Politics EU participation on US bombing in syria

you are clutching on straw arguments now. what interessts i have in? i want all americans to fully accept the superiority of the glorious russian empire, that they surrender and accept putin as their rightful leader who will make america great again.
do you think schweizer rundfunk or mitteldeutscher rundfunk are pro-russia? they are definitly not. so what are their "interessts" when they say something critical about the actions of the west, their own governments, in syria? maybe they smell something fishy and think something is wrong?
now tell me do you trust the white helmets, and do you trust the people who support and protect them until now? wouldn't it be kind of scandalous if western countries support an organization based in the UK that has close ties to islamists?
well guess what? that is what happened in the last few years.
I completely don't trust you, your information and conclusions.
 
I completely don't trust you, your information and conclusions.
so you do not trust srf that made an interview with expert michael lüders expert for islam? https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/tagesgespraech/eine-diplomatische-loesung-fuer-syrien
you also do not trust the leader of the centre for science on the arabic world(ZEFAW) at the university of Mainz, Günter Meyer?
you also do not trust this german tv report about aleppo where a child is saying that the jihadist made them stay to use them as protection? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB4gf3U7Bag
you also do not trust reuters with many reports of what the jihadists are doing in syria, like putting people, mostly from minorities, into cages to use them as shields?
you also do not trust the OPCW with many reports on how the opposition used chemical weapons? even sarin.
and also not the kurds who are or were on americas side and who banned the white helmets from their territory?
those are all not pro russia. i would even say that reuters and the OPCW are actually pro west.

but instead you trust turkey and saudi arabia who support the opposition?

well i can't say more. whom you trust or not is probably set from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
ok ill just continue to post things that i think could be relevant.
https://special-ops.org/news/world/...oldiers-let-syrian-police-walk-deadly-ambush/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsRx2CRrk_s

golan massacre. in 2012 UN soldiers form austria didn't warn syrian secret police about an ambush by "smugglers" and let them pass. when the syrians waved to them they commented it with "wave as long as you still can". they then watched how they were shot. according to the austrians their order was to not interfere which is probably what blue helmets should do.
the UN knew about what happened. however the case only came to light because a whistleblower released a video where everything is recorded.
should the austrians have interfered there or would this hurt their neutrality?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nemy-rockets-hit-military-bases-idUSKBN1I00WR
seems like syria is becoming the battlefield for iran and israel.
 
Has anyone noticed that EU didn't participate in bombing?
true. i probably should not have written EU but EU-countries. though the EU "understands" the need for the bombing and never said anything against it. it was also never a question that the attack could have come from the opposition.
“We strongly condemn the continued and repeated use of chemical weapons by the regime in Syria, including the latest attack on Douma, which is a grave breach of international law and an affront to human decency."
 
I agree with you, Ailchu. The only people to gain from that particular gas attack on civilian syrians, were the loosing islamist rebels - who were known to have their own stockpile of nervegas. Why would Assad gas his own civilians when he's currently winning? It makes no sense. The west has been fooled on this one, if you ask me.

I'm sure Assad has previously used gas on his people though, when he was loosing.
 
I agree with you, Ailchu. The only people to gain from that particular gas attack on civilian syrians, were the loosing islamist rebels - who were known to have their own stockpile of nervegas. Why would Assad gas his own civilians when he's currently winning? It makes no sense. The west has been fooled on this one, if you ask me.

I'm sure Assad has previously used gas on his people though, when he was loosing.

the west has not been fooled. that's the thing. the west always backed the opposition which since the beginning of this war consisted mostly of islamists. and we knew that from the start. the whole picture of the evil assad we have here is not really the truth. i don't know how bad he was. he certainly isn't an angel either. but to me it seems like he has always been the better option in this war. if you look for the opinions of syrian people, especially from minorities, who were living in regions controled by assad or who fled from rebel regions you would have a completely different picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S_zmlDuGKU

the west should not fight assad but actually try to find a solution with him because without him syria will not find peace. or maybe it will but it will be the kind of peace you have in an islamic state.

maybe assad would have to stand in front of a court just like all other parties in this war. but how can you do that when he still is backed by his people.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...restimated-jeremy-corbyn-russia-a8355241.html

"Support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, has been “underestimated”, Emily Thornberry has claimed.

The shadow foreign secretary said Mr Assad, who has presided over a civil war which has killed more than 450,000 people and displaced 11 million, may not be “as overwhelmingly unpopular as the rebels told the West"."

and this comes from a newspaper that is owned 30% by a saudi arabian shah. saudi arabia, that supports the opposition with money and weapons.

and she still uses the term "rebels" because she doesn't want to say islamists.
can you guys belive this? according to her the west listened to the islamic opposition when it made its opinion about assad but did not even consider looking at the people who still support him?
 
this is kind of funny and still has a little bit of truth in it. just a little bit. some countries should have been swapped for certain arabian countries though.
i do not promote violence against children, women or innocent countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNxkMHChBN0
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 38666 times.

Back
Top