Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last time I checked Syria wasn't an important source of oil. Obviously if it were, the civil war would have already disrupted the flow of oil already and that premium would be built into today's oil prices. Not sure how many years you have been around but the mid-east oil and the issues surrounding it have been going on since the 70's. I really think the entire situation here does surround the use of chemical weapons. It has to be made clear that these are not tolerated. To do nothing opens the door for these weapons to be used all over the world by various groups.
except there is ample evidence
saying that the rebels may indeed have been the ones to set off the chemical weapons at least for the march chemical weapon attack no one talks about that killed a few dozen people.
it was said to have been from saudi arabia basically our ally in the middle east
please explain this
and to others that say terrorists regimes?
hello
are you paying attention or not?
the Al QAEDA are PART of the rebel group.
the terrorists that's right our government has been funding terrorism out right and our sworn enemy at that.
shouldn't our government be trialed for TREASON for aiding and abetting the sworn enemy of the united states of america.
Syria paves the way to Iran. If the US attacks Syria Iran will jump in the the US warmongers will go all out on Iran.
The people running the US military seem to forget that are other super powers who have a vested interest in the area. The end result of the bully games played by the US could very well end as the beginning of WWIII.
Other than that I figure the US has intel that the Syria navy is ready to attack the US at Atlantic City and as soon as they can borrow a set of oars for their boat the attack will begin.
saying that the rebels may indeed have been the ones to set off the chemical weapons at least for the march chemical weapon attack no one talks about that killed a few dozen people.
it was said to have been from saudi arabia basically our ally in the middle east
please explain this
and to others that say terrorists regimes?
hello
are you paying attention or not?
the Al QAEDA are PART of the rebel group.
the terrorists that's right our government has been funding terrorism out right and our sworn enemy at that.
shouldn't our government be trialed for TREASON for aiding and abetting the sworn enemy of the united states of america.
last I remember Syria is no threat to USA.
STOP HELPING TERRORISTS.
If the rebels had used chemical weapons on their own population, which doesn't make sense, then that would indicate that Assad has lost control of his stockpiles of weapons. That alone is a good reason for international involvement in Syria to end the war and get those chemical weapons under control before the foreign fighters such as Al Quaeda help themselves to new weapons to use all over the world. I have not heard of any involvement with Saudi Arabia providing chemical weapons, do you have any links to that information?
The rebels are NOT Al Qaeda, there are many factions fighting in Syria. Al Nasra (an Al Quaeda network group), Hezbollah(coming in from Lebanon), Free Syrian Army(the largest group made up from a large part of the defectors from Assads military), and the Kurds. The Kurds have actively engaged militant forces (terrorist groups) and so has the Free Syrian Army. The Syrian groups have no interest in the foreign groups such as Al Queda coming in and taking over their country, that would be counter productive to get rid of one oppressor and taking in another. So if the U.S. is working with the Free Syrian Army, or the Kurds then how would that be treason? People send to over simplify things with Syria, such as just saying "the rebels", it takes a vast knowlege and deep understanding of the many many different forces involved into this war to be able to make an educated judgement on what is going on. Unfortunately most people don't take the time to really learn and understand, but instead rely on what their favorite TV pundit offers as being factual.
If the rebels had used chemical weapons on their own population, which doesn't make sense, then that would indicate that Assad has lost control of his stockpiles of weapons. That alone is a good reason for international involvement in Syria to end the war and get those chemical weapons under control before the foreign fighters such as Al Quaeda help themselves to new weapons to use all over the world. I have not heard of any involvement with Saudi Arabia providing chemical weapons, do you have any links to that information?
The rebels are NOT Al Qaeda, there are many factions fighting in Syria. Al Nasra (an Al Quaeda network group), Hezbollah(coming in from Lebanon), Free Syrian Army(the largest group made up from a large part of the defectors from Assads military), and the Kurds. The Kurds have actively engaged militant forces (terrorist groups) and so has the Free Syrian Army. The Syrian groups have no interest in the foreign groups such as Al Queda coming in and taking over their country, that would be counter productive to get rid of one oppressor and taking in another. So if the U.S. is working with the Free Syrian Army, or the Kurds then how would that be treason? People send to over simplify things with Syria, such as just saying "the rebels", it takes a vast knowlege and deep understanding of the many many different forces involved into this war to be able to make an educated judgement on what is going on. Unfortunately most people don't take the time to really learn and understand, but instead rely on what their favorite TV pundit offers as being factual.
All the chemicals in Libya are missing.
AQ in Iraq can make sarin and mustard gas now.
All the chemicals in Libya are missing.
AQ in Iraq can make sarin and mustard gas now.
That would not be good if AQ had the chemicals, but they do not have the technical facilities to make weapons grade weapons. They would be able to make the chemical weapon equivalent of a "dirty bomb" however. These types of weapons would be very weak and would not be strong enough for the chemicals to effect a large area due to lack of concentration of the chemicals. The ones used in Syria that killed 1,400 people would have been weapons grade, thus from a government stockpile.
If we bomb Syria we may be opening up a can of worms to say the least. For the first time in US history I can recall England has refused to join in with their support I hope they get some paybacks because of it.Proliferation of using chemical weapons is an atrocity and no one can ignore it and refuse to do what they can to stop it....it is crazy
If we bomb Syria we may be opening up a can of worms to say the least. For the first time in US history I can recall England has refused to join in with their support I hope they get some paybacks because of it.Proliferation of using chemical weapons is an atrocity and no one can ignore it and refuse to do what they can to stop it....it is crazy
I don't believe England was too enthusiastic about supporting the United States during the Revolutionary War.
Hamas was actually headquartered in Qatar before they accepted Assad's invitation to move to Damascus (this was because of Iran funding and easier co-ordination with both Iran & Hezbollah) - it was rumored they would move to Egypt after the Civil War began, but they went back to Qatar .... probably a money issue + these guys are used to luxury, they wouldn't get that in Cairo.
I only know this because I make myself keep up to date by reading a good Arab news aggregator (English Language) at least once a week. Events have been moving so fast in the Mid-East that missing a week can put a person way behind of something significant without pretty constant vigilance.
For instance -
Hamas and Iran/Hezbollah have broken their alliance
There is a fight for control within Hamas
Hamas has been training Islamists to fight in Syria and perhaps in Lebanon
Qatar has "cooled" to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood since the new Emir (suddenly) took power a couple of weeks ago.
I learned yesterday that al-Jazeerra's popularity has dropped a lot according to a major poll.
All these are significant, but we don't know how they will come into play in the future.
A lot of "change" and turmoil in all the countries
I appreciate the information. As you may have ascertained, I have not been keeping up-to-date on the current movements of these terrorist organizations. Although I do consider it to be good news that Hamas and Hezbollah have had a falling out. Pitting one terrorist organization against another terrorist organization in combat seems to me to be the best way to spare future American lives. We only have to focus on the victor of the conflict.
I do have one question: If Hamas has broken their alliance with Iran, and they are no longer getting funding from Syria, where is the bulk of their funding coming from?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
