Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

just don't trust any "reports" about chemical weapons attacks.
I don't think anyone is disputing that it was a chemical weapons attack - not even the Russians - it's just that they say it was a spoof attack by the rebels to draw western response against Assad.

This is perfectly plausible in theory. Certainly it was an act of crass stupidity by Assad's forces to risk this attack. But in practice it's very difficult to see how the rebels could possibly have got access to the weapons and the delivery systems. Chemical weapons are not easy to deploy, compared to an explosive missile.

As for Iran's new president being the real target...the course of events has followed its own course, unrelated to Iranian election timings. Certainly Iran is a US enemy. But with Al Qaeda supporting the rebels, the US will be wondering if it's worth supporting either side. This will be one reason they haven't committed to military intervention, plus the Russian complication, the lack of public support, and the problem of finding suitable targets for a limited strike. If they can't take out the chemical weapons (which are widely scattered) they risk provoking greater use.
 
From his many duaas, the imaam made the following duaa: O Allah, we do not know who are our enemies and who are our friends are anymore. Make it clear for us, that we may be able to discern between the two (not exact words, but to a similar effect).

I thought that this was very important to mention in duaa - because truly, it has become soo difficult to understand what each agenda is really about.

Seriously! This is simply the biggest matter of concern with these recent wars. You just don't know who is right, and who is wrong. If Bashar is an oppressor then the rebels are breaking new limits of humanity as well. Similarly, in the case of Egypt, the Brotherhood seemed to have lost all respect and confidence from the people. These wars have evolved into an aliens vs. predators thing. No matter who wins, the people will lose.

Have a look at this video on facebook, and see the rebels in action. I'm open to all kinds of conspiracy theories, but one has to remember that unheard of and inhuman atrocities have taken place in Syria from both the government's side and the rebels' side.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=235940599886723
 
It looks like many Republicans in the US are confusing their dislike for Obama as a need to prevent him from getting involved in Syria. They are also using the false assertion that the Syrian rebels are all associated with al-Qaeda. Sadly, because of the Iraq fiasco Americans in general seem reluctant to be involved overseas.

The more crass and despicable elements in America actually seem to be gleeful about the Syrian conflict going on and on because from their perspective it is "just a bunch of Muslims killing each other, no big deal"

I actually heard a jackass on the radio say this disgusting comment.
 
If Obama does get permission for an attack, my bet is that Syria will respond in the time-honoured fashion with an attack on Israel.

Just as Saddam did in Gulf War 1 in an attempt to split away Muslim support.

Rather than attacking a US target, Assad's best chance is to divert attention by an irrelevant war with the one enemy that everyone can agree on.
 
Salaam

Some updates

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA 'on way to battlefield'

The first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.


During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms. Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime. Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House's reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html


Obama hints at larger strategy to topple Assad in effort to win over Republicans

President suggests strikes could lead to longer-term mission as tough White House rhetoric begins to win over Republicans


Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday.

While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.

"It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region," he told senior members of Congress at a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Obama has long spoken of the US desire to see Assad step down, but this is the first time he has linked that policy objective to his threatened military strikes against Syria. It follows pressure on Monday, from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to make such a goal more explicit.

The apparent change of emphasis appeared to resolve some of the political deadlock on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as House speaker John Boehner and a series of other Republican leaders announced that they would back the president's call for military authorisation from Congress. House majority leader Eric Cantor was most explicit, calling for the US to take sides in the "sectarian proxy war" against Iran.

"A well-designed and well-executed strike that deters the use of chemical weapons and diminishes the capacity of the Assad regime can contribute to the achievement of a clear and attainable goal: the ultimate displacement of the Assad regime by moderate elements within the opposition," he said in a statement.

The endorsement of GOP leaders could be important in winning over the Republican-controlled House, where Obama has failed to win any support since his re-election in November. But even the Republican leadership has struggled to control Tea Party radicals in the House, and an anti-interventionist wing in the Senate led by Rand Paul remains a substantial challenge for the White House.

"I'm going to support the president's call for action, and I believe my colleagues should support the president's call for action," Boehner said after meeting the president at the White House. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behaviour is not to be tolerated."

So far, the tougher US rhetoric does not seem to have deterred Democrats who back the president's call for military action on humanitarian grounds. Emerging from the White House meeting shortly after Boehner, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said Syria's alleged used of chemical weapons was "outside the circle of acceptable human behaviour", but said she would not whip Democrats into voting yes.

"I don't think congressional authorisation is necessary, but I do think it is a good thing, and I think we can achieve it," she added.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/obama-strategy-assad-republicans-syria

Syria tensions rise as Israel test-fires missile defence system

Sparrow target missile launch triggers alerts across region, and Binyamin Netanyahu says attacks on Israel 'not advisable'


Israel fired a missile on Tuesday to test a new defence system, triggering alerts across a region that is braced for impending international military strikes against Syria.

The Israeli defence ministry confirmed it had launched a Sparrow target missile at 9.15am local time. It said the test of the Arrow anti-missile system was successful. The exercise was conducted jointly with the United States, according to Israel. However, a spokesman for the US navy European headquarters told Reuters: "No missiles were fired from US ships in the Mediterranean."

Russia sounded the alert, saying its radars at Armavir, near the Black Sea, had detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" in the area, fired from the central Mediterranean towards the east.

A Syrian source told Lebanese television that nothing had been detected by its early warning system.

