Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

U.S. missiles Syria -- ~2100 EDT

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators
1 minute ago, andres said:

You preffer blaiming outsiders taking advantage of the situation.?

Read your own posts.  Let's take this sequentially. 

You said Muslim nations are having trouble being at peace because sects interpret the Quran differently. I responded by saying it's about power and money hungry leaders. You brought up Syrian religious factions. I said that wasn't what I was referring to (I was referring to dudes with diamond plated jets and toilets).  And then you respond with your repeated assertion of me (supposedly unfairly) blaming of outsiders.

I guess it's far fetched to believe that kings with lots of money and geopolitical opportunity have no interest in opening the floodgates of savagery to create a controllable wasteland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, magma said:

I guess it's far fetched to believe that kings with lots of money and geopolitical opportunity have no interest in opening the floodgates of savagery to create a controllable wasteland. 

No it is not far fetched. (Never heard that expression but I think I can figure out what it means). Lots of kings, not only Saudi ones, will try to take advantage of week nations. Each nation must see to that it can resist those threats. Muslim nations have not been very successful with this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, magma said:

This is the only part of my post you're addressing?

Well, 2011 is all a moot point by now. If an authentic protest was allowed to organically take form without foreign contamination co-opting it, perhaps something could have come of it. Or maybe not, he had a lot of supporters too. But that's ancient history now. 

Sorry man I'm replying on my phone, sometimes I can quote partial passages and sometimes I cannot.

I wanted to point out, if and it's a big IF, the Syrian political situation is such that we have someone borderline like Saddam, (not that I'm excusing the US from getting involved or even Russia for that matter) what good are the Syrian people's choice if they don't get heard?

Iraq and Afghanistan are in a complete disaster.

Afghanistan is now ruled by the Taliban,  a failed intervention consequence of the US getting involved,  same with Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.

I don't think intervening was a solution but neither do I think sitting around and letting Bashar take his course.

.. this is literally the largest  refugee exoduse we've had in God knows... has anyone determined if whether these refugees  are all propaganda blind when they testify to what they think are Bashar crimes? 

So many millions leaving are they leaving because of ISIS alone ??

Bashar Assad in February of this year said and FEAR mongered that even a few terrorists escaping out as refugees is a potentially critically dangerous as 9/11 potentially repeating, indicating the few refugee families could be terrorist supporters... and preventing the majority of good citizens from being taken in, why would he do that?

Keep those people fleeing from HIM and ISIS/Nusra, tells me he doesn't care about these people who fled for their lives.

It just fits the narrative that he had something to hide,  something to hide these people have seen or know.  As torn as I am between two sides, I'm seeing it stack up AGAINST Assad here.

So for him, it's better if these refugees don't leave and succumb to ISIS and die under them, probably since it'll wash his hands of their blood, and leave less anti Assad citizens around to protest.

Or better why keep the terrorists in his country screwing thIngs up?

So he can pick who a "terrorist" is.  

We give trump deserving shade for being two faced, loose cannon for not trying not to accept refugees,  but Bashar is asking for the same.

1 million refugees escaped Libya the majority supported ghadaffi.

Over 4 million refugees from Syria, anyone survey ?

Here:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8692520 

the survey is attached,

Can anyone disprove this survey?

They interviewed 889 Syrians living in Germany, interviewed in 2015 from Oct to Sept.   In 12 centers housing refugees.  They collected data from 5 towns in order to control/normalize  adverse selection from location choices of across varying refugee groups. All self declared Syrians were asked and approached  upon entering/leaving  registering centers..  combination of face to face, computer assessed .  The survey was conducted by 18 Syrian nationals. 

I think you all should consider this survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
1 minute ago, andres said:

Each nation must see to that it can resist those threats. Muslim nations have not been very successful with this. 

Well, as you can see, Syria is trying the best it can, considering the amount of foreign power raining down on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, magma said:

Read your own posts.  Let's take this sequentially. 

