Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat

the west these days they only seem to invade little nations, the west dare not pick a fight with Russia, because Russia will take the west down with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-warfare-threat-assad



Is this game over for Assad? Surely if Britain is willing to invade Iraq on suspicion of weapons of mass destruction, then they will have no problem invading Syria? I'm also wondering how they got their hands on these weapons, do you think they were manufactured in Syria, or where they given to it by an ally?

That's my point. You bitch about "westerm intervention", but have not once condemned intervention by any non-western regime. It's funny how mention Afghanistan later in your post. You do not condemn Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, even though it was incomparably more bloody than Western internention in the same country(800,000 dead due to Soviet intervention, minimum estimate)





I have not misquoted you anywhere.



Ba'athism is a foul, right wing ethno-nationalist ideology, modelled on European fascism. Those who consider Assad "secular", "anti-imperialist" or "socialist" are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.



More nonsense and clichés. 'The Present is written by the mainstream media', yet here we are debating the present on equal terms. History is not always "written by the victors", there is a great deal of history written by the losers, to give a few examples;

1. The Treaty of Versailles - German criticisms of the treaty are widely accepted by many people, although many of them are BS.
2. The American Civil War (until recently) - The issue of slavery was downplayed, more history books have been written from the souther perspective.
3. The Reconstruction (until recently) - The Radical Republicans were blamed for the failure of the Reconstruction.
4. The westward expansion of America - Most history is quite sympathetic to the Native Americans.
5. The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans - Ottoman attrocities and oppression are very well known about, and often exaggerated
6. Irish History (even before 1922) - Even though the rebellions of 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867 and 1916 failed ignominiously, most history (even before 1922) was sympathetic towards them.

not even worth a response...but

afghanistan was the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there

and the result was that it turned it into a muslim fundamentalist state,

we in the west must learn not to support terrorists and rebels in other countries, else we deal with the blowback down the line as happened on 9/11

why are they not trying to topple the saudi dictatorship after this fiasco

i never said they loved assad like a son, but they support him staying until fair and peaceful elections can be held rather than supporting a civil war led by extremist right wing muslims...the fact is the people do not all support the rebels, they want to be civilised, not another libya, not another iraq and not a western puppet or right wing muslim state. they do not want sectarianism...but nato is encouraging it.

not even worth a response...but

afghanistan was the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there and the result was that it turned it into a muslim fundamentalist state

we in the west must learn not to support terrorists and rebels in other countries, else we deal with the blowback down the line as happened on 9/11....why are they not trying to topple the saudi dictatorship after this fiasco...

You're clearly having a laugh, aren't you?

Look up King Zahir Shah: the last King of Afghanistan. In 1964, his constitution transformed Afghanistan into a modern democracy, with free elections, a parliament, civil rights, emancipation for women and universal suffrage.

>Implying they actually have them and aren't just bluffing

You're clearly having a laugh, aren't you?



The West's support for the mujahideen was not what triggered 9/11, but rather it's actions in the Middle East: it's unconditional support for Israel over Palestine, its military presence in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War; its support and propping up of dictatorships across the Islamic world; et cetera.

While it's true that Afghanistan under King Zahir and later under Daoud underwent modernisation, this was before the Soviet backed coup in 1978, which led the country into chaos, and before the Soviet Army invaded the country in 1979 (an invasion which robin22391 implicitly defends, despite it leading to more deaths than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan put together). This modernisation only really affected Kabul, so to call Afghanistan the "the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there" is frankly silly, as Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyistan and Uzbekistan had also underwent modernisation, and this was far more successful.

Don't say something is "not worth a response" and then proceed to respond. it just makes you look silly.




This is one of the most rediculious things I have ever read. It requires no further comment from me.



, you are aware that America never funded the Taliban, who only became relevent AFTER the Soviets had already left. Their rise can be blamed on Pakistan, whose ambition to rule Afghanistan remains strong. And besides, it's funny that you complain about Islamic fundamentalism, considering the fact that you are an apologist for the Iranian regime



Why not? Does Russia and China worry about funding "terrorists" and "rebels" in other countries? You are aware than the USA never funded Al-Queda, aren't you? Considering the fact that you are an apologist for the IRA, I don't think that you should be compalaining about "funding rebels" (Yes, even the IRA of the War of Independence, which I regard as a legitimate resistance movement).



For a few reasons. There is no great push to remove the Saudi Monarchy, Saudi Arabia is a US ally, and Syria's human rights record is worse than Saudi Arabia's (though not much).

where did i implicitly defend...what strange wording you use...stop misleading

you seem like a vile right wing version of a Soviet era apperatchik.

In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Cook caused a stir when he described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

Today, when Afghanistan is portrayed as the utmost Islamic fundamentalist country, who still remembers that, 30 years ago, it was a country with strong secular tradition, up to a powerful Communist party which took power there independently of the Soviet Union? Where did this secular tradition disappear?

In Europe, exactly the same goes for Bosnia: back in the 1970s and 1980s, Bosnia and Herzegovina was (multi)culturally the most interesting and alive of all Yugoslav republics, with an internationally-recognized cinema school and a unique style of rock music; in today’s Bosnia, there are effectively strong fundamentalist forces (like the Muslim fundamentalist crowd which brutally attacked the gay parade in Sarajevo in September 2008). The main reason of this regression is the desperate situation of Muslim Bosnians in the 1992-1995 war, when they were basically abandoned by the Western powers to the Serb guns.

in my experience when someone uses the word "apologist" they have lost all credibility.

you seem like a vile right wing version of a Soviet era apperatchik.



In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Cook caused a stir when he described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

in my experience when someone uses the word "apologist" they have lost all credibility.

get your facts straight

First, Al-Qaeda means 'the base', not 'the database' - so that far-fetched computer file conspiracy you've created is false.

Second, Bin Laden was a billionaire who was able to finance just about everything he ever did out of his own pocket. Contrary to your claims, he certainly wasn't funded by the Saudi Royal Family because he was an outspoken critic of said dictatorship. It's hardly surprising that the House of Saud wanted him dead.

Third, people like Hekmatyar, Haqqani and Massoud received the bulk of the arms and funding, not Bin Laden. He formed Maktab al-Khidamat, which was a mechanism to raise money and recruit mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan.

Fourth, the mujihadeen were trained by Pakistan's ISI, not the CIA. Although the funding and weapons came from the US, the training was done by the Pakistani intelligence service.