-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the USA is fighting in Syria ?
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
I think an all-out war between Russia and the USA would cause far more suffering on a global scale than this jockeying in Syria. After all, Russia and the USA aren't going to be fighting each other, or supporting opposing forces in Syria. They're both going in ostensibly to fight IS, just with different angles (the Russian government is going to be more blatantly supporting Al-Assad, and attacking the mainstream rebel forces).
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
There're many sources for them, how sure they're that fighters will buy from their bullets and bombs ?
100% we go to war and our ammunition manufacturers make money
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
The only winners.
This.
The USA is engaged in a war with a batch of other powers, Russia is just one. Iran and the Saudis are also in the game. So are others, like China. There's no end to the reasons for yet another war, as major players jockey for position and minor players try to get one.
But for the majors, proxy war is the way to go. If you send your own troops, you could get stuck. But if you fight by proxy you can more easily get out.
Tom
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think the US is just trying to be the worlds saviour, but the sad thing is they can't even save themselves.
Russia has a limited supply of money. By combating their influence in Syria, we're making them expend that cash.
Why are Islamic fanatics fighting in Syria to suppress the original "pagan" religion of the Assyrian people? Who do these invaders think they are? This evil has been going on for too long, Islamic fanatics get out of Syria now.
The Assyrians and all Mesopotamian peoples experienced great religious and cultural freedom and then came the severe religious and ethnic persecution after the Arab Islamic invasion and conquest of the 7th century AD. Now the Islamic fanatics continue to mass murder the Mesopotamian culture and people as never before seen.
Get out.
And get out of France, too.
The Assyrians and all Mesopotamian peoples experienced great religious and cultural freedom and then came the severe religious and ethnic persecution after the Arab Islamic invasion and conquest of the 7th century AD. Now the Islamic fanatics continue to mass murder the Mesopotamian culture and people as never before seen.
Get out.
And get out of France, too.
Not aware of any followers of the Assyrian indigenous faith persisting in Syria. Who precisely is it you want to kick out of Syria?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I was asking myself the same question, Syrians are Muslims and not pagans.
Well, for the most part. Substantial Christian minority at 10%, many of them from Palestinian refugee background. Also 3% Druze, and scatterings Zoroastrians and irreligious types. Lots of diversity within the Islamic majority.
But yes, mostly Muslim in one form or another.
Banjankri
Active Member
It's not about hatred, it's about power and money.
So Hillary is the "peace candidate?"
Really?
The other day some idiot liberal in Lafayette, California, (Lafayette - what an irony!) told me that she is voting for Hillary because she is "voting for peace".
Between 30 August and 20 September 1995, Bill Clinton led massive attacks in the regions of Yugoslavia.
In that short 20 day period, overall, 3,515 sorties were flown and a total of 1,026 bombs were dropped with destruction including civilian deaths, Serbian Christians were targetted by Bill Clinton in order to save the Muslim brothers, many who were in fact Muslim terrorists.
Two amazing things happened during that time:
(1) For the first time since World War Two, beautiful Belgrade was bombed by Bill Clinton and the "coalition" since when the Nazis, who were supporting their Muslim allies, bombed the Serbians who were fighting the Nazis. Belgrade was bombed to help the same Muslims.
(2) For the first time since World War Two we saw the unprecedented "coalition" of the Right-Wing in America and other countries with the Communist Party in the region, because the Communists in the region were under attack by Muslims. No, not "kissin' cousins", but it is a fact. While the co-opted leftwing "World Workers Party" type communists in America and elsewhere later betrayed the "official" communists by thinking they could rally with and ally with Muslim radicals as part of an attack on governments "in the West" under the guise of supporting "disfranchised Muslim 'immigrants'", yet even today their are aspects within the American right-wing that trust the traditional communists of the Russian and Yugo regions to take on the Muslim terrorists and thus we see many in the Right who say, "let's let Putin take on ISIS, maybe he won't, but if he's going to start killing ISIS, well let's just see"...
In fact NOT TEN MINUTES AGO I heard it on one of the top Right-Wing radio stations in the Bay Area, where the live host said "Why aren't we aligning with Putin to destroy ISIS? And by the way, Putin just said that some of the G20 nations are funding ISIS"....
The attacks by Bill Clinton were all about, as we were told, the evil genocidal Slobodan Milošević, Socialist (communist) and murderer of the nice peace loving Muslims, the evil monster who we were told was directly responsible for murders declared genocide, which were occuring parallel to Muslims committing genocide against supporters of Milosevic and against Christians. The initial investigation into Milošević failed for lack of evidence, he was then extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to stand trial for charges of war crimes where Milošević conducted his own defense in the five-year-long trial which ended without a verdict because they could not prove anything, and then he died in his prison cell in The Hague on 11 March 2006 from "hypertension" of which many believe he was given "a pill".
