Syria Doesn't Make Sense!!!!!

Assad was winning the civil war in syria...basically all media sources have been saying for months that if we dont help the rebels there gonna lose.

At this point the only way the rebels win the war, is if one of the world powers steps in and helps them.


The only way one of the major super powers steps in and helps the rebels, is if syria uses chemical weapons on there population.


So with nothing to win.....and everything to lose. Assad did the one thing that would bring the U.S. into the conflict.... This is the most illogical thing i have ever heard. Call me crazy, but this is iraq all over again....but with the dems.

I'm a liberal, but this is an excellent case for it not mattering who we elect. Whoever really runs the government the people we see are just puppets dancing on there strings.

reply to post by artemisminion


I agree.....why does the US need to be the global moral police

This is a false flag a total set up and we are falling for it hook line and sinker

Lets try a new tactic....stay out of other peoples business/other countries civil wars.

The most we should be involved in is selling both sides weapons...a win win

other than that..we just need to observe...like the UN

Exactly !!!!


There's no difference who we put in office.

It could be a toaster next time and still that toaster will somehow f up things even more.

Now you see why only 9% of Americans support intervention in Syria.

hmmmm I know this is a longshot
But if this president is anything but a puppet for the PTB he will back down and express a new understanding of history and how a mature country interacts when another country is stuck in a 'sibling' conflict (yes that's my perspective on the suni/Shiite battle.....its as bad as a protestant catholic war....waste of time..)

anyways.....why does the US need to be involved? if its to make money...then stop hiding behind the moral facade of 'people are dying'. what people....who's people. ALL PEOPLE If we are going to profit from these wars....then prophit financially...sell both sides weapons.


or..be an actual peacemaker. stop promoting war...stop creating war machines

yeah I know ..... come back to reality...

What IF Obama is part of a conspiracy ?

A conspiracy to establish an Islamic Caliphate ?

There has been several very very powerful Caliphates in that region over the last 1200 years or so.

And they were powerful WITHOUT OIL !!!

Don't count it out.

Of course Syria makes sense.
There are no more rebels, only Zombies.

reply to post by artemisminion


Syria completely makes sense if you really look at the UN, and it's agendas - especially Agenda 21 - they want depopulation, one world gov't, complete disarmament (don't know if that's really a word) of the world's people, one religion of pagan (mother earth/global warming) model, ect.

Really look at the UN and the clowns involved in it, with an objective eye. Don't fall for their new-age wordy bull# - look at what they have set out to accomplish. No one should own land or have any independent thought or ability to use it. No individual freedom or liberty for anyone. Look at the threads of people not being able to have a simple vegetable garden in their own yard.

When has the UN ever made good on any "mission" they've attempted?

All you have to do is pull a google map of the Middle East, its all there in black and white for even the layman to understand. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and finally Iran are the enemies of Israel. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other smaller Countries like Azerbaijan and Georgia are friendlies so its simply Israel creating a buffer zone of puppet controlled nations around her for her own protection.

reply to post by Happy1


Syria also makes sence if you fallow what Alber Pike wrote about how the elites have to put Zionism up against the Islamic world. To get ridd of the two.

If the US strikes Syira there is a big chance Isreal will be ingaged by Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia is under big pressure from Russia conserninga oil/gas Pipeline.

reply to post by spy66


Agreed -

For all of those that don't understand the ambitions of TPTB, and the ability they have to start wars everywhere and leave nothing but chaos (and depopulation) in their wake -

Read Albert Pike WW3 and The Protocols of the Elder Leaders of Zion -

A bunch of people will chime in and say "they've been debunked" Read them for yourselves and see that someone seems to think the ideas are working out pretty well.....

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by spy66

 

Agreed -

For all of those that don't understand the ambitions of TPTB, and the ability they have to start wars everywhere and leave nothing but chaos (and depopulation) in their wake -

Read Albert Pike WW3 and The Protocols of the Elder Leaders of Zion -

A bunch of people will chime in and say "they've been debunked" Read them for yourselves and see that someone seems to think the ideas are working out pretty well.....

I agree People should read up on it.

A lot of People think these wars have som religious background. But they really dont; not yet. I dosent matter what each and everyone of us have of personal religious believes. It all about what political structure and laws that we fallow, not what we preach.

We are allowed to believe what ever we like as long as we fallow the Law set in store for us.

So the wars that we see happening now are all political wars. The goal is to form a One World Order. Albert Pike called it the Luciferian doctrine.

The elites have already said what their goal is to everyone. Its to form a NWO.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by artemisminion

 

Syria completely makes sense if you really look at the UN, and it's agendas - especially Agenda 21 - they want depopulation, one world gov't, complete disarmament (don't know if that's really a word) of the world's people, one religion of pagan (mother earth/global warming) model, ect.

Really look at the UN and the clowns involved in it, with an objective eye. Don't fall for their new-age wordy bull# - look at what they have set out to accomplish. No one should own land or have any independent thought or ability to use it. No individual freedom or liberty for anyone. Look at the threads of people not being able to have a simple vegetable garden in their own yard.

