Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'america'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Special Forums
    • Muharram 1439/2017
    • Debates
  • Welcome to ShiaChat!
    • Guest Lounge
    • Tech Support and Feedback
  • Main Forums
    • Theology and General Religion
    • Personalities in the Islamic World
    • Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
    • Politics and Current Events
    • Social, Family, Personal, and Cultural Issues
    • Science, Technology, Economics, Education, and Health
    • Off-Topic
  • Other Forums
    • Interfaith Dialogue
    • Other Languages
    • Local Community Forums
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • University Students Club's Academic Questions
  • Food Club's Topics
  • University Students Club's Advice and Counseling
  • Food Club's Restaurants
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Sports on ShiaChat's Football (Soccer)
  • Sports on ShiaChat's Basketball
  • Sports on ShiaChat's Cricket/Baseball
  • Sports on ShiaChat's American Football
  • Travel Club (Pilgrimages, Vacations, Business)'s Ziyarat, Hajj, Umrah
  • University Students Club's Housekeeping
  • Travel Club (Pilgrimages, Vacations, Business)'s General Travel Discussion
  • Mental health and Psychological wellbeing's Topics
  • Myths & Misconceptions Debunked's Topics
  • Myths & Misconceptions Debunked's Accusations and Myths/Rumors Forum
  • Sports on ShiaChat's Boxing/Wrestling/MMA
  • Sports on ShiaChat's Other Sports
  • Travel Club (Pilgrimages, Vacations, Business)'s Vacations/Business Trips
  • Art, Crafts, DIY's Topics

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Found 32 results

  1. Assalamalaikum, I have been watching news .... Im still not able to figure out who are the good guys .... Can you tell me , which countries are the good guys... P. S: Dont be biased pls.. . Be Truthful n Honest
  2. The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives. By Washington's Blog / globalresearch.ca Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56): General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said: Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380): Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441): General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71): Moreover (pg. 512): Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500): Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said: War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75. He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324): General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publiclyshortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan: The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45): Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote: Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21. Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said(pg. 359): Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example: British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.” On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.” Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value? Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities. For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325): General George Marshall agreed: Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives. As historian Doug Long notes: Politicians Agreed Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142): Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32): Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan? If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures? One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys: However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan. Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently: Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defensein 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb: Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333). The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area. The Real Explanation? History.com notes: New Scientist reported in 2005: John Pilger points out: We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz: http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/ In Summary: 1. Japan was going to surrender. The bombs were not necessary. 2. USA could have dropped the bomb on a military target, or a sparsely populated area, but chose to drop it on populated cities with no military value 3. It was done to scare Russia. It had nothing to do with ending WW2 or saving lives
  3. An adviser to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has harshly criticized the recent meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the ringleader of an anti-Iran terrorist group. Speaking on Sunday, Hossein Sheikholeslam said the meeting between Abbas and Maryam Rajavi, the ringleader of the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), came as no surprise to Iran. Abbas met with Rajavi in the French capital of Paris late Saturday. According to reports, the two discussed regional issues, and Rajavi briefed Abbas on the MKO’s recent annual meeting. “That a Palestinian faction that compromises with the Zionists (Israelis) and that has yielded to Israel under US pressure... today meets with terrorist elements is no surprise,” Sheikholeslam said, referring to the Palestinian Fatah party, which is headed by Abbas. The Islamic Republic, the Iranian official said, was already in possession of evidence of Abbas’ secret collaborations with the United States. He said the relations between Mahmoud Abbas and terrorist groups and Israelis have been covert and have only become publicized today. Sheikholeslam referred to the MKO’s bleak history of assassinations and bombings against Iranian civilians and officials following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and said the terrorist outfit receives support from the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. He also pointed to the move by the MKO to side with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the eight-year Iraqi war against Iran in the 1980s, and said the group maintains its enmity toward Iran with continued Western support. In early July, the MKO held a meeting in Paris, where Saudi Arabia’s former spymaster, Turki al-Faisal, gave a 30-minute speech to the gathering and expressed support for the anti-Iran group. The Iranian Foreign Ministry subsequently summoned the French Ambassador to Tehran François Sénémaud to hand him a strong note of protest over the meeting. Iran and Saudi Arabia have no diplomatic relations. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/08/01/477871/Iran-Hossein-Sheikholeslam-Mahmoud-Abbas-Maryam-Rajavi
  4. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/28/north-korea-united-states-relations/87659264/ Well, how is this going to work out for them?
  5. Saudi Arabia has paid substantial money for a secret alliance with Israel, a US journalist claims in his study. If this statement is true, it may fundamentally change our perception of Middle East politics. The region's muddled relations, political and military alliances have long been a favourite subject for researchers and journalists studying the Middle East. Those familiar with the region are all quite aware that the area is characterized by an Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as a Sunni-Shiite and a Saudi-Iranian opposition, which root in cultural, religious and political divisions. However, noted US journalist Robert Parry has recently published an in-depth article based on intelligence information, claiming that Saudi Arabia paid around 16 billion USD to Israel in order to buy the friendship of the Jewish State. Lobbyists for sale It is common knowledge that political (and other) lobbying has considerable traditions in the United States. Lobbyists promoting the interests of countries or economic groups often influence US interior and foreign policy decision making processes in a decisive manner. Consequently, Saudi Arabia has also begun to build a lobby in Washington, only to experience bitterly that the masses of law firms and PR specialists costing top dollar or even the exploitation of connections with such powerful families as the Bushes can never outperform the Israel Lobby in the US. Therefore, the Saudis decided to take a different approach: they bought the Israelis, writes Parry. According to the article, Saudi Arabia has given Israel around $16 billion over the past two and a half years, funnelling the money through other Arab states and Israeli development funds. If it is all true, the Saudis may have indeed bought the Israelis, since Israel was starkly opposing the agreement with Iran - and found several American backers along the way. Why Iran? Readers not quite familiar with regional affairs might not know that Iran and its religious Shiite leadership is a thorn in the side of another player beside Israel - Saudi Arabia, a key power in the Sunni world also considers the Shiite state as its archrival. The Sunni-Shiite division is one of the greatest fault lines among Muslim countries, which they not have been able to overcome. As a result, Saudis consider any pro-Iran governments in the Middle East as enemies, so much so, that they are apparently willing to ignore the solidarity rooted in the same culture and all-Islam togetherness. Not to mention that they turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people (who are also Sunni, by the way). So, Saudi Arabia is not in the least interested in a strengthening Iran. However, the lifted sanctions and Tehran's return to international politics would inevitably lead to a strengthening Persian state, and in a big way too, as Iran has all the capabilities to become a key state of the Middle East, similarly to Turkey. It seems such a dreadful outcome for the Saudis, who follow Wahhabism, a rigorous school of Islam, that they appear willing to ally with Israel to prevent it. Religious rigour does not seem to apply to foreign policy... Riyadh is not concerned about the bloodshed According to Parry, Riyadh and Tel-Aviv had a similar cooperation to destabilize Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Even though Iraq's central government had already been toppled by the US invasion, a Shiite, thus pro-Iran leadership that enjoyed the support of the population's majority was obviously not so close to the Saudis' heart, just as they didn't like the Alavite (a branch of Shiitism) Assad regime in Syria, either. This put Riyadh on the same side with Israel. Interestingly enough, the Islamic State that follows a wrong and violent interpretation of Sunni Islam happened to grow strong in this region. Notably, the terrorist organization that calls itself a Caliphate was not planning to annihilate Israel, but the Shiites living in the area. This is one more reason why ISIS may have seemed more likeable for Israel than the Assad regime, which has maintained religious peace but been relentlessly opposed to Tel-Aviv, even though the Islamic State destroys everything with unheard of brutality in the occupied areas. Palestinian cause on the sideline Although the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood gave a glimmer of hope for the Palestinians struggling to survive the air-tight blockade in Gaza, the world's largest outdoor prison for years, Saudi Arabia considered Mohamed Morsi's Muslim revolutionary and not anti-Hamas government as an enemy, so it joined Israel in backing the military coup and the new Egyptian leadership, which wasn't as friendly to the Palestinians as its predecessor but fit the Saudi interests much better. Hypocrisy at its peak As it is known, Saudi Arabia is one of the most radical Muslim states in the world. Its structure is based on Wahhabism, an ideology rooted in the quasi literal interpretation of Islamic religious principles and the most puritanistic traditions. Yet this country hardly ever receives firm criticism from the West, contrary to a democratic Turkey that tolerates religions other than Islam, or the undoubtedly theocratic Iran, which ensures parliamentary representation for religious minorities. In comparison, wearing a cross in Saudi Arabia may constitute a crime and power is concentrated in the hands of one single dynasty. And this country is a reliable ally for the United States and if Parry's article is correct, it is an outstanding sponsor for Israel against other Muslim states. http://jobbik.com/saudi_israeli_cooperation_secret_alliance_bought_for_money
  6. Iran is ranked number forth in the world after North Korea, China, and America. Keep it up Iran http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp
  7. Islam and the West

    Just a place to share opinions, ideas and thoughts on life in the West, and offer tips to fellow Muslims on integrating, raising children, getting an education and remaining a pious worshipper of the Creator in the Western World.
  8. Can Russia be trusted?

    (salam) Hezbullah and Iran has suffered huge loss particularly after intervention of Russia in Syria. Some people believe that Russia can not be trusted. Russia is protecting Israeli interest in Syria and the series of senior Iranian and Hezbullah Officials is due to Russia. What you have to say about this? Can Russia be trusted?
  9. I wasn't going to share this initially, but a legend appears at 43:52. I'd recommend watching this, especially for those living in the West.
  10. When Marco Rubio delivered his response to Donald Trump's comments saying "Islam hates us", he responded by saying his comments were outrageous, however, he delivered a purposely weakened defense of Muslims. Which was hardly even a defense considering he said "Islam has a problem" as I have written in my previous post. For anyone needing to catch up to speed here is a link to my previous post in which I fact check the debate: He only came to defend Muslims when in Bangladesh Christian Missionaries experienced hostility when trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, and gleefully remarked there were many Muslims interested in converting to Christianity in Bangladesh. As if he couldn't give a defense for the basic human dignity Muslims deserve he only chimes in his defense when it was advantageous to him. For instance, he said we need to build a coalition of Sunni Arabs against ISIS in other words if it wasn't for the support he needed from Sunni Arabs or if there were no Christian missionaries in Muslim countries he wouldn't have came to the defense of Muslims. In sum, on certain issues it seems the scathing hypocrisy from the Republican side is too much.
  11. Fact checking Marco Rubio: Only .006 percent of all Muslims are terrorists and that is only if you take the broadest definition of terrorism and include all groups since the 1970s: Source: (The answer is found in 12:50-15:00)
  12. Sallam, I work at a big American Company, I am not a cashier, but when needed I do cashier. The main income of this place is grocery, which means people buy a lot of non-halal meat, and very rarely but occasional Alcohol. As a cashier scanning these item, what is the hokum on my part? Does it count as if I am selling it? Does that make the income I make haram? What should I do ( I am seeking a new job, but nothing yet) We did have to sign a contract about this too. Stating "we would complete transaction with alcohol beverages or meat." I for sure don't want to make haram money.
  13. Recently in a discussion on these boards an argument was made that how Iran and India are great countries because they don't get dictated to by the foreign powers. It was said to get to the Pakistanis who can't think straight because of their country's history of taking foreign dictation. While there are no two opinions about this in the case of Iran, and whereas Pakistan has often acted like a US client state, one has to question the assumption behind extolling India's position vis-a-vis foreign dictation. The easiest way is to compare Iran's and India's relations with the US for the last couple of decades to see through the argument. The United States had always viewed Indian (and Pakistani) nuclear programs as a threat to the West and its allies. But in early 1990s when India was reeling under IMF loans and US sanctions, the then Indian government entered into back channel talks to convince them that Indian nukes were not a threat to the US or the West and asked for the sanctions to be lifted. Americans bluntly told them to normalise relations with Israel to prove their sincerity. India complied. Magically, literally overnight, Indian nukes stopped being a threat and an era of US-Indian strategic partnership was entered into. This partnership got a fresh boost about which you can read the links below. Pakistan was told to follow Indian example when the US imposed sanctions after nuclear tests in the late 90s but Pakistanis refused. Which was unusual since Pakistan is supposed to be a client state in the Saudi model, doing what the Americans demand, but here the usual Indian and Pakistani roles vis-a-vis foreign dictation were reversed. This also tells us that foreign dictation is not an either/or proposition. Most developing countries are pushed to find a balance to resist dictation of powerful countries while at the same preserve their country's interests. Some countries are more successful in this than the others, depending on their internal politics, size and geostrategic location. Note that India is not a signatory to NPT (Nuclear non-proliferation treaty) whereas Iran is but we still get the following: Why? Because of this: It may be argued that the current Indian foreign policy is in line with its interests, that India doesn't need to keep speaking against injustice to harm its own interests. So its strategic partnership with the US and Israel is understandable. This may so but the pied pipers of Incredible India™ on these boards should be consistent when they criticise those camps that support US hegemony in the region through its Zionist proxy, and those that don't. Or those that exist to take foreign dictation (Saudi et al) and those that don't (Iran, Syria, Russia). There is a reason that, of all the emerging powers in the region (China, Russia, India), it is the latter which is a US strategic partner and not others. A useful summary from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Israel_relations
  14. *Has profanity and Non-Hijab women.... I am seriously loving his videos. So much we have never known. This is about the scam of loaning of which constitutes more locations around the US than Mcdonalds!!! Do not go to pay day loans! 'Payday loans put a staggering amount of Americans in debt. They prey on the elderly and military service members. They’re awful, and nearly impossible to regulate. We’ve recruited Sarah Silverman to help spread the word about how to avoid falling into their clutches.'
  15. If this was truly the case, then Wow! Thank you America! Great move! Stop these extremist scums! I do not want the US to turn into the likes of UK and Australia where these extremist hate mongers who despise the shias and want to kill them, roam free. Can you believe it?! She was 19 and a "convert" wooow... :no: How did the US Army Explorers allow her in the course if she shared such a senseless belief? "A 19-year-old woman has been arrested for allegedly trying to provide support to Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (Isis), it has emerged." "According to a criminal complaint filed with US District Court in Colorado, Ms Conley attended a military tactics and firearms training course with the US Army Explorers earlier in the year. She allegedly planned to use the training to help Isis fighters through the man she met online, who shared her "view of Islam as requiring participation in violent jihad against any non-believers", the complaint said. Officials began to investigate Ms Conley after the pastor at Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colorado, alerted local police and the Colorado FBI to a woman suspiciously taking notes of the layout of the church's campus." "According to court documents, Ms Conley, a Muslim convert, told investigators she had initially taken classes at the church to learn about different religions." Credit to BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28139400
  16. Peace be upon you brothers and sisters. This is my first post so I shall make it a good one inshAllah. I recently found an article about a Mujtahid living within the USA, this goes to show that Haqq(riotousness) is everywhere if you look hard enough. What do you think? here is the link http://alimdeen.blogspot.com/
  17. Please share everywhere and with every one. For Urdu Translation, look below
  18. Salaams, Does anybody have a general idea of how many people go to the Hawza in Qom to study (from the UK/Canada/US) every year? Mainly asking about young ages, 16-20 age range...