So I have a question for Hillary Clinton regarding this. Perhaps it was brought up during the debate?
Reyarding that, Nielsen ratings revealed a disappointing 8.5 million audience for the recent CBS Democratic Party Presidential candidates debate, featuring their star and DNC pre-nominated establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, literally in the words of one of the Democratic campaign managers the "Republicans are eating our lunch in terms of attention and viewership".
The FOX News Republican debate drew 24 million viewers, and the second CNN coverage of the Republican debate drew 24 million viewers, and the third CNBC coverage of the third Republican debate drew 14 million viewers, and the fourth FBN hosted Republican debate drew the same.
The first CBS hosted Democratic debate drew only 15 million viewers, and this second Democratic debate dropped to only 8.5.
The Democrats say that is because it was on a Saturday. Actually, the Republicans had their debate while many voters were in weekday commutes driving home from work or on public transportation, yet they almost doubled viewership. The Democrats say the low viewership was due to some obscure college football game.
The equivalent Republican debate was during Game 2 of the World Series between the willdy popular hopes for the New York Mets against the Kansas City Royals, and yet the Republicans drew 14 million viewers in this THIRD debate (by round 3 you would figure folks would start tuning out entirely, and especially considering the game) and even beat the World Seriies viewership by 1/2 million viewers.
As far as the second Democratic debate, I didn't watch it.
So I have a question regarding the "world uniter" Hillary Clinton and favorite of what is claimed to be the "non-interventionists" of "peace" (at least, that is the "marching orders"), who tried to tell the families of those massacred in Benghazi that it was not the Islamic terrorists, but the fault of an anti-Islamist internet video, meaning the fault of those who want to expose Islamic fanaticism and which these Western extremists are so dangerous according to the Obama government it required a clamp down on free press and the arrest of the video producer, all the while Obama ran for reelection on the campaign theme that Bin Laden is dead and the Islamic terrorists Al Qaeda have been "decimated" so we don't need to bother with the Islamic fanatical attacks, and also Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq (now called ISIS) are defeated and then he called them the "J.V. Team" (junior varsity team, e.g. powerless, time to reelect Obama who brought peace to the world).
Of course, that reelection theme wouldn't go over very well if the Islamic terrorists successfully organized an attack of a US Embassay while Hillary was repeatedly warned it would happen and she was on a drinking bender while it was going on.
Besides asking if the video maker has been compensated in the millions of dollars for his civil rights being violated, my question is:
Was she, the choice of so many who say they are against war and are the peace coalition, was she asked her opinion of Bill Clinton's massive sorties and bombings of Serbian Christians in order to prop-up the new Islamic states of which now are hot beds of support for Islamic terrorism and weapons and gun-running to Islamic terrorist cells?
And speaking of gun-running, I don't know if it is true, but I heard the real reason Obama and Hillary abandoned the Embassay in Libya at the time of the organized Islamic terrorist attack, while Hillary was also drinking Hennesy, was because they were running guns and weapons to "the rebels" using operations out of the Embassay and elsewhere, and that it turned out these "rebels" were now attacking the Embassay with some of these same weapons. Just a rumor.
Someone said it isn't beyond possibility, some of the weapons used in Paris may have come from the states Bill Clinton supported. In fact, God forbid, what if one of these weapons was given to them by Hillary?
Fighting in Syria?
Really?
The other day some idiot liberal in Lafayette, California, (Lafayette - what an irony!) told me that she is voting for Hillary because she is "voting for peace".
Between 30 August and 20 September 1995, Bill Clinton led massive attacks in the regions of Yugoslavia.
In that short 20 day period, overall, 3,515 sorties were flown and a total of 1,026 bombs were dropped with destruction including civilian deaths, Serbian Christians were targetted by Bill Clinton in order to save the Muslim brothers, many who were in fact Muslim terrorists.
Two amazing things happened during that time:
(1) For the first time since World War Two, beautiful Belgrade was bombed by Bill Clinton and the "coalition" since when the Nazis, who were supporting their Muslim allies, bombed the Serbians who were fighting the Nazis. Belgrade was bombed to help the same Muslims.
(2) For the first time since World War Two we saw the unprecedented "coalition" of the Right-Wing in America and other countries with the Communist Party in the region, because the Communists in the region were under attack by Muslims. No, not "kissin' cousins", but it is a fact. While the co-opted leftwing "World Workers Party" type communists in America and elsewhere later betrayed the "official" communists by thinking they could rally with and ally with Muslim radicals as part of an attack on governments "in the West" under the guise of supporting "disfranchised Muslim 'immigrants'", yet even today their are aspects within the American right-wing that trust the traditional communists of the Russian and Yugo regions to take on the Muslim terrorists and thus we see many in the Right who say, "let's let Putin take on ISIS, maybe he won't, but if he's going to start killing ISIS, well let's just see"...