The Israeli defence ministry said in a statement: "The experiment tested enhanced capabilities of a new type of target missile from the Sparrow series. Arrow anti-missile defence systems, including radars and a command and control system, were also tested."

It added: "The Sparrow missile successfully launched and performed its planned trajectory, in according with the test plan."

It was detected and tracked by the Arrow III missile defence system. "All the elements of the system performed according to their operational configuration."

Israel has redeployed most of its anti-missile systems to the north of the country over the past week amid fears that the Syrian regime could launch attacks on its neighbour – with whom it is still technically at war – following US strikes. The US-funded missile defence systems are effective at intercepting rockets, but Israel acknowledges that it does not have sufficient capacity to protect the country in the face of a sustained onslaught from Syria or Lebanon.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/syria-israel-missile-defence-system?CMP=twt_fd
 
Last edited:
Everything that comes out of the media is lies upon lies the only truth is reported through those on the battlefield themselves if you can find a channel that broadcasts for them or know of Syrians who'll inform you.
Psychological warfare is a known method of this army of satan to distort the image of Muslims to other Muslims the oldest and most effectual trick in the book!
 
The Western Zionist Empire is forging east toppling nations with false flag attacks, divide and conquer tactics and media propaganda campaigns. If Syria wants to survive, it must swallow it's pride and give the Russians free reign and do anything to get the Eastern powers Russia and China to protect them.
 
Not sure what brand of Islam you subscribe to but read suret at'tawbah - we don't ally with kaffirs and in fact that surrender was our downfall!
If you want to swallow your pride do it alone - we can only be granted one of two fine ends 1- Nasr or 2- shahdah!
 
جوري;1595686 said:
Not sure what brand of Islam you subscribe to but read suret at'tawbah - we don't ally with kaffirs and in fact that surrender was our downfall!
If you want to swallow your pride do it alone - we can only be granted one of two fine ends 1- Nasr or 2- shahdah!

True ...it looks like the Russians, Chinese and a lot of Muslim countries have sold out to the Zionists anyway. Syria is toast then Iran and on it will go. Everyone will be grinded down to serve "The Chosen Ones".
 
Salam alaykum

The halting the war comes now from politicians.

We muslims should be enough united before to stop it.
 
i saw a news report last night on tv from the city of Damascus seemed quiet and peaceful.

people well dressed. not seemingly distressed.

normality.

even giving there own opinions to the reporter, or at least making statements.


made me realise i have no idea what the fighting is about.
 
جوري;1595686 said:
Not sure what brand of Islam you subscribe to but read suret at'tawbah - we don't ally with kaffirs and in fact that surrender was our downfall!

That sounds like an illadvised course of action. It is always preferable to have allies. Especially considering that all of the...kaffirs as you call them...are more powerful than the Middle Eastern Muslim countries. All of the major powers in the world are "kaffirs" and the only Muslim countries that even remotely resemble medium power status are Turkey, Indonesia, and Iran.
 
جوري;1595686 said:
we don't ally with kaffirs
Muslim/non-Muslim alliances are common throughout history. Even Saladin had alliances with Crusader states.
 
جوري;1595723 said:
What's ill advised or hx according to non Muslims again irrelevant to the next course of action- not sure how they assess 'powerful' when their ass is kicked according to them by plastic knife wielding cave dwellers!

That is a fair enough question. How does one assess 'powerful'? How would you measure 'power?'
 
That's what you wrote thus it's up to you to define that not my person!
 
جوري;1595727 said:
That's what you wrote thus it's up to you to define that not my person!

Well, I think power is probably best understood as the ability to make others do what they would not otherwise do.

There can be hard power (coercion) and soft power (persuasion). There are many components of power, some are more easily measured than others. Obviously different political scientists have different views on how best to measure power. I would suggest there are four primary categories of power: Economic Strength (Economic Fundamentals, Entrepreneurship and Innovation), Governance (Government Capacity and Leadership, Foreign Relations), Social Capital (Human Capital and Social Trust), and of course Military Strength.
 
I agree with most of the above.. I also see those on the decline in the western world especially economically which in part is why they keep colonizing new territories force feeding them 'democracy' to sustain a failed ideology and maintain the debauched lifestyle for the untalented few.. I suppose when a loaf of bread is $7.00 & milk at $12 well the rest of the 90% living in the west finally wake up!

best,
 
جوري;1595734 said:
I agree with most of the above.. I also see those on the decline in the western world especially economically which in part is why they keep colonizing new territories force feeding them 'democracy' to sustain a failed ideology and maintain the debauched lifestyle for the untalented few.. I suppose when a loaf of bread is $7.00 & milk at $12 well the rest of the 90% living in the west finally wake up!

I do not think that empirical observation really validates the idea that the Western World is in decline, at least not an absolute decline. Perhaps a relative decline as other countries such as China and India develop. Not relative decline is not something to necessarily fear as long as absolute conditions are improving. Indeed, I think that the rise of China and India are overall beneficial to the United States since they help generate more economic activity. After all, is it better to have a third of a 30 gram loaf of bread, or half of a 10 gram loaf of bread?
 
depeneds on your perspective -- adversity trains the soul, illuminates the mind, clarifies the thought processes and makes strong the body and sharp the mind, not sure what comes out of gluttony though.. at any rate, it is too early to tell, all empires decline and many don't rise again if they don't have a noble goal!

best,
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top