You said Muslim nations are having trouble being at peace because sects interpret the Quran differently. I responded by saying it's about power and money hungry leaders. You brought up Syrian religious factions. I said that wasn't what I was referring to (I was referring to dudes with diamond plated jets and toilets).  And then you respond with your repeated assertion of me (supposedly unfairly) blaming of outsiders.

I guess it's far fetched to believe that kings with lots of money and geopolitical opportunity have no interest in opening the floodgates of savagery to create a controllable wasteland. 

How is Saudi Arabia funding ISIS to spread their twisted Wahabbi ideology not part of Muslim sectarian problems ? Muslim unification is KEY

@andres is making a fair point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
8 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

How is Saudi Arabia funding ISIS to spread their twisted Wahabbi ideology not part of Muslim sectarian problems ? Muslim unification is KEY

@andres is making a fair point.

He was specifically addressing internal Syrian religious groups, not the Saudis or IS.

Ill stop posting for now and lock the topic for one hour, so you can all read and internalize the discussion thus far at a more leisurely pace. 

I can address your recent post, but it's long, full of confusion, and looks like you're glued to 100s of RSS feeds or Google News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Another good reason to attack, try and seem like he's not buddy buddy with Russia even though he called and warned the Russian prior to the strike,  and get focus away from his scandals.  I'm saying Russia is not afraid to leave Assad high and dry. 

There's no confirmation of this though. Plus it makes no sense that Russia would deploy one of its best ships to Syria and suspend air cooperation with the US. Just because they didn't attack back, doesn't mean that they side with America, no one wants to start WW3 if it can be avoided, but honestly, if it comes down to toppling Assad from the outside, I don't know if people would just sit idly after Libya and Iraq. This is a global issue, the blowback will affect Russia, it already has actually, and Syria is close to Russia geographically too. 

4 hours ago, andres said:

No nations are funding ISIS.

Whether or not you choose to believe it and shy away from the truth is another issue. ISIS is just a name for one group, the bigger problem is funding of Wahhabism, which is funded by the Saudi government and it preaches hate and intolerance for everything non-Wahhabi, that's how ISIS and other groups are able to gain recruits through this brainwashed education system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How when you have a nation that funds and spreads Wahhabism you can expect any ounce of moderation in the opposition groups they fund is insane to me, Wahhabism is not a moderate ideology to begin with. The Saudis are even seen to be working with Al Qaeda in Yemen to fight the Houthis. "Vetted" US rebels beheaded a twelve year old Palestinian child. Now you can claim they didn't know, but given the US history of using radical Islam to defeat secular nationalism, as in Afghanistan, it's not surprising that they didn't really care about the nature of groups they fund. Fighting ISIS is one thing, but it's far from you doing anything to fix the problem, whilst you continue to support states that fund the ideology that motivates ISIS and support groups you consider moderate, ignoring the fact that moderation is a myth you can't possibly expect when you have this heinous ideology. It's not just ISIS, it's Boko Haram, Al Shebab, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham etc. Many rebel factions, including US backed ones embolden ISIS, so whilst you claim to fight ISIS you help them through arming groups that are more likely to turn over their weapons to them than to fight both the government and ISIS.

look at McCain here, he just ignores what this Syrian lady states, and she states she is no fan of Assad either. But his response is simply I know better than you and I am going to ignore everything you say; 

The US doesn't care what Syrians want, it will dismiss even genuine claims like this to get their puppet in power.

I personally believe the best option for Syria is to have the majority of the voices heard, a lot of them want changes in the government but they don't want ISIS or Nusra to be the people that lead them. So the best option would be to stop funding these rebels, and try and take steps to initiate a free and fair election. There is genuine opposition in Syria that we don't hear about because they stand no chance of coming into power with the existence of these jihadi groups. These are mostly voices critical of the government but they aren't radical, these are university professors, students etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coordination_Committee_for_Democratic_Change. Unfortunately, I am not too optimistic that these people can have a say in Syria, given what the bulk of the opposition looks like.

