US troops to Syria

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 03:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Saudi Arabia has always funneled money to the taliban either direct or indirectly.    Taliban has become Isis .  

If Assad is overthrown it will be the Muslim brotherhood who gets elected.   If you let Muslims vote they will vote for the MB.  Which just means another Egypt where innocents are slaughtered and taxed for not being Muslim.

(10-30-2015, 04:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/egyptian-govt-says-isis-came-muslim-brotherhood

There is more out there just gotta dig it up.  That was the first I saw.

And before anyone starts on the website ....   It's linked to an Egyptian newspaper.

I'll have to get into this later, I don't have time now, getting ready to leave for work.

[6andcounting]

What is Obama/his administration/US government in general calling this action? It's no longer just "limited airstrikes with no troops on the ground", but still somehow not "a clear act of war" or "invasion of a sovereign nation" or "unconstitutional loophole around a congressional vote".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Just a public acknowledgement of what has already been going on in Syria just like in Lybia before the Benghazi attacks.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-30-2015, 01:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So much for ending the war in the Middle East.  

Oh, this is priceless.

[Bengalzona]

(10-30-2015, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34681648?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Were you under the impression that we didn't have special ops people in the area already? It seems to me that these are just the ones that the gov'ment wanted to tell the public about... and there is probably a reason they wanted it in the media as well.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've actually seen more claims that ISIL/ISIS is a Frankentstein's monster, with Frankenstein in this case being Assad.

That would be odd considering Assad runs a secular govenment. That's pretty much the opposite of what Isis is all about...

Maybe they are fighting against Assad .... Which just tells me that Assad is the side I want to be on in this scenario.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 06:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just a public acknowledgement of what has already been going on in Syria just like in Lybia before the Benghazi attacks.

We should have not been doing any of this... And where was the authorization to enter these countries? I don't remember congress voting....

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2015, 08:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That would be odd considering Assad runs a secular govenment. That's pretty much the opposite of what Isis is all about...

Maybe they are fighting against Assad .... Which just tells me that Assad is the side I want to be on in this scenario.

I think the claims come from his lack of attention on ISIS and his position at some points that they could be used to his advantage. Like attention being on them while he murders others in his country

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 08:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the claims come from his lack of attention on ISIS and his position at some points that they could be used to his advantage. Like attention being on them while he murders others in his country

By no means am I saying he is a great guy. But there will be less killings than allowing the Muslim brotherhood to gain power. Egypt is the perfect example of what happens when you allow these monsters to gain power. The only good thing about Assad is that the Russians keep their thumb on him. And they can't afford Assad going crazy, so their pressure will be on him. The Russians have eyes on Europe.

[*jason*]

(10-30-2015, 08:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should have not been doing any of this...   And where was the authorization to enter these countries?    I don't remember congress voting....

I don't remember Congress voting to send troops to any country in my lifetime (4 decades)...  Somehow it keeps happening.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 04:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/egyptian-govt-says-isis-came-muslim-brotherhood

There is more out there just gotta dig it up.  That was the first I saw.

And before anyone starts on the website ....   It's linked to an Egyptian newspaper.

Even according to your article, the Muslim Brotherhood is not nearly as extreme as ISIS.  Even so how do you know who they (Syrians) would elect if given the opportunity?  Finally even if they did elect the MB, then that would be their choice. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 03:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good.   Hope we fall in line.   It's a sad day when we are on the wrong side and the Russians and Iranians are on the right side.

The problem with various other countries is that it includes Saudi Arabia.   Who refuses to take in refugees but wants us to toss out Assad so they can get the Muslim brotherhood in there to approve their pipeline.    So the Saudi's can keep finding Isis and other terrorists.

Also individuals of Saudi may be funding terrorists (like Osama Bin Laden). But if you have anything on the Saudi regime funneling to them I'd be interested in reading it.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 08:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That would be odd considering Assad runs a secular govenment.   That's pretty much the opposite of what Isis is all about...  

