It was a suggestion as you refuse to see the knife before she was shot when other people can see it.
at least i am living close to them , and understand their langauge , that's better than you .
Irrelevant. Proximity does not mean you understand anything more or less than another person. You are stating an opinion backed up by an opinion that you know more based on distance.
for most of Muslims Bin Laden or Albagdadi are not heros .
Never said they were. I was using the phrase to show you how people can have different views of the same person, nation, cause, etc. By you own reply you acknowledge my statement is correct. Some people do view them as heroes just not all people. People view Churchill as a hero, some view him as a racist. Some people view America as a great nation helping the oppressed. Some view America as an opportunistic nation which supports tyrants when said tyrants are pro-America.
in civil war or in wars in general you can find some people take it in religious way to attract the people by name of religion .
Yes which is exactly what I said. It appeals to people religions in order to justify a cause. Some Christians use the just war theory in order to find theological justification for war(s).
We fought them in Algeria for almost of 15 years , we win in the end .
You won a war in which one government ignored the results of it's own election (your side) against a legal election (other side). Yet in other nations the religious side took hold.
i disagree it's same senario of Afganistan of 80 duplicated in Syria , Russia now involved more in situation , now Syria army won everyday town , and ISIS and AlNusrah losing .
Go look at history. The Communist Party overthrew, and killed, the self-proclaimed dictator Daoud in a coup. It enacted a one party system, it being the only party, along with other policies that were viewed as oppressive to a portion of the population. A portion of the population rejected thus rebelled, just like the Communists did previously. This is not the case in Syria. Assad was not put into power in a coup but inherited his title. He suppressed protests for reforms by his own people while killing many of it's public leaders. He was not a Communist. The only similarity is that different nations aligned with different factions. This is called politics. Russia is not helping Syria for the sake of it's people but for it's own self-interest in global politics
different sources same subject , try again .
Wrong. Not only different sources but completely separate stories. The first source is from a person with diagnosed mental delusions to the point that she couldn't stand for her own trial making claims backed up nothing. The second source claims they had information about it based on actually sources from the CIA itself in the form of actually reports. You are ignoring the substance of each source and only see both cover the same subject. Neither story corroborates the other nor supports your assertion. Read what you link, watch what you link. Try again, son.
you seems don't understand put in the gas instead of water in burning woods mean ?
I guess you do not understand basic chemistry. Fire needs oxygen to burn, explosions are used to deprive the fire of oxygen. My point was at times to solve a problem taking action to eliminate the source of the problem is better than just dealing with the effect of the source. You want to help refugee while turning a blind eye to the cause for them becoming refugees in the first place which is the civil-war. Yet when Russia steps in your become it's cheer leader. Again your anti-west bias blinds you. The West helping is horrible, Russia helping is great.....
Iraq was invaded because of lie nuclear weapon
Which is not a civil war, which is not the reason NATO stepped into Syria nor do I agree with it. Which makes your point irrelevant
the NATO helped rebels against Libyan armies , by eliminating Libyan armies by planes.
Said Libyan armies were already fighting rebels. Said Libyan armies were already killing their own people that were only protesting. Besides you put up another double-standard. The rebels didn't have an air force while the Libyan arm did. The government would have done the same to the rebels. Besides the West a number of Muslim nations also provided support for operations. Again nations aligned due to politics even your own...
in Syria West support the rebels (Jihadists) by weapons, and by allowing Kings of oil and Tunisia and Libya to send fighters to Syria.
No it doesn't. It acknowledge weapon drops at the start were a bad idea due to have no reliable means of ensuring weapons are controlled by the FSA. None of the Islamist are on any aid list to the point of being excluded by clauses. You are making assertions backed up by nothing again.
seems we had different view in everything
In some way yes, in some no. The major difference and issue I have is you use sources which do not say what you claim You complain about western media but are gullible to accept claims from a state-run media from Russia as a fact without question. You must be oblivious to the history between Russia and America, both sources of media and the current political situation with an reemerging Russia due to a shift in it's economy.
Neither America nor Russia are the "good guys" in this war. Merely nations which have their own self-interests that at times do something helpful for a person or group of people. Neither is doing anything regarding moral concerns and has not for decades.
the sky is bleu , what you think ?
Irrelevant tripe
