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.
"Obama’s allies in Syria — those who will directly benefit from the coming US airstrikes — stepped up their genocide against Syrian Christians today, attacking Maaloula, a Christian village, indiscriminately using mortar shells fired from a hilltop above the village.
According to the press report:
“Maaloula, a mountain village some 40 miles (60 kilometers) northeast of Damascus, is home to about 2,000 residents, some of whom still speak a version of Aramaic, the ancient language of biblical times believed to have been spoken by Jesus.”
Will American Christians support a war for the genocide of Christians in Syria? Will they again cheer the military and troops as American missiles turn the balance of power toward those whose favorite pass-time is to behead Christian bishops with dull knives?
"Obama’s allies in Syria — those who will directly benefit from the coming US airstrikes — stepped up their genocide against Syrian Christians today, attacking Maaloula, a Christian village, indiscriminately using mortar shells fired from a hilltop above the village.
According to the press report:
“Maaloula, a mountain village some 40 miles (60 kilometers) northeast of Damascus, is home to about 2,000 residents, some of whom still speak a version of Aramaic, the ancient language of biblical times believed to have been spoken by Jesus.”
Will American Christians support a war for the genocide of Christians in Syria? Will they again cheer the military and troops as American missiles turn the balance of power toward those whose favorite pass-time is to behead Christian bishops with dull knives?
I remember back when the right-wingers were complaining that Obama was dropping too many bombs on al-Qaeda, now they think he's best friends with them. It must be hard to constantly keep up with right-wing talking points.
Obama’s allies in Syria — those who will directly benefit from the coming US airstrikes — stepped up their genocide against Syrian Christians today, attacking Maaloula, a Christian village, indiscriminately using mortar shells fired from a hilltop above the village.
I don't disagree with your understanding of who the rebels are. I say this so you won't cry when I verbally bslap your argument here. It's not accurate to say that Obama is the rebel's buddies. I'd argue that they're far more McCain's. The administration, like them or not, have provided next to no support for the rebels. The US interests aren't best served by either group having a clear victory. Also, I haven't heard any chatter saying that strikes that they would be looking to do would be aimed at shifting the balance of power.
In short, your assertion is wrong which is sad given that your understanding of the rebels is correct. It's a complicated issue and whining about Obama here is childish. Had he wanted to be buddies with the rebels, he could have done enough at this point to have them winning.
I don't disagree with your understanding of who the rebels are. I say this so you won't cry when I verbally bslap your argument here. It's not accurate to say that Obama is the rebel's buddies. I'd argue that they're far more McCain's. The administration, like them or not, have provided next to no support for the rebels. The US interests aren't best served by either group having a clear victory. Also, I haven't heard any chatter saying that strikes that they would be looking to do would be aimed at shifting the balance of power.
In short, your assertion is wrong which is sad given that your understanding of the rebels is correct. It's a complicated issue and whining about Obama here is childish. Had he wanted to be buddies with the rebels, he could have done enough at this point to have them winning .
What exactly do you think he has been arguing for? Is McCain arguing for the same? Yes he is but he is not president. Always someone else to blame it seems.
Obama did this in Libya and it's a mess. The only reason Obama hasn't forcibly helped the Rebels in Syria is because the country is finally standing up and saying "enough".
He's been arguing for the regime to be held accountable. Had he wanted to be their buddies, he would have done a lot more by now, period. The US's intervention in this up to this point has been next to nothing and had Assad not done what seems to be a clear mistake by using Sarin then he wouldn't have been pushing for this. Further, if he wanted to be their buddy, he wouldn't have pushed this back to congress to see what they were willing to do.
Actually, the Europeans did this in Libya. The US provided support. You might want to check your facts there. The US was not heavily involved. Those fighting against Gaddafi were far less radicalized and what was done was largely to protect civilians. The end result in Syria, if the regime loses, is worse than what happened in Libya with the Gaddafi regime losing.
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.
