Conflict in Syria.

[SBCY]

The risk of getting involved is that any weaponry supplied to the rebels may fall into the hands of the Al Qaeda factions who are known to be among them.

 

If there had been a grain of common sense and decency in all of this the Chinese and Russians could have ceased all shipments of arms to Assad. Instead they've been doing the opposite and the UN despite the efforts to establish a cease fire has proved itself completely impotent and ineffective

 

It's against international law too fund either side of a civil war . Something the western powers have been doing from day one .

 

The story about the Russian helicopters was as that Russia had refurbished the machines before delivering them back .

 

Any how how could you possibly support al-aqueda in this instance ?

 

 

I remember I / we used too laugh at the people who used too claim Binladen was working with the CIA , and all those other stories .

Guess they weren't that far off now were they ?

 

 

 

Saudi = birth place of al-queda

Saudi = USA bests ally and biggest weapons buyer ?

 

Strange do you think ?

[SBCY]

You couldn`t really sum it up better.The stone age mentality of religion trumps democracy every time.

 

Islam and democracy cannot coexist.

 

Look at Burma/Myanmar.They are photo shopping images from 10years ago to make it look like Muslims are being slaughtered to lure jihadists over there.

 

Really ?can u send a link too the faked images ?

 

 

Yes I have seen the western mainstream media fake Syrian pictures

 

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/01/media-caught-publishing-faked-syria-war-imagery-157221/

[Harleyman]

It's against international law too fund either side of a civil war . Something the western powers have been doing from day one .

 

The story about the Russian helicopters was as that Russia had refurbished the machines before delivering them back .

 

Any how how could you possibly support al-aqueda in this instance ?

 

 

I remember I / we used too laugh at the people who used too claim Binladen was working with the CIA , and all those other stories .

Guess they weren't that far off now were they ?

 

 

 

Saudi = birth place of al-queda

Saudi = USA bests ally and biggest weapons buyer ?Strange do you think ?

 

Saudi is not at war and neither is the Saudi government committing genocide against it's own people.

[SBCY]

its always kicking of in syria

 

Actually no .

 

Syria has been very stable and had seen good economic increases .

 

 

Syria is the ONLY nation in the middle east were minority's were protected and lived freely in harmony for millennia .

 

 

Guess al-Qaeda / rebels / will put a end too that -

 

Guess they are already started :

 

http://www.infowars.com/syrian-rebels-ransack-christian-churches/

 

Alqueda destroying church's in Syria - best we send them more money and gear ?

[SBCY]

Saudi is not at war and neither is the Saudi government committing genocide against it's own people.

 

Saudi is kiling it's own people who are also demonstrating for freedom .

Saudi is the birth place of most of the suicide bombers who have attacked British forces in Iraq ( just one example )

Saudi has given said it will Give millions of dollars too the alqueda rabble in Syria.

 

It's common knowledge Saudi are giving the weapons too your lovely alqueda freedom fighters .

 

Now on which leg can you stand and defend the most Tyranical regime on planet earth ?

 

I await .

[XXTickerXX]

Saudi is not at war and neither is the Saudi government committing genocide against it's own people.

 

The Saudis sent 2000 troops to crush the uprising in Bahrain.It was too close to there own country and they didn`t want it spreading.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26714

 

They are all too willing to fund uprisings in other countries though.

[SBCY]

The Saudis sent 2000 troops to crush the uprising in Bahrain.It was too close to there own country and they didn`t want it spreading.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26714

 

They are all too willing to fund uprisings in other countries though.

 

Hang on didn't the Saudis get caught selling thier sons for suicide bombings ?

 

http://en.gloria.tv/?media=290602

[Rupert_Baehr]

Whats that supposed to mean?

Are you suggesting i want us to be involved, with our troops being sent over there? If you think thats the outcome i would like to see you are quite wrong.

 

I'm really glad about that, Janie. - and I take your reply at face value.

 

But you said: "Just because things are arn't happening on our own door step that doesn't mean we should not have any interest or be affected by them,even if we don't understand it all."

 

When people (particularly politicians and 'well-intentioned' civilians) - most of whom I wouldn't trust to find their arses with a flashlight- talk about 'having an interest' in a war zone, I am concerned.

 

It usually means some poor squaddie is going to get his balls blown off - or worse.

 

I'm retired military and perhaps - because I've buried more friends than enough - I get really 'twitchy' when I read any comment by anybody (who probably isn't going to have to put his/her arse in the way of a bullet) which appears to support military intervention in any way.

 

As I've aged, I've changed ... As a youth, I used to think Çengiz Khan was a bit of a 'pinko'

 

Deterrence (and I spent a lot of my life there) is a valid military strategy, but otherwise, I now tend to be a bit a lot of a 'non-interventionist'.

 

I don't have any problems with any politician using the Armed Forces in the Defence of the Realm (that's what they are there for.)

 

The politicians also have the right to use the Armed Forces to anticipate a threat to the realm. One might hope they would be smart enough to do so.)

 

Using the Armed forces as a jingoistic vote-gainer might be going a bit far.

 

If Cameron wants to deploy forces to the middle East, then (I hope) he will have to make a case before Parliament before he does so.

 

I wish him luck.

 

I've little doubt that Assad is a nasty piece of work and if he fell over, cut his toe, contracted gangrene and died, I doubt I'd mourn him.

 

That doesn't mean I would support a political attempt to oust him.

 

I would not.

[Obelix]

You can't win. But there's nothing new in that. Civil wars have two sides and (unless it's your country which is having the civil war) you aren't on either.

 

You missed the obvious trick. Sell *both* sides weapons. It's their war, but you may as well make a bob or two and if you sell to both sides you are guaranteed that the winner will be mildy annoyed at you, which is better usually than the 50% chance the winner will hate your guts so much they send over the exploding shock troops....

 

Or am I being far far too cynical?

[janie48]

 

I'm really glad about that, Janie. - and I take your reply at face value.

 

But you said: "Just because things are arn't happening on our own door step that doesn't mean we should not have any interest or be affected by them,even if we don't understand it all."

 

When people (particularly politicians and 'well-intentioned' civilians) - most of whom I wouldn't trust to find their arses with a flashlight- talk about 'having an interest' in a war zone, I am concerned.

 

It usually means some poor squaddie is going to get his balls blown off - or worse.

 

I'm retired military and perhaps - because I've buried more friends than enough - I get really 'twitchy' when I read any comment by anybody (who probably isn't going to have to put his/her arse in the way of a bullet) which appears to support military intervention in any way.

 

As I've aged, I've changed ... As a youth, I used to think Çengiz Khan was a bit of a 'pinko'

 

Deterrence (and I spent a lot of my life there) is a valid military strategy, but otherwise, I now tend to be a bit a lot of a 'non-interventionist'.

 

I don't have any problems with any politician using the Armed Forces in the Defence of the Realm (that's what they are there for.)

 

The politicians also have the right to use the Armed Forces to anticipate a threat to the realm. One might hope they would be smart enough to do so.)

 

Using the Armed forces as a jingoistic vote-gainer might be going a bit far.

 

If Cameron wants to deploy forces to the middle East, then (I hope) he will have to make a case before Parliament before he does so.

 

I wish him luck.

 

I've little doubt that Assad is a nasty piece of work and if he fell over, cut his toe, contracted gangrene and died, I doubt I'd mourn him.

 

That doesn't mean I would support a political attempt to oust him.

 

I would not.

 

Some sound comments.

And i'm glad the the war issue was made clear on my part,i know i can be slightly argumentative on the odd occasion,but i wouldn't wish anyone to get the impression i was a warmonger.