Maybe they are fighting against Assad .... Which just tells me that Assad is the side I want to be on in this scenario.

Neither is a good thing for a Syria.  It's like saying you'd side with Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein...etc.  It's not like either of those options is better than the other.  I do understand your point though as far stability goes.  We should never have invaded Iraq, Iraq I'm sure wishes they still had Hussein.  He wouldn't tolerate ISIS.  However Syria is a bit different, Syria's Civil war started with the Arab spring, long before ISIS. Which means Syrians weren't happy with Assad already. Unfortunately the disruption that the rebels created allowed ISIS to gain a foothold and then traction.    I certainly don't claim to have all the answers but it's a freakin mess over there and I certainly wouldn't support Assad or ISIS.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2015, 02:05 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Even according to your article, the Muslim Brotherhood is not nearly as extreme as ISIS.  Even so how do you know who they (Syrians) would elect if given the opportunity?  Finally even if they did elect the MB, then that would be their choice. 

Muslims are going to vote for Muslims. When Muslims are elected, just like In Egypt, they start killing non Muslims, or allowing them to be raped into conversion.... And also levying a tax for all non Muslims. This all happened in Egypt until there was a military overthrow of the MB.

Yes it's their choice but their choice is going to get a lot of people killed.

And yes Isis is worse than the MB. But only because the MB is trying to win elections. Isis doesn't care about winning anything.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2015, 02:34 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Neither is a good thing for a Syria.  It's like saying you'd side with Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein...etc.  It's not like either of those options is better than the other.  I do understand your point though as far stability goes.  We should never have invaded Iraq, Iraq I'm sure wishes they still had Hussein.  He wouldn't tolerate ISIS.  However Syria is a bit different, Syria's Civil war started with the Arab spring, long before ISIS. Which means Syrians weren't happy with Assad already. Unfortunately the disruption that the rebels created allowed ISIS to gain a foothold and then traction.    I certainly don't claim to have all the answers but it's a freakin mess over there and I certainly wouldn't support Assad or ISIS.

Agreed. I just don't think we should create more instability. That region is already a mess. Russia and Iran are right here. Russia can impose pressure on Assad and he has to comply because he is so dependant on them . It's better to have that rather than another Egypt.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2015, 02:11 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Also individuals of Saudi may be funding terrorists (like Osama Bin Laden). But if you have anything on the Saudi regime funneling to them I'd be interested in reading it.

Moussaoui testified that the Royal family funded them.

Quote:Moussaoui’s list of ultra-rich al-Qaeda contributors couldn’t be more stunning. It includes the late King Abdulllah and his hard-line successor, Salman bin Abdulaziz; Turki Al Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and subsequently ambassador to the U.S. and U.K.; Bandar bin Sultan, a longtime presence in Washington who was so close to the Bushes that Dubya nicknamed him Bandar Bush; and Al-Waleed bin Talal, a mega-investor in Citigroup, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the Hotel George V in Paris, and the Plaza in New York.

[fredtoast]

(10-31-2015, 04:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Muslims are going to vote for Muslims.  When Muslims are elected, just like In Egypt, they start killing non Muslims, 

So you think Egypt is the only country controlled by Muslims?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2015, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you think Egypt is the only country controlled by Muslims?

Not at all. But look at the ones who are and you will be major human rights violations.

I used Egypt as an example of a dictator being thrown out in favor of voting. It very dangerous when it involves a Muslim country. And it will continue to be until they have a reformation. Or decide to not govern by their religion.

[Rotobeast]

Pure speculation, but I feel like Putin has some info (possibly from Snowden) that he used to get the Obama administration to change their strategy.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-31-2015, 04:22 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Moussaoui testified that the Royal family funded them.  

Interesting....would like to see the link to the source though.

Edit:  I did not edit your post, when I clicked reply, that is all the text that it allowed me to reply to.