In fact NOT TEN MINUTES AGO I heard it on one of the top Right-Wing radio stations in the Bay Area, where the live host said "Why aren't we aligning with Putin to destroy ISIS? And by the way, Putin just said that some of the G20 nations are funding ISIS"....
The attacks by Bill Clinton were all about, as we were told, the evil genocidal Slobodan Milošević, Socialist (communist) and murderer of the nice peace loving Muslims, the evil monster who we were told was directly responsible for murders declared genocide, which were occuring parallel to Muslims committing genocide against supporters of Milosevic and against Christians. The initial investigation into Milošević failed for lack of evidence, he was then extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to stand trial for charges of war crimes where Milošević conducted his own defense in the five-year-long trial which ended without a verdict because they could not prove anything, and then he died in his prison cell in The Hague on 11 March 2006 from "hypertension" of which many believe he was given "a pill".
So I have a question for Hillary Clinton regarding this. Perhaps it was brought up during the debate?
Reyarding that, Nielsen ratings revealed a disappointing 8.5 million audience for the recent CBS Democratic Party Presidential candidates debate, featuring their star and DNC pre-nominated establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, literally in the words of one of the Democratic campaign managers the "Republicans are eating our lunch in terms of attention and viewership".
The FOX News Republican debate drew 24 million viewers, and the second CNN coverage of the Republican debate drew 24 million viewers, and the third CNBC coverage of the third Republican debate drew 14 million viewers, and the fourth FBN hosted Republican debate drew the same.
The first CBS hosted Democratic debate drew only 15 million viewers, and this second Democratic debate dropped to only 8.5.
The Democrats say that is because it was on a Saturday. Actually, the Republicans had their debate while many voters were in weekday commutes driving home from work or on public transportation, yet they almost doubled viewership. The Democrats say the low viewership was due to some obscure college football game.
The equivalent Republican debate was during Game 2 of the World Series between the willdy popular hopes for the New York Mets against the Kansas City Royals, and yet the Republicans drew 14 million viewers in this THIRD debate (by round 3 you would figure folks would start tuning out entirely, and especially considering the game) and even beat the World Seriies viewership by 1/2 million viewers.
As far as the second Democratic debate, I didn't watch it.
So I have a question regarding the "world uniter" Hillary Clinton and favorite of what is claimed to be the "non-interventionists" of "peace" (at least, that is the "marching orders"), who tried to tell the families of those massacred in Benghazi that it was not the Islamic terrorists, but the fault of an anti-Islamist internet video, meaning the fault of those who want to expose Islamic fanaticism and which these Western extremists are so dangerous according to the Obama government it required a clamp down on free press and the arrest of the video producer, all the while Obama ran for reelection on the campaign theme that Bin Laden is dead and the Islamic terrorists Al Qaeda have been "decimated" so we don't need to bother with the Islamic fanatical attacks, and also Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq (now called ISIS) are defeated and then he called them the "J.V. Team" (junior varsity team, e.g. powerless, time to reelect Obama who brought peace to the world).
Of course, that reelection theme wouldn't go over very well if the Islamic terrorists successfully organized an attack of a US Embassay while Hillary was repeatedly warned it would happen and she was on a drinking bender while it was going on.
Besides asking if the video maker has been compensated in the millions of dollars for his civil rights being violated, my question is:
Was she, the choice of so many who say they are against war and are the peace coalition, was she asked her opinion of Bill Clinton's massive sorties and bombings of Serbian Christians in order to prop-up the new Islamic states of which now are hot beds of support for Islamic terrorism and weapons and gun-running to Islamic terrorist cells?
And speaking of gun-running, I don't know if it is true, but I heard the real reason Obama and Hillary abandoned the Embassay in Libya at the time of the organized Islamic terrorist attack, while Hillary was also drinking Hennesy, was because they were running guns and weapons to "the rebels" using operations out of the Embassay and elsewhere, and that it turned out these "rebels" were now attacking the Embassay with some of these same weapons. Just a rumor.
Someone said it isn't beyond possibility, some of the weapons used in Paris may have come from the states Bill Clinton supported. In fact, God forbid, what if one of these weapons was given to them by Hillary?
Fighting in Syria?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
What's the relation between past and future ? people do change.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
I don't think China is there there. From what I understand they're on a side with Russia but they don't seem to be really doing anything. I think they have one air craft carrier in Syria?
Lol no Hillary is a total war hawk. She was for the Iraq invasion, and she hasn't gone away from that has she? I don't think so but than again I really don't pay too much attention to her to really care. But she's definitely a war hawk.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Probably because the Russians have a substantial nuclear arsenal as well as large conventional forces. It now seems that the French and Russians have become "allies" to crush ISIS.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Do you think France and Russia beside the Syrian & the Iraqi armeies will be enough or more forces will be still needed ?