  19. http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/shows/featured/the-daily-show/videos/blue-bombs-the-daily-show-954878/
  20. Changing faiths: Hispanic Americans leaving Catholicism for Islam21 August 2013 With more than 50 million Hispanics living in the US, the Latino community is now the country's biggest minority. While most are brought up within the Catholic Church, a number of them are turning to Islam. Precise figures are difficult to pin down as the US Census does not collect religious data, but estimates for the number of Latino Muslims vary between 100,000 and 200,000. The BBC's Katy Watson went to Union City in New Jersey - where the population is more than 80% Hispanic - to meet some converts. VIDEO : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23774334
  21. American Justice

    American Justice:
  22. Prophet Mohammad & Islamic Sharia`h By Imam Sayed Mustafa Alqazwini At California State University,Chico This letcture aims to distinguish between misconceptions and the true essence of Islam through the example of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). .:BEYOND|Events:report and interviwes: http://bit.ly/14B7rBs Please follow us to see the most resent update of our events and activities
  23. Is it haram for girls to play sports in high school events? for example soccor. basketball etc. And also Is it haram to go out with 10 friends to lunch, that are a mixture of girls and guys? (which all of them are muslims)
  24. Why Kofi Annan had enough over Syria The UN's special envoy and the Bric countries have got increasingly frustrated with the west's domineering consensus on Damascus When the history of Syria's catastrophic civil war comes to be written, 30 June 2012 will surely be recognised as the only true moment of hope. On that day in Geneva the five permanent members of the UN security council united behind a communique calling for a transition to a democratic system in Syria and the formation of a government of national unity in which opposition leaders and members of the current government would share power. They called for a firm timetable for elections in a fair environment. And, with an eye on the chaos that followed the US-imposed scheme of de-Ba'athification in Iraq, said the continuity of government institutions and qualified staff in Syria's public services must be preserved. This included the military and security forces – though they must in future adhere to human rights standards. They also called on the Syrian government and opposition groups to re-commit to a ceasefire. Sensible, detailed and constructive, the communique was also remarkable for what it did not contain. Although the call for a government of national unity meant Syria's authoritarian regime should be dismantled, the security council's permanent members did not mention the usual cliche of "regime change", which over-personalises complex issues by focusing on the removal of a single towering personality. There was no specific demand for Bashar al-Assad to resign, let alone as the precondition for negotiations between the government and its opponents, as western states and most Syrian opposition groups previously insisted. In short, the communique appeared to move the US, Britain and France, as well as Turkey and Qatar, which also attended the Geneva meeting, to an even-handed stance at last. It marked Kofi Annan's finest hour as the UN and Arab League's special envoy. A few days later, Russia circulated a draft resolution at the UN in New York to endorse the new approach. It urged member-states to work in the co-operative spirit of the Geneva text, extend the UN monitors' team in Syria and press for a ceasefire. Then came the spanner. Britain, France and the US proposed a rival resolution with the one-sided elements that provoked earlier Russian and Chinese vetoes – punishment of Assad if he did not comply, threats of new sanctions, no word of pressure on the opposition and veiled hints of eventual military force by referring to chapter seven of the UN charter. The resolution was a disaster, and it is no wonder that in explaining his resignation (in a Financial Times article on Friday) Annan highlighted the security council's failure to endorse the Geneva recommendations. Annan remains too much of a diplomat to take sides openly but his disappointment with the big western states for their "finger-pointing and name-calling" of Russia and China over Syria is clear. His frustration is shared by the new powers on the international stage that are increasingly angry with the domineering western consensus on many issues. When the UN general assembly debated a Saudi resolution last week that followed the west in calling for sanctions and Assad's departure, Brazil, India and South Africa all objected. In the west it is easy to pillory Russia for rejecting internationally imposed regime change by saying Vladimir Putin fears a "colour revolution" in Russia (even though there is no such prospect). China's democratic credentials can be sneered at. But when the three other Brics, which hold fair, orderly, and regular elections, object to the western line on Syria, it is time to take note. Indeed, the west did adjust. It got the Saudis to water down the draft lest it receive less than half the world's votes. The retreat was only tactical. The Obama administration promptly announced it is "accelerating" its support to Syria's rebels by giving them intelligence and satellite data on troop movements. Annan's disappointment must be massive. Until he started work in February, the military pattern in Syria had been consistent for several months – occasional forays by rebels into urban areas followed by excessive reaction by government troops, with artillery, snipers, and mass arrests. Since then, apart from a few days of relative quiet in April when a ceasefire partially held, Syria has seen a huge influx of arms to the rebels, growing involvement by foreign special forces, and the infiltration of al-Qaida jihadis and other Salafists. What began as a peaceful uprising and then became local self-defence has been hijacked. Under Saudi, Qatari and US leadership, and with British, French and Israeli approval, it has turned into an anti-Iranian proxy war. This does not mean the democratic aspirations of Syria's original protesters should be abandoned, or that the Syrian government should not start to implement the Geneva principles for transition that Annan briefly persuaded the big powers to accept. The outlook is too desperate. As tens of thousands flee their homes, and the destruction of Aleppo – and perhaps soon of Damascus – looms ever closer, a ceasefire and political compromise have never been more urgent. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/why-kofi-annan-enough-over-syria
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×