The Briefing Room
General Category => World News => Topic started by: ABX on April 10, 2017, 12:58:30 am
-
With the US now engaged in military conflict with, and targeting Syrian army forces, what the Trump administration has (un)wittingly done is provide support to Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra and other terrorist forces, all of which have been engaging with the Assad regime in a fight in which the Syrian president has gradually seen the tide of war turn in his favor. At least until last Friday's US cruise missile attack that is.
Which is why it should probably come as no surprise that, emboldened by US actions, moments ago the WSJ reported that Islamic State militants attacked a US-led coalition base (at least we now have official confirmation that there are US military bases in Syria) in southern Syria on Saturday, "triggering a fierce fight that required coalition airstrikes to repel, U.S. military officials said Sunday.".....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-09/isis-attacks-us-led-base-southern-syria-assad-said-use-white-phosphorus
-
not surprised
-
I guess Israel has done the same in the 12 times they have bombed Syria as well. I guess we are all suppose to let Assad commit mass-murder and let Iran send missiles through Syria to let Hezbollah fire them into Israel as Hezbollah has done hundreds of times.
-
I guess Israel has done the same in the 12 times they have bombed Syria as well. I guess we are all suppose to let Assad commit mass-murder and let Iran send missiles through Syria to let Hezbollah fire them into Israel as Hezbollah has done hundreds of times.
Which bunch do you want to support, Tom?
ISIL/ISIS?
Assad?
The 'rebel coalition'?
(Attack one, and you have 'supported' the other two)
They've all been reported to have used chemical weapons.
If we're going to throw rocks it should be for someone without sin.
Help the Kurds beat ISIS and leave the rest be.
Let the IDF take care of Hizb'allah.
-
I'm not Tom.
We shouldn't support ANY side there.
I will be criticized for posting what follows next, but...
... in a war between muslims, the best outcome for The West is that as many muslims die as possible.
For The West, "victory" there would mean:
a. ALL muslim "sides" are defeated
b. Any muslim leadership would be removed
c. A Christian/military governorship would be installed
d. Mosques and madrassas demolished
e. qurans collected and burned
f. Christianity declared the new religion, with all citizens automatically converted.
How's that? ;)
-
How's that? ;)
If you were muslim, I'd call you a jihadi. :tongue2:
-
I'm not Tom.
We shouldn't support ANY side there.
I will be criticized for posting what follows next, but...
... in a war between muslims, the best outcome for The West is that as many muslims die as possible.
For The West, "victory" there would mean:
a. ALL muslim "sides" are defeated
b. Any muslim leadership would be removed
c. A Christian/military governorship would be installed
d. Mosques and madrassas demolished
e. qurans collected and burned
f. Christianity declared the new religion, with all citizens automatically converted.
How's that? ;)
Now, now, in a Muslim vs Muslim conflict, I think we should do all we can to help.
Who needs ammo?