Jump to content
Islamic Forum
ala'adin

Do You Back Western Intervention In Syria

Recommended Posts

Salaam

 

Wanted to get peoples thoughts on whether they back western intervention in Syria.

 

 

Jzk khair

Edited by ala'adin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

No poll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to see non-Muslims with weapons in Arabia even if they want to help us. I would prefer arming the Syrian Muslim rebels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US never intervenes in any country unless its for its own interest and the interests of israel. Demolsihing The Serian army is good for israelis. Although Bashar is a loyal zionist agent and never ever fired a rocket on israel like he does his own people, it makes them feel safer to just erase his army just in case someone else holds power there. The Syrian free army is winning each day, so its time they ordered the US to do another dirty job for them, before anythig happens and army weapon falls in non-agent Syrian hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, there is not a great deal of natural resources in syria so the interest that the US must have is to reduce any potential threat on Isreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US never intervenes in any country unless its for its own interest and the interests of israel. Demolsihing The Serian army is good for israelis. Although Bashar is a loyal zionist agent and never ever fired a rocket on israel like he does his own people, it makes them feel safer to just erase his army just in case someone else holds power there. The Syrian free army is winning each day, so its time they ordered the US to do another dirty job for them, before anythig happens and army weapon falls in non-agent Syrian hands.

Salaam alaiykum,

This is a very interesting interpretation of the events unfolding. I know I would prefer to not see Assad in power especially if he is using chemical weapons against civilians which is just unislamic. May Allah (swt) guide us all for he knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They US said its objective is not to remove bashar, nor will they target chemical plants.

I think that they will destroy all weapons that could one day be a threat to israel, and keep only domestic weapons, I mean what he can kill his people with. The less Arabs, the happier israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, as an American...while the scenes from Syria and Egypt both make me upset...I don't want to see the US get involved (even with a no-fly zone). For one, it will bring nothing good. The US needs to stop pushing into everyone else's sovereignty and getting involved when it suits their purposes (meaning the US government). Believe me, the people here in the US are against the constant wars, drone strikes, etc.

 

The reason I am against even a no-fly zone is this: The only members of my extended family that accept me for being Muslim are Air Force officers. Two are AF pilots who both saw action in Afghanistan and Iraq (and both are very upset by things they were ordered to do by their superiors). The other is a combat PJ. Which is the guys that get sent in if a downed pilot or spec ops team needs to be extricated from trouble. So my family would be put in harm's way for nothing good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since when do you have a say in your own country's politics sister?

Your beloved country is actually an occupied country. Zionists are the ones who choose who gets in the while house, the administration, the congress, the Pentagon, the CIA, you name it. No one can put a foot on those places, unless he shows his 100% loyalty, not necessarily to the US, but to israel. You just pay your taxes, that's all you can do. They take your money and standby for any job orders from israel. Its not just your money that they're wasting overseas, its the lives of your youth too. The occupied US would give away everything for its master, israel. There is nothing you can do about it, unless one day you Americans free your country and get hold of your own system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that I had any say in the politics of my country really. However, there are those of us who do fight for our rights under the Constitution that the government tries to forget about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right sister. But its too hard. Without the US, the zionists would fall down in no time. They would never let go, until the day comes when they're powerful enough on their own, and then try to destroy the US, to be the sole super power on earth. All according to their plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The US never intervenes in any country unless its for its own interest and the interests of israel. Demolsihing The Serian army is good for israelis. Although Bashar is a loyal zionist agent and never ever fired a rocket on israel like he does his own people, it makes them feel safer to just erase his army just in case someone else holds power there. The Syrian free army is winning each day, so its time they ordered the US to do another dirty job for them, before anythig happens and army weapon falls in non-agent Syrian hands.

Sorry for being direct cuz its my first post but - how does Assad's lack of initiative against israel prove that he is a "Zionist agent"? There is an old military strategy rule saying that if you cannot achieve anything - don't attack. israeli army is armed in latest cutting edge technology while Syrian army is mostly Soviet equipment from 1960s and 1970s. If they attacked israel their army would be obliterated within days without inflicting any significant losses on the "Zionist Entity".

 

Anyway, he armed Hezbollah which successfully fought off israeli attack in South Lebanon in 2006.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, he armed Hezbollah which successfully fought off israeli attack in South Lebanon in 2006.

 

 

All Hezbollah managed is to get South Lebanon wrecked. 

 

Yes, Assad knows it can't do anything against israel. So, why does he pretend to be some kind of stronghold that keeps israel at bay? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad 1 - As for now performance of Hezbollah in 2006 was probably the best performance shown by any army/insurgent force against israel since 1948 war. halting an advance of one of the best armies in the world is a feat that not many can take.

 

Ad 2 - He's doing what he can to be anti israeli. However, his actions are limited by:

- Lack of funds (Syria is a poor country, per capita about 5x poorer than israel)

- Lack of powerful allies

 

Saying that Assad is an ally of israel is like saying that the leaders of the Soviet Union were traitors of communism because they hadn't launched a full scale invasion of Western Europe (WW3). 