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

There's no confirmation of this though. Plus it makes no sense that Russia would deploy one of its best ships to Syria and suspend air cooperation with the US. Just because they didn't attack back, doesn't mean that they side with America, no one wants to start WW3 if it can be avoided, but honestly, if it comes down to toppling Assad from the outside, I don't know if people would just sit idly after Libya and Iraq. This is a global issue, the blowback will affect Russia, it already has actually, and Syria is close to Russia geographically too. 

I mean I'm already reading headlines about trump saying "this should prove I'm not in with Russia", not to say that it's evidence but given how everyone likes to draw lines of connection to these kinds of rhetoric - implying a liar is going to draw attention away from what they're being accused of... but I'll digress that point.

Afghanistan is closer to bloody Russia with the Taliban running everything than Syria is, with Assad running the show as a half played puppet, with ISIS being crippled physically and by attrition. Russia has a larger problem within its surrounding states like Kyrgyzstan and Chechens blowing up  their train stations because of their own ill treatment of Tatar/Slav muslims. So in Short, I don't see your geographical concern. 

For goodness sake is everyone forgetting they invaded Crimea?  Russia was having NO problems beginning aggravations there and pissing off muslims worldwide, if they were worried about blowback they shouldn't have instigated aggression there.

Russia clearly does not give two damns about blow back.

Anyway I posted a link to a survey of Syrian Refugees, is no one going to comment on that, or combat it?  Or try and conjure up a line of logic exposing some fundamental flaw that diminishes the message of Assad being a belligerent tyrant?  Or is everyone going to plea the fifth and disregard openness to consider the other side of the political wall here.

I do try  to attempt to be objective as hard it may be being blasted with propaganda everyday, and have been sitting and teetering this fence on both sides here.  I'm now firmly planted on the opposing against Assad.

The only way I'm going to tolerate a counter response to this survey is if someone finds me an equivalent survey, or comparable where the design was set up, with a significant sample of syrian refugees being asked those same questions and gave completely adverse answers redeeming Assad from what the "Western" views currently view of him.

Edited by wmehar2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, magma said:

He was specifically addressing internal Syrian religious groups, not the Saudis or IS.

I also said that the Muslim world is in a mess. Muslim nations must come to preace with eachother. Until the inhabitants do not have freedom of speach and religion and as long as the nations are run by dictators this will hardly change. Here I speak of all Muslim nations in the ME except for Turkey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

What does this have to do with anything?

I'm all for Assad being the lesser evil and all that, but this kind of Ba'athist garbage just gives me the chills after Saddam.

what does your insulting rhetoric have anything more to do with it than my praise?

Bashar is actually doing something agains Wahabism and Zionism. More than most of us can say about ourselves.

Unlike Saddam he is not a US puppet, and he defends shias, versus Saddam who attacks them.

Judge people by their actions and not some labels.

 

Bashar is a true hero and example for all the Arabs! 

10489975_1426587997629113_1443958105439059272_n1.jpg.640a7eaa4b13870adedf44dc0587a87c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On ‎7‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 5:07 AM, Learner2526 said:

I think you forgot that the us supported Sadam under a differnt president than when that went and got rid of him. Differnt president = different policy

Diffirent presidents but same goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


The use of C-weapons only started after Hillary Clinton stated that Assad would use them and therefore intervention was inevitable.

I hope people are clever enough to understand what this really meant.

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
  • Advanced Member

Those on Shiachat who claim to support Sayid Hassan Nasrallah and the Palestinian resistance, better listen to what Sayed Nasrallah has to say about Bashar Al Assad's Syria, before using the term of 'Lesser Evil' again! 

Quote

Syria is the back of the resistance. It is supporter of the resistance

source

Hassan Nasrallah:

Quote

Syria is not merely a bridge that links Iran and the resistance in Lebanon or to the resistance in Palestine, It is not merely a crossing (though which) resources, facilitations, training, or logistical support is made possible - it is not merely as such.

No Syria as it is, with its (qualities) - with its political will, the positions of its leadership, its refusal to surrender to Israel, with its missile arsenals - it is also a part of the Resistance Axis and it supports the resistance, not (merely) a bridge.

