Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
The Running Man said:
Well you need to back a side that can win decisively otherwise afterwards things go down the swanny as they can't hold the country together.

But then how they treat the new minority who is out of power becomes a problem.

The notion of live and let live dies hard in the middle east.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be the new minority, always were the minority. just the minority without control.

It's not a motion exclusive in the middle east, it would happen anywhere on the planet where the suppressed after generations take back legitimate control. It would be something that needs addressing, prior to taking any action.
 
Craterloads said:
Whilst I'm strongly against the UK and US bombing Syria, most likely making the situation worse and have argued that case all thread long, lets make no mistake, Assad needs to go.

He is a brutal dictator, he is suppressing the majority and he is guilty of many atrocities. It's high time the middle east sorted it out for themselves, Turkey/Saudi and other neighbouring countries need to step up and deal with it. The extremist elements of the rebels need to be curtailed, the legitimate opposition need to be strengthened and minorities protected once the regime has fallen (protecting the Alawites, Christians and Kurds). Providing the neighbouring countries with the means to handle it would be a good start.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the islamists not the moderates. They want to have Syria as an Islamic state(as long it is the variant they practice not the others). They don't care for religious minorities.

Where do you think the modern Wahhabi movement is the strongest in?? What form of Islam do you think Al Qaeda takes as their main doctrine??
 
So crater are you saying assad should relinquish power and watch his people get wiped out in retaliation. ?

The problem like Egypt is that a religious group woukd take power screwing over everyone of another denomination over
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the islamists not the moderates. They want to have Syria as an Islamic state(as long it is the variant they practice not the others).

Where do you think the modern Wahhabi movement is the strongest in?? What form of Islam do you think Al Qaeda takes as their main doctrine??
Click to expand...

That's simply not true, if it was Saudi would not be in full support of the Egyptian army. they are funding who ever they can to topple Assad, im sure that would change one he is gone as they would be a threat to themselves to.
 
Last edited:
Craterloads said:
That's simply not true, if it was Saudi would not be in full support of the Egyptian army. they are funding who ever they can to topple Assad, im sure that would change one he is gone as they would be a threat to themselves to.
Click to expand...

No they are not. They are funding the islamists the most. The moderates have repeatedly complained that they are prioritising weapons to the islamists. This is why the islamists are stronger - they got the bulk of the weapons from day one.

Is Saudi Arabia a secular country? Nope.

So why would they care for a secular Syria which might not toe their line. None at all.

They want an Islamist state in Syria which toes their line. For them this is just a massive power play.

Moreover,the modern Wahhabi movement originated in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Many of the key people in Al Qaeda again were/are from Saudi Arabia. Even Bin Laden was from a very wealthy and influential Saudi family.

Look at the rights for religious minorities and even the rights of women to do simple things like drive in Saudi Arabia?? Its only under massive pressure from us that they have even made some concessions in this regard.

I am not going to agree with you on this.

So we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
No they are not. They are funding the islamists the most. The moderates have repeatedly complained that they are prioritising weapons to the islamists. This is why the islamists are stronger - they got the bulk of the weapons from day one.

Is Saudi Arabia a secular country? Nope.

So why would they care for a secular Syria which might not toe their line. None at all.

They want an Islamist state in Syria which toes their line. For them this is just a massive power play.

Moreover,the modern Wahhabi movement originated in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Many of the key people in Al Qaeda again were/are from Saudi Arabia. Even Bin Laden was from a very wealthy and influential Saudi family.

Look at the rights for religious minorities and even the rights of women to do simple things like drive in Saudi Arabia?? Its only under massive pressure from us that they have even made some concessions in this regard.

So we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I am not agreeing with you on this one.
Click to expand...

You are wrong as political Islam is just as big as a threat to Saudi Arabia, given how they are governed. As proven by their opposition to the Muslim brotherhood.
 
We can all discuss about why we should or shouldn't take action...

The bottom line is, nobody really knows whats gone on. This would be top level stuff. Which ever country invaids Syria will ultimately beof benifit to them. Perfect example is Russia and China refusing to even talk about invading, its not in their interested so turn a blind eye to country gassing its people...

The whole world is run by a select few who use the world leaders as puppets.

The Balance of power is not in its people who voted but in £$£$£$£$£$£$£
 
Craterloads said:
You are wrong as political Islam is just as big as a threat to Saudi Arabia, given how they are governed. As proven by their opposition to the Muslim brotherhood.
Click to expand...

Craterloads said:
Obviously they have their own agenda, that I do not know. What I do know organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood are a direct threat to the Kings/Prince's of Saudi, as it shows the masses there is no need for Kings/Prince's. That is a fact, you can stuff tissues in you ears all you like but wont change that fact.
Click to expand...

Then you better whinge at the moderate segments of the Syrian opposition who have said repeatedly on camera and when talked to,that the islamists are favoured over them for weapons by the arab states. This is why the moderates are begging us for more weaponary and the islamists are not. The Saudis helped the islamists in Afghanistan too.The islamists don't seem to so feared by the Saudis as you think they are otherwise they would not be arming them to hilt.

The thing is that you are making up theories,whereas I am stating facts which can be verified,and you seem to have your head in the ground(or tissues in your ears which is probably what you are doing) as it is not convenient for your analysis.

So,no I am not going to agree with you at all. Thats it and I am not having any more talk with you over the matter.

Edit!!

Lets look at what a Saudi prince said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

Saudi Prince who is Saudi Intelligence Agency director said:
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
Click to expand...

They are funding islamists the most. So in the end if Assad falls who is going to be the strongest group then? Not the moderates for sure and who do you think is training the local islamists then?? People like the imported battle hardened Chechans who are well versed in the use of the weaponary the SAA has.

If they really care about the moderates they would be funding them as much and giving them training. The facts on the ground indicate this is not happening.

What are the moderates going to do if Assad falls?? Fight them?? Ahh,yes they would lose that one. It will be nothing but a non-secular Islamic state(like Saudi Arabia) which has puppets in charge who toe their line or are favourable to their influence. They are setting up the islamists to be the strongest group left after the war ends,and one which is thankful for their support. The whole "they will undermine the Saudi Royal family line" thing obviously is not shared by all of them, otherwise they would have funded the moderates mostly and given them access to more training,and sideline the islamists. Obviously not, looking at statements by their government and the actions on the ground.

The problem is your view is contradicted by what the Saudi government is doing right now in direct attributable actions,which is why I cannot agree with yours. Of course it could also mean the Saudi government is so internally fragmented, that it does not have any cohesive longterm plan,and might have just caused itself even more potential problems in the long run,in a massive own goal.

However,if the missile strikes happen and not only target the Syrian armed forces but also the islamists as indicated,within a short time the Saudis will rebuild them anyway.

So it appears Saudi Arabia has no fear in using islamists as long as they toe their line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom