I think it's more in a warfare sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend type deal where we will backstab them sometime down the road at a point in time deemed necessary creating a whole new entity with which to fight recycling the process.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
From link: Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Ok, first question,who was Al-Quaida and where did they start?
Here is my answer and it might not be totally correct but I think I get sort of close....
A: Afghanistan circa the soviet union getting their butts kicked by our kind of proxy war, so sir, who were they working with and possibly allied?

I mean we have been indirectly allied before, is there a surprise to you?

It's hard to make a pet of a viper, but hey many like to do so and they end up regretting it, always remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that sort of has a grey area and it can change depending upon the day and the season....

edit on 1-9-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


That concept is certainly under consideration.
Sometimes attempting to do what one feels is right,
in some instances, only makes matters worse.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


We were indirectly allied before 9/11 since then they have been the most wanted people in the world, or at least that's what we have been told..

enemy of my enemy is my friend I get it, but we are going to bomb the enemy of our enemy. so uhm



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yes, yes it does, bombing Syria makes you terrorists in pretty much everyones eyes.

Stand up and let your government know you will not abide by their terrorism.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I feel the governments rational is the rebels just so happen to be in league with our " mortal enemies ". They are trying hard to separate the two.
Would we be helping them in a round about way. Yes. Obviously. To me, the largest disappointment is the graves of the soldiers this is stepping on even considering it. If the rebels want u.s. help in anyway at all they should have to hand over all our " enemies " before hand.
I'd prefer we stay to ourselves on this one.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


I think we should let them fight it out until they either kill each other or someone wins. Get the innocent out - provide refuge and assistance if possible and let them go at it. Many of the fighters are integrated in the citizenship however so easier said than done. But that's my current thinking. Interfering in any way only makes them pull out bigger guns.

Assad makes it seem like this: "I need to get these terrorists out of here to protect our country" he gives the impression (or distraction) he may step down but is first committed to insuring all are safe (you need me to do this). He has convinced Russia of this. He believes he knows what is best for the country and its people. Maybe he is right on that part at least - al Qaeda wants Syria and they are powerful - hard to fight.

I am sure he does not want to risk having his legacy (after being ousted) be that he lost the whole country. Maybe he knows its only a matter of time. That's why I think attacking him could set off something even worse as he fights back with all his might. But he is a tyrant as well as being associated with Hezbolla. Intervention, if at all needs to focus on the true victims of this war.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Black hats fighting black hats.
I suspect that the limited strikes will simply level the playing field so nobody has the advantage..keep it a stalemate and let them kill each other off.

That would be my tactical assessment, until someone is clearly going to win, then do some token support to make them feel a bit better about the west.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
or they are just useful because americans aren't gonna do it again, until the usefuls do something bad to america, then u have 911 again



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


Yea to the OP my best friend just came home safely from Afghanland, and it's Taliban, not AL-Queda, Taliban are what we are fighting, and who want to kill our troops. YOU HAVE MID EASTERN COUNTRIES CONFUSED.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 

Al-CIAeda is a creation of the US government.

It became so obvious after Libya, that they simply dont care to hide it anymore.

Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse
edit on 1-9-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 





The more I think about it I can't believe we are even considering military force on Assad when he is basically fighting Al-Qaeda.

You guys all remember Al-Qaeda right, Osama Bin laden, 9/11 , our biggest enemy and the biggest terrorist organization in the world?

If we bomb Syria we are helping al-Qaeda overthrow a country..

This article is a pretty huge oversimplification of Al-Qa'ida

The message behind it is essentially "Bomb Assad, side with Al-Qa'ida"

It does not go into the intrinsic complexities of Al-Qa'ida in Syria (Al-Nusra) and how they relate into the bigger Al-Qa'ida picture nor does it even mention the length's that America has gone to in attempt to prevent a rise in the influence of Al-Qa'ida in Syria. For example it was reported in the press that America has deployed CIA agents to Turkey whose sole responsibility is to vet rebels reviving western support to ensure that the support is not going to radical Islamist's.

If anything i would say the "Bomb Assad, Side with Al-Qa'ida" mentality is backwards, a huge push behind American Foreign policy towards Syria is preventing a radical Islamist government taking over once Assad is out. Think about how much of a mess it would create for America if Syria fell into the hands of the next Bin Laden, with all those chemical weapons to play with and right in the center of the Middle East. The truth is that by intervening in Syria with military force America can then have huge influence over Syria after Assad, they can put in a American friendly secular leader who wont go start a new war with Israel.
edit on 4-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dianec
Assad thinks bombing him makes us al Qaeda allies. It doesn't make us allies but that's the issue - if we do this we could strengthen them. Then who has the chemical weapons - avid anti westerners.


sure it does, as the US govt. has always been allies with them, hell we trained and armed them in many instances. just ask Libya how things are going after the great obummer liberated them.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Did helping the Soviet Union in WWII make us communists? Did helping Britain make us monarchists? Did opening a MacDonald's burger joint in Vietnam disrespect all that died their? Does all this consumer stuff we buy from China make us communist sympathizers?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


Sadly it actually makes the US corporate government and the Obama administration hypocrites and criminals let no forget a violation of our constitution and treason.

But for some reason, our corporate owned government and warmongers profiteers have no problem with all this because they get to push laws in this nation.

Still remember where our tax dollars has gone in Syria to aid what we have been drilled to be terrorist in order to attack Iraq a few years ago.

The greed of the warmongers and profiteers have no boundaries.

The government that is running our nation do not deserve your support, you can see all around why.

edit on 5-9-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


I think the chemical weapon attack is a shroud, I am not saying that didn't happen, I do believe it did, and yes of course the public will be told, "Oh yes we have proof this is what happened" because the shroud has to be real, it's not about that, we the sheep are supposed to believe it is about that chemical attack, It's all about assad not allowing a pipeline to run through syria to carry natural gas into europe. the beneficiaries beside syria have most likely all been in on the joke from the start, and between them instigated a way to get syria blown away, (involving the US, and getting them to do it for them) making the US the big enemy out there, while they stuff trillions into their already fat coffers... and laugh at the US... but on the flipside it may be a case that the US are themselves in on this joke too.. it's hard to tell with all the lies and deceit's that are propaganded by all sides... This attack by the US will happen, it's already sorted, but don't tell the sheep...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join