For this reason I mentioned today and several times before that the missiles that were an essential part of the equation during the July War (2006) and which shook the Israeli entity, most of these (missiles) were made in Syria. They did to come from Iran. They are produced in Syrian military production facilities, and were then handed to the resistance in Lebanon. This is how Israel and America view Syria.

 

Okay, so Syria is a key and decisive part of the Resistance Axis.

 

(The removal of Syria) does not merely lead to the isolation of the resistance (in Lebanon) - no, this breaks the back of the Resistance Axis.

 

A number of regional states were told to go and work on President Assad and Syria to remove it from the Resistance Axis.

So through politics they were not able to do so. Why? Even though billions of dollar were offered (to President Assad)

..

The problem they faced in Syria is the independence of the political decision-making of the leadership and President (Assad)

 

When they failed through politics, and the wave of the Arab Spring etc came along, they rode that wave and channeled it towards Syria. For this reason, with regards to what is occurring in Syria, you can say it is a continuation of the July War (2006).

..

The July War was (designed to) eliminate the resistance in Lebanon, and after finishing from Lebanon they go on to Syria and finish it off, then they wipe out the armed resistance in Palestine,

So the problem with the President Assad is that this leader, this personality, does not fit (in harmony) with a ‘New Middle East’. A ‘New Middle East’ means submissive rulers to the will of the America and Israel.

source

According to NasrAllah:

  1. Bashar Al Asad's Syria is the back of the reistance
  2. Almost all material support of the 2006 war was from Bashar Al Asads government
  3. Bashar al Asad could not be bribed or swayed away from anti-Zionism and anti-Wahabism
  4. Removing Asad is equivalent of breaking the back of the resistance axis
  5. Bashar al Assad's government is independent
  6. the war against Bashar is a continuation of the 2006, with Bashar obviously fighting alongside Hezbollah again.

Please spare us about the 'lesser evil' rhetoric, unless you claim to know better than Sayed NasrAllah. 

My guess is that people here don't like him because he appears secular and doesn't wear a turban. Probably because he doesn't go around shouting that he believes in 12 imams, or perhaps because his highly intelligent and classy wife is not veiled. 

Bashar Al Assad and Nasr Allah are one .. so supporting one and bashing the other is reminiscent of those who try to divide friends and allies in the fight against evil.

1397084182.thumb.jpg.6d5fbb8a24184318fb9ed068aee93f6c.jpg31iht-ednisman31-jumbo.thumb.jpg.9ca21f2d1e52e9fe3dcea8a91a2674a8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

the fact that many shias are more concerned and upset about Trumps airstrikes on an airbase then children being gassed and 6 years of imhumanity and clear proofs of Bashar's horrors show how twisted many of your moral compasses are. Saydnaya death camps, ghouta gassings, genocides in villages, buildings levelled by airstrikes with familes and babies inside, the gassing just last week. None.of them have warranted the heated response that Trumps airstrikes have.

You can try and paint all these events as hoaxes perpetrated by Wahaabis/zionist and live in cuckoo land. You can continue wailing and flagellating yourselves bloody over inhumanities of the past, but your cold hearted realpolitik approach to the Syrian conflict has exposed many of you as heartless hypocrites.

Keep wailing about 'teh evil israel, saddam, yazid and people in jail in bahrain', yet support a vicious tyrant with.more blood on his hands and understand how pitiable you all are as humanbeings.

That is all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, JermainTaylor said:

children being gassed and 6 years of imhumanity and clear proofs of Bashar's horrors

"clear proofs" coming from the enemies of Bashar :) As usual.

I can show you a building that is demolished by a landslide in Bangladesh, then a picture of a paid Arab looking child crying on a staged set, then say the same ..

Or, in other words, I can make mini false flag operations, and do what America and Israel have been doing for a long time again and again. And oh yeah! I can also pay trolls to go on forums and spread these baseless "proofs" without even backing them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

US State Senator Says Zero Probability Assad Government Launched Gas Attack

US State Senator from Virginia Richard Black said that there is zero chance that President Bashar Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons in Syria considering he had no motive to do so as he is on the verge of defeating Takfiris across the country.

