William Ashley Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) The scale of what is occyuring I have never seen before Libya is stating it is supplying weapons to attack syria technically libya is at war with syria http://www.smh.com.au/world/libya-to-arm-rebels-in-syria-20111126-1o088.html Turkey also.. this while iran says it will attack israel's nuclear sites and turkey - and europe just last month ergodan was on about insuring aid got to palestine even if it meant sending the turkish navy fundamentalist islamists are taking over north africa officially and the muslim brotherhood is surging from the underground while some say that they will prepare for war with israel... pakistan was just attacked with 40 soilders targetted by the us meanwhile an election year in the us where the main candidates against obama say they will bomb iran. of course the election aint due before the Bushere goes online, so what gives? are they going to bomb an active nuclear site? ''There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,'' a Libyan source said, on condition of anonymity. ''There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.''Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/libya-to-arm-rebels-in-syria-20111126-1o088.html#ixzz1etDZOB00 Edited November 27, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
olp1fan Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 Hard to tell which is more important.. The Euro Zone crisis or the Middle East crisis Quote
Topaz Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 Hard to tell which is more important.. The Euro Zone crisis or the Middle East crisis Usually money and power is the cause of war, so who's benefitting? Quote
olp1fan Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 Usually money and power is the cause of war, so who's benefitting? Maybe both then? Eurozone collapses, the leaders go oh what the hell, strike Iran, then the whole world is brought into it Quote
Guest Peeves Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 The Middle East is in revolt, but I doubt a change, changes, will lead to more freedom. With sharia laws(fundamentalists),likely to take power, the human rights and draconian rule will not be any better. Quote
Guest Manny Posted November 27, 2011 Report Posted November 27, 2011 Have we ever been this deranged. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted November 28, 2011 Report Posted November 28, 2011 Deranged? It's still in the midst of a massive and historic democratic uprising. I would say it is progressing, but real social progress is rarely ever a smooth or quick process. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
GostHacked Posted November 28, 2011 Report Posted November 28, 2011 A possible scenario. Since the west helped destabalize Libya, and there were concerns about much ammunition and weapons not accounted for and still not accounted for. If these get to Syria, it will be used as a pretext for more stuff against Syria. Blame Al-Queda?? http://www.hostpic.org/images/54AirportTripoli.jpg Quote
August1991 Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) The scale of what is occyuring I have never seen beforeYes, the Lebanese Civil War was arguably worse.IMV, Iraq has been "Lebanized", and Syria may soon be too. ---- Is this bad? Well, the status quo was hardly good. The UN, the leftist West, Carter (and Liberal Trudeau/Chretien/MFA Canada) argued for the "peace process" and "stability". Fat lot of good that ever did. Edited December 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote
dre Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Is this bad? Well, the status quo was hardly good. The UN, the leftist West, Carter (and Liberal Trudeau/Chretien/MFA Canada) argued for the "peace process" and "stability". So did everyone else. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Look for this common point among all these troubled dictators. All of them said Al-Queda is attacking them, or among the rebels helping to attack them. Ben-Ali of Tunisia said it. Mubarek of Egypt said it. Gaddafi of Libya said it. Assad of Syria is saying it. Are we supporting Al-Queda to help overthrow these people? Quote
Wild Bill Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Look for this common point among all these troubled dictators. All of them said Al-Queda is attacking them, or among the rebels helping to attack them. Ben-Ali of Tunisia said it. Mubarek of Egypt said it. Gaddafi of Libya said it. Assad of Syria is saying it. Are we supporting Al-Queda to help overthrow these people? Or perhaps they all made such claims because they thought it was a button to trigger western support... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
GostHacked Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Or perhaps they all made such claims because they thought it was a button to trigger western support... How would that work? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 How would that work? C'mon...think. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 C'mon...think. I'll wait for his reply. Quote
dre Posted December 28, 2011 Report Posted December 28, 2011 Look for this common point among all these troubled dictators. All of them said Al-Queda is attacking them, or among the rebels helping to attack them. Ben-Ali of Tunisia said it. Mubarek of Egypt said it. Gaddafi of Libya said it. Assad of Syria is saying it. Are we supporting Al-Queda to help overthrow these people? I dont think we are "supporting" Al Qeada. We have known for a long time that one of AQ's major planks was removing quasi secular western backed dictators, and thats is what is happening... but that doesnt mean we are "supporting" them. The problem is that once these guys were engaging in violent crackdowns, it became politically impossible for western leaders to back these various dictators. The difference I think is visibility. With all the cellphone footage, social networking, etc, its now extremely hard for western governments to support various dictators no matter how much they would like to. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
August1991 Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 (edited) We have known for a long time that one of AQ's major planks was removing quasi secular western backed dictators, and thats is what is happening... but that doesnt mean we are "supporting" them.It is hard to characterize Qaddafi or Assad as "western backed dictators".The Middle East is filled with tyrants of various sorts. Whereas the rest of the world has moved to civilized democracies (Brazil, Hungary), the Arab world and places such as Iran and Pakistan are largely totalitarian regimes. That is the key point. Even the UN agrees. dre, here's a thread on the same topic. Edited December 29, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.