 

Anyway, if you still insist - find just one country that had spent more money on funding various Jew-hating militias all over Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military intervention? No. Do I think Assad should be tried by the International Criminal Court? Definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not back the western intervention, while i know it is a dream I would prefer to see the leaders of the muslim nation grow a backbone and assist in the removal of the tyrant. But for that to happen so much must change in the world, along with the stigma that is attached to people who wish to assist the Syrian people by the western governments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree brother. But like you said, its just a dream. The Arab world is long dead. Gulf countries like KSA has a dreadful arsenal of war planes, yet they're rusting in their hangers. They buy them only to help the US economy. And they ever move, they move to  to suppress and kill their own people. Arab leaders are loyal to the west more than to their countries. Even revolutions are getting sucked up and then turned to their advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US needs to stay out of it . Leave it to the Muslim/Arab world to render any assistance . It's their problem . The US has only one interest in the M.E. that goes beyond economical , and that is it's ally israel .

 

That will not change so no one should hold their breath . As for Assad being a Zionist agent ...lolol...that is utterly absurd and ridiculous .

 

Iran backs Assad , Iran is a Shia State predominately , while those backing the rebels from outside including Al Queda are Sunni , so THERE you have your players .  Even Lebanon is experiencing violence due to the trouble in Syria , and THAT is happening along sectarian lines .

 

Nobody wants to hear that , but it 's tearing Iraq apart too , and is ongoing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad 1 - As for now performance of Hezbollah in 2006 was probably the best performance shown by any army/insurgent force against israel since 1948 war. halting an advance of one of the best armies in the world is a feat that not many can take.

 

LOL. Hezbollah did not halt the war. The war halted because israel halted.  Hezbollah kept going deeper and deeper into civilians neighborhoods in order to hide. israel had, and still has, the ability to completely level Lebanon. Hezbollah did not halt the war just as Hamas has not halted any attack of israel's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've discussed before, the West has made many bad mistakes. It's also true that humanitarian interventions from the West have been inconsistent.

 

But the situation isn't as black and white as you guys are saying. And it's certainly not the case that the U.S. is run by zionists. (If you want to contend that corporations have too much control, I wouldn't argue with you on that point :(  )

 

I'm also not a fan of the U.S. intervening in Syria, but I do wonder about the U.N. According to U.N. rules, member nations are required to intervene against other nations when genocide occurs or WMDs are being used. So what I wonder is this: Where is the spineless, useless U.N.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US and the west are really keen and honest in their humanitarian initiative, all the Syrian need is to impose a no-fly zone. That is all the Syrian free army is asking for. But I think that's not their intention. They want to destroy all weaponry that could someday fall in non-loyal-to-the-west hands and possibly be used against israel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dot,

 

Perhaps you're partly correct - perhaps the US doesn't want the middle east to destroy itself, like with nukes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not back the western intervention, while i know it is a dream I would prefer to see the leaders of the muslim nation grow a backbone and assist in the removal of the tyrant. But for that to happen so much must change in the world, along with the stigma that is attached to people who wish to assist the Syrian people by the western governments.

 

 

There are "leaders" who have a back bone and are doing something about it. The issue is that the Muslim masses don't view them as leaders of the Ummah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the situation is pretty complex. There are no clear cut allies nor is the situation black and white. I think the US would have loved to topple Assad and install a friendly regime. Even though Assad wasn't a threat a to israel or the US, his removal would have meant the weakening of the Shia alliance(Hezb,Syria,Iran) and removing Russian influence from the Mediterranean, especially the Russian naval base in Tartus.

 

The problem for the US is that the potential Pro US allies within the rebellion have been overshadowed by Jihadi movements whose interests and loyalties neither lie with Russia nor the US. Especially after the recently declared 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' the US would probably prefer Assad to stay there instead of the Islamic State coming to power. This is why the west is hesitant in helping the rebels. 

 

The reason why the US would want to strike at Assad now is probably just symbolic, to win support of the Syrian masses and/or they want Assad's weapons removed so they don't fall into the hands of the young Islamic State or its allies. Its sort of like a rock-scissors-paper type of complex and confusing scenario. 

 

Obviously these are just some random observations and their reasons could be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria? 

 

There are several prooofs that it wasn't Assad:

1. Right now the frontline is stable, there is no significant risk of rebels overrunning Damascus or making fast gains anywhere in the country. 

2. The attack occurred on the day when UN inspectors visited Syria (they were invited here by Assad)

3. After the attack the US and allies quickly declared that it was Assad's fault (as if they were waiting for it) even though no real investigation was done (there will never be any)

4. The US claims that they possess an "irrefutable evidence" against the Syrian regiime but no such evidence will be made public.

 

In my opinion it was either a rebel provocation or an "individual initiative" of some Syrian army commander.

 

Obama is in a strange situation. Public approval of a possible intervention oscillates around 20-30%. If he attacks, there will be public outrage. If he doesn't, he will lose his face as an unreliable ally. Weird...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×