“I give the probabilities of Syria launching the Syrian gas attack a zero probability,” Black told Sputnik on Friday.

“I think there’s absolutely no chance that they [Syrian government] did it because there is nothing on earth to gain and in exchange he would incur the wrath of the whole world. So it didn’t happen. I know that it didn’t happen.”

Black said he defied anyone to explain a motive for why Assad would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory considering across the country the Syrian army and its allies are defeating the Takfiris everywhere.

“Why on earth would the President of Syria decide to authorize a chemical attack on a handful of civilians walking down the street?” the state senator asked rhetorically.

There is no rational reason, Black added, to back accusations that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians as strategic means to defeat opposition forces.

Black explained that it is more likely the Syrian government would use chemical weapons against mass armored formations and heavily fortified enemy positions or to blunt enemy assaults into places like Hama, assuming they actually possessed the capability.

“We’re [United States] not even sure he [Assad] has chemical weapons,” Black stressed.

http://english.almanar.com.lb/232879

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

"clear proofs" coming from the enemies of Bashar :) As usual.

I can show you a building that is demolished by a landslide in Bangladesh, then a picture of a paid Arab looking child crying on a staged set, then say the same ..

Or, in other words, I can make mini false flag operations, and do what America and Israel have been doing for a long time again and again. And oh yeah! I can also pay trolls to go on forums and spread these baseless "proofs" without even backing them up.

You do realise with that level of delusion and denial, I can dismiss all the alleged atrocities committed on shias that you love to harp on about. For some reason you abandon this level of hyperscrutiny and cherry pick what suits your narrative. So sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JermainTaylor said:

You do realise with that level of delusion and denial, I can dismiss all the alleged atrocities committed on shias that you love to harp on about. For some reason you abandon this level of hyperscrutiny and cherry pick what suits your narrative. So sad...

Could you kindly respond to my posts?

I take a two-sided approach. I don't try to justify muqtada Al Sadr and the brutal sectarian attacks some groups have tried to commit in his name. I don't justify Assad , and all he does - he does have blood on his hands.

I just wan you to reply to my posts and look at this whole situation from both perspectives.

Recognise that while Assad may be 'bad' he certainly is not 'mad'. Would he use chemical weapons knowing the US has changed its' policy shift against regime change, knowing that he is winning currently and Al Nusra, alqaed affiliate groups, salafi-jihadists have been pushed into Idlib especially the ones from Aleppo?

Many non-shia's , independent thinkers and analysts have concluded that while Assad may be bad enough, is he mad enough to do something suicidal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

Could you kindly respond to my posts?

I take a two-sided approach. I don't try to justify muqtada Al Sadr and the brutal sectarian attacks some groups have tried to commit in his name. I don't justify Assad , and all he does - he does have blood on his hands.

I just wan you to reply to my posts and look at this whole situation from both perspectives.

Recognise that while Assad may be 'bad' he certainly is not 'mad'. Would he use chemical weapons knowing the US has changed its' policy shift against regime change, knowing that he is winning currently and Al Nusra, alqaed affiliate groups, salafi-jihadists have been pushed into Idlib especially the ones from Aleppo?

Many non-shia's , independent thinkers and analysts have concluded that while Assad may be bad enough, is he mad enough to do something suicidal?

Also the fact that Syria had actually proposed a WMD free-zone in the Middle East in 2003, but the US refused to comply, we all know why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Trump clearly said he would not engage in the Syrian civil war. Assad is not stupid, but could he know that a gas attac would make Trump change his mind? Americans are upset by the gas attac, and Trump needs more popularity. We still do not know who is responsible for the attac, but a qualified guess for most Americans is that Assad is. Enough for Trump to show he is a strong leader. Should Trump be proven  wrong, at least he can say he attaced a war criminal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Mohamed1993 said:

Also the fact that Syria had actually proposed a WMD free-zone in the Middle East in 2003, but the US refused to comply, we all know why. 

