The Syrian debate that Obama requested

I just heard Obama's speech in which he announces his desire to have a limited strike on Syria, but also his willingness to have a national debate before military action. He also announced his willingness to move forward with a military strike on Syria with only the approval of the US people (through their representatives), regardless of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or world leaders' approval. I have some questions to begin the debate that Obama seeks:

1) My primary concern is what I think to be the primary US (and world) national security interest in Syria: the security status of Assad's chemical weapons (CWs):

--- As I understand it, there are Islamic fundamentalists, many of which are extremists, fighting against Assad right now in Syria. By extremist in the context of this post, and in general all of my posts in regard to the Middle Eastern, North African, and Central Asian regions, and in today's age, I mean people willing to kill, by random attacks against civilians and/or targeted attacks vs state military/security forces, for reasons they have derived from their, narrow imo, interpretation of the religion of Islam. I hereafter refer to these people as Islamic extremists. I also believe that in addition to these Islamic extremists, there are those who share their views on Islamic fundamentalism, and the role of Islam in government, but are not willing to commit acts of violence in furtherance of this cause. However, these people represent a further threat to world and US security through their potential willingness to support Islamic extremists through financial, food, arms, or other assistance. I hereafter refer to these people as Islamic fundamentalists. Additionally, I use the term Al Qaeda (AQ) to distinguish Islamic terrorists from the general term "terrorist", and also to distinguish between random and/or local unorganized and/or "lone wolf" Islamic terrorists and terrorists who appear to be operating with a command and control and logistical structure that appears internationally coordinated with an overall purpose. I use this as a general term to represent coordination only, as I realize that AQ has various levels of influence throughout different countries, and sometimes Islamic extremists are members of affiliate groups, or possibly even groups with different goals or opposed to AQ.
---I believe that there is enough evidence through the media and the words of various world leaders, that among the rebels fighting Assad, there are Islamic extremists, many operating under AQ coordination and with AQ goals. In addition, there also appears to be an Islamic fundamentalist segment of the population and fighters present in Syria. I use the terms Islamic extremists and fundamentalists to distinguish from other peace loving Muslims, and to acknowledge that it is not the religion of Islam that is at the heart of the US and world security interests, but limited segments of these populations who have somehow gained a large enough influence to represent a threat.
--- I have questions on the current security situation of Assad's CW facilities. How likely is it that AQ have already gained access to these facilities through either force or defection of Assad's military personnel? If they have already acquired CW's, how sure are we that AQ did not initiate the chemical attack that Obama speaks of? I think it is clear from the history of AQ actions, that they have no qualms about drawing the US military into various nations of the Middle East. This angle should be seriously investigated, so as to not be drawn in to fight AQ on their terms.
--- I have questions on the future security situation of Assad's CW facilities, in reference to Obama's words and US military actions (warship maneuvering) of this week. If the CW facilities are currently secure, how can we guarantee this security after US actions this week? Think about it from the viewpoint of an Assad soldier guarding these CW's. The US is amassing forces off your coast, and bringing in air power, while deploring the use of CW's by your commander-in-chief. I think it is obvious, that Obama's threats cannot possibly have a positive impact on the security of these sites. Imo, Obama is directly undermining the security of these CW sites by the very act of threatening to attack!, thereby undermining the US (and world's) primary interest in Syria. And if I were AQ, I would be looking for opportunities to obtain CW's now, and especially during and after any US military strike. We must be aware of the AQ threat to these facilities, and we must be certain we have the ability to prevent AQ acquisition of any CW's whatsoever. The potential consequences of AQ CW acquisition can be deadly. Also, in the event of regime change by whatever reason, it is possible (though not guaranteed I admit) that the security systems and law and order could break down in Syria, allowing another potential opportunity for AQ to seize CW's. The US must be vigilant to these potential outcomes!

2) An additional concern that I have is US unilateral action, and its impact on US international relations. What will be the general world response (from peoples and governments) to US unilateral action in Syria?

--- World opinion of the US seems to be at an all time low. I believe this directly threatens US national security in 2 ways: a) it undermines UN authority and, b) it emboldens those would act against US interests to act.
--- A year ago, millions of Muslims protested (some violently) in dozens of countries in a spectacular display of anti-Americanism spawned by an offensive YouTube video (supposedly). What are the potential responses of Muslim populations to a US strike into yet another Muslim country? How many more recruits will flock to AQ or lone wolf action in response to US unilateral action?
--- What will be Assad's response? Will he attack Israel in the same way as Saddam inexplicably did? Was Saddam's attack on Israel really inexplicable or did he attempt to draw the US into a regional wide conflict with several Muslim countries at the same time (because the response of the peoples and governments of Arab nations is remarkably more likely and more intense if Israel is forced into attacking another Muslim nation)? Will Assad attempt to do the same, especially considering last year's anti-American protests indicating that the atmosphere of the Arab world today seems much more anti-American than in Saddam's day, when he attempted the strategy?
--- What will be the Iranian government response? Will they encourage a regional wide Muslim attack on the US and/or Israel through terrorist proxies, including another round of Hamas and/or Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel?
--- What will be the Russian government response? War seems unlikely at this time, I agree. But what are possible Russian reactions that in hindsight, would be viewed as stepping stones to a future conflict? How can the US convince Russia that its interests in the region will not be undermined by US intervention? From the last time I saw Obama and Putin sitting next to each other (discussing Syria I believe), it did not appear that Obama had alleviated Putin's concerns. I would like to know the Russian official position on US unilateral action.

3) I am also concerned about how US unilateral action would undermine future UN authority.

--- I believe that UN authority is very important to future world security, especially in regard to WMD's, including nuclear, biological, and CW's. Right now, there are several nations possessing nuclear weapons, including the US, Russia, China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, UK, and France. Several more countries, like Syria, possess biological and CW's. Combine these facts with the additional fact (proven by history) that governments eventually fail. And sometimes during these failures, there are periods of insecurity and serious degradation of law and order. The world was lucky with the collapse of the USSR in that the security apparatus of the nation remained intact, and therefore the WMD's remained secure. But history shows that this will not always be the case. One day, the security apparatuses protecting these WMD's among various nations will become vulnerable, or even completely collapse. The world will not always have a US that can unilaterally act to prevent WMD's from falling into the hands of extremists who would use them to terrorize peoples of the world. It is not feasible for the US to remain the world's police forever. And it is also not feasible for the world to have no police force that can react to the above state failure scenarios. This would leave the world's peoples vulnerable to terrorist WMD acquisition; it leaves world security completely up to chance, which is incompatible with the fundamental human right to be secure. This leaves the only possible option that can ensure human security: a strong and united UN, that is willing to act to prevent the above scenarios.
--- Although Obama argues that allowing Assad to openly use CW's in violation of international norms undermines UN authority, I believe that US unilateral action (without UNSC votes by Russia, China in authorization of the action) undermines UN authority to a greater degree. The US must convince Russia and China to be on board, and if they do not, then the US must launch a campaign of diplomacy and rhetoric that explains to the world why the US and the UN cannot act in response to the atrocities in Syria (in similar fashion to how Reagan placed the discontent of West and East Germans due to its division by