When has the UN ever made good on any "mission" they've attempted?

edit on 28-8-2013 by Happy1 because: (no reason given)

Agenda 21 is a fraud. Are you forgetting that half our government is crazy tea party republicans???? My god, there passing laws to stop shira law here....as if muslim law is gonna catch on in kentucky.....Personally i don't buy into the whole U.N. wants to kill off half the population. Only the most powerful of organizations could perpetrate something that big and any event that kills off even ten percent of the pop. would shake things up so much there is no telling who ends up in charge after the chips all fall. The people in power in America and the world already don't play by any rules. So whats to gain by risking it all with some massive scheme?

Thier is a big difference between Assad winning and Assad stopping the rebel advance. He had managed to stop some of the rebel offensives and retake some vital territory with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and Lebanese militas but, he was in no way shape or form winning. Holding on yes but, no chance of beating the rebels. The problem for West is if they do nothing then when the rebels win (and although it would be a long haul Assad will fall) that the radicals would be able to capitalize on the lack of Western support to hijack the revolution. By doing nothing the West would have zero influence on the new Syria and the radicals would have all the influence.

Make no mistake. You can drag out all the far-fetched social/political master plans you want but in my experience of over 60yrs on this rock EVERY military action has been at it's roots an economic maneuver. Wars are started and fought based on business models. Vulgar and real. There is a crap-load of money to be made in war (and its aftermath). In this case you have two very wealthy nations (Qatar and Saudi Arabia) wanting to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria to get in on Russia's Eurozone monopoly. Add to that Israel's multi-year effort to get the U.S. to go to it with Iran. This is a business deal to get Qatar and the Saudi Arabia its pipeline, Israel its war with Iran, and the U.S. defense industry a huge shot in the arm. Seen Raytheon stock over the last couple of days? Religion is a distraction. The people who control things use religion as a tool to manipulate and control people. They've done it for centuries. The political players (Obama et al) are simply puppets --- front men for the people behind the curtain.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Thier is a big difference between Assad winning and Assad stopping the rebel advance. He had managed to stop some of the rebel offensives and retake some vital territory with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and Lebanese militas but, he was in no way shape or form winning. Holding on yes but, no chance of beating the rebels. The problem for West is if they do nothing then when the rebels win (and although it would be a long haul Assad will fall) that the radicals would be able to capitalize on the lack of Western support to hijack the revolution. By doing nothing the West would have zero influence on the new Syria and the radicals would have all the influence.

but still why do the one thing that would ensure defeat and rally the world against you? I think its a far greater chance those with the most to profit tend to be the most logical conclusion. aka the rebels, alqeda or maybe the U.S. (us) Theres a really cool video on the net. Showing how every war since Vietnam has been waged against a nation who has tried to sell oil for a currency other then the U.S. dollar. I'm too lazy to look up the link or fact check the source material, but like the guy before me said. follow the money.

reply to post by artemisminion


I agree with you but I think a big problem is that the Rebels have been winning. not losing so Assad is becoming more desperate they closer the rebels get to Damascus. Its also possible that his reading of contemporary politics dictates that its "all talk and no action", so America warns North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons, nothing happens when they test nuclear weapons. Likewise there has been strong evidence of the use of Chemical weapons before the huge attack last week and.... nothing was done just some harsh words.

Then we also have to take into account that Assad just plays the blame gain accusing the rebels of being the ones who actually used chemical weapons against their own people with the backing of the west, then he stalls UN inspectors who then get shot at so he makes more accusations and the international community runs around trying to get the UN to let them blow him to hell. The whole process is a bit of a farce if you ask me.

I am not saying that you are wrong to question "why would Assad do that" I am just saying that there is a answer.

Originally posted by xuenchen
What IF Obama is part of a conspiracy ?
A conspiracy to establish an Islamic Caliphate ?

What Obama is doing with Syria doesn't make sense ... unless this is taken into consideration.
Then again ... it could be that Obama is just an incompetent boob.
That's what happens when a 'community organizer' gets put in the Oval Office.

Is this why the west have suddenly decided to get involved Russia to get the license to control natural gas resources in Syria

This is not about the people and their salvation more about RESOURCES and world-wide lack of them, if you ask me.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I posted this in another thread. This isn't an 'Obama' thing. Both sides are complicit in this:

Congressional Republicans on Sunday ratcheted up pressure on the White House to intervene in Syria, saying the United States “has sat on the sidelines for too long” amid increasing evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians.

article #1

Sen. John McCain doesn't think three days of missile strikes against Syria will make a significant impact on the fighting, and said it might even have an "unhelpful effect."

McCain, on the other hand, thinks Obama isn't going far enough.

"The question is, will those attacks just be a retaliation and Bashar (Assad) goes on as normal, or will those attacks degrade his capabilities, particularly his air capabilities, which you could do easily with stand-off weaponry?"

article #2

Prominent US Republican lawmakers are lining up behind military strikes in Syria, forming a rare alliance with the Democratic commander in chief.

article #3

It seems the only complaint the Republicans have is that they're afraid Obama won't deliver a sufficient level of shock-n-awe. People have to get off this Republican v. Democrat thing. It's a distraction. They all work for the same people. We're just not them.