So when did Syria start produce chemical weapons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, JermainTaylor said:

You do realise with that level of delusion and denial, I can dismiss all the alleged atrocities committed on shias that you love to harp on about. For some reason you abandon this level of hyperscrutiny and cherry pick what suits your narrative. So sad...

No you can't compare a staged attack like the one i showed you above, with a suicide bomber in a market of baghdad. One can be verified (attrocity against shias) and the other cant (like Assads supposed crimes against humanity).

One can be proved the other cant. 

Why dont you show me proof of Asad ever using chemical weopons? You cant because such proof does not exist. Keep believing the governments that use nukes and agent orange on civilians. I wont! Each to his own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, andres said:

So when did Syria start produce chemical weapons?

1973. And though they didn't declare it until 2012, which was a year before the Ghouta attacks, it was pretty much implied through talks and speeches. After the 1967 war, they considered Israeli nuclear weapons to be a threat to their national security, which required a deterrent so they decided to acquire chemical weapons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Mohamed1993 said:

1973. And though they didn't declare it until 2012, which was a year before the Ghouta attacks, it was pretty much implied through talks and speeches. After the 1967 war, they considered Israeli nuclear weapons to be a threat to their national security, which required a deterrent so they decided to acquire chemical weapons. 

Would Israel use nuclear weapons in nearby Syria? Syria must have produced a lot of chemical weapons to balance an atombomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, magma said:

 

You said Muslim nations are having trouble being at peace because sects interpret the Quran differently.

@andres Iran does not have sectarian issues. If it's possible for an 85% Shia 15% Sunni nation to be at peace, why is it impossible for nations that have the opposite to make peace? Because Iran does not have such a corrupt government, and outside interests have no place in Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Egypt MPs slam US President Donald Trump's 'irresponsible' attack on Syria
 
Gamal Essam El-Din, Saturday 8 Apr 2017
 
US airstrikes on Syria Thursday have led to a strong backlash in Egypt's parliament, with MPs criticising Arab division, the Arab League, and the Trump administration
 
2017-636272670976140967-614.jpg

Egyptian MPs condemned early Friday a US missile attack against a Syrian airbase. They also complained that the Arab League responded passively to what they called an act of aggression against Syria. 

On Saturday, Arab League chief Ahmed Abu Gheit warned against a "dangerous escalation" in Syria after a US missile strike on a Syrian airbase following the alleged use by forces of the regime of Bashar Al-Assad of chemical weapons in an attack Tuesday. 

"The Arab League rejects regional and international powers' attempts to politick over the corpses of Syrians or at the cost of its sovereignty," he told reporters. 

"Therefore we demand that all should retreat from this dangerous escalation we are monitoring," said the secretary general of the 22-member Arab bloc headquartered in Cairo. 

Ahmed Said, head of parliament's foreign affairs committee, described the US airstrike as a flagrant military attack against a sovereign Arab state that is a member of the Arab League, an organisation entrusted to defend Arab interests. 

"The Arab League's reaction has been very passive and it is not clear whether it supports or condemns a direct military attack against an Arab nation," said Said. 

Directing a statement to Abul-Gheit, Said wondered, "Has the Arab League become so passive that it has even become unable to issue an immediate comment on a military attack against an Arab nation?" 

Said also said: "If the Arab League has become incapable of defending the interests of Arab states, then when will it play this basic role?" 

Said also criticised the US airstrike on Syria, describing it as an "irresponsible act." 

"Instead of rallying a political solution for the bloody civil war in Syria, the administration of US President Donald Trump chose to resort to a direct military attack that will remind millions of Arabs of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion that led to the proliferation of terrorists and terrorist acts in the Middle East," said Said. 

According to Said, the Trump administration used the same double-standards and lies that former US presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama had used to strike Iraq and Libya. 

"And what was the result ... civil wars and terrorists gaining greater ground in the Middle East," stated Said, adding: "All US presidents used similar false slogans on human rights and democracy to justify their attacks against Arab nations and help militant jihadists take control of several Arab lands." 

Saad El-Gammal, head of parliament's Arab affairs committee, said: "The US airstrike represents a dangerous escalation in Syria's civil war." 

"US President Donald Trump vowed that he would obliterate Daesh (the Islamic State group) – or ISIS – but what he did this week was the opposite. I mean that the US airstrike helps serve Daesh and other terrorist organisations operating in Syria," said El-Gammal. 

Joining forces with Said, El-Gammal added: "In the same way they levelled trumped-up charges against Saddam Hussein on chemical weapons in 2003, the Americans now use the same false charges to justify their attacks on Syria." 

Dahlia Youssef, a Coptic female MP and head of the Egyptian-British Parliamentary Friendship Association, also described the American airstrike on Syria as "reflecting reckless and irresponsible behaviour on the part of the administration of US President Donald Trump." 

"Instead of pressuring for a thorough investigation into whether the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, the administration of Donald Trump opted to resort to the hasty and unilateral decision of launching a missile attack on Syria," said Youssef. 

Youssef added: "All should condemn the use of chemical weapons in wars, but before we direct accusations, there should be a thorough investigation into who used these weapons." 

"If the Bashar Al-Assad regime was found guilty of using chemical weapons, then I am sure that all Arab peoples would support a military strike against this regime," said Youssef, adding: "But the Trump administration decided to take international law into its hands instead of waiting for a thorough investigation into the incident." 

The American mainstream media claimed Saturday that it was the gruesome images of a chemical weapons attack on Syria civilians that moved Trump to authorise the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian targets Thursday night. 

But Egyptian MPs believe that it was Trump's wish to show that he is a tougher and stronger leader than his predecessor Barack Obama that moved him to an aggressive act against an independent Arab state. 

"He also knew that the reaction of Arab states would be weak, if not praising his behviour," said Nasserist MP Mostafa Bakri. 

Bakri said that since he came to office in January, Donald Trump has found himself in a battle against many in America, especially the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media, which accuse Russia of manipulating the 2016 elections in his favour. 

"Within this context, we can guess why Trump chose the anti-Syria airstrike – that he saw it would help him compensate some lost popularity and also demonstrate that he is independent from Russia and its president Vladimir Putin," said Bakri. 

Trump claimed in an address to Americans on Thursday that he authorised the airstrike because of "beautiful babies cruelly murdered" saying that "no child of God should ever suffer such horror." 

Mohamed El-Orabi, a former foreign minister and a member of parliament's foreign affairs committee, deplored that "Trump refused to wait until a UN fact-finding commission investigate the chemical weapons attack in Syria." 

"Trump's behaviour comes at the expense of international organisations like the Arab League and the UN and only leads to fueling war in Syria," said El-Orabi. 

The US missile attack against Syria came after two Arab leaders – President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt and King Abdallah of Jordan – held summit meetings with US President Donald Trump last week. 

In a front-page headline on Saturday, Al-Ahram newspaper said President El-Sisi held 24 meetings with senior Trump administration officials and congressional leaders. 

"All said they are honest about fighting Daesh and joining Egypt in its war against terrorism," said Al-Ahram. 

In an official statement on Friday, Egypt's foreign ministry said the solution to the Syria crisis should not involve military intervention. 

Bakri said the passive reaction from the Arab League reflects divisions in the Arab world. 

"We know that the Arab summit in Amman last month failed to reach consensus on the Syria crisis, not to mention that Arab states who want Bashar Al-Assad ousted from office were the first to praise Trump, and all of this leads to weakening the Arab League," said Bakri. 

Mona Mounir, a female MP, sharply criticised the position of Arab states towards the US airstrikes against Syria. 

"While some chose to heap praise on Trump, others opted to stay silent, even if all know that like Iraq, military intervention in Syria will seriously threaten the national security of all Arab nations and open the hell gates of terrorism," said Mounir. 

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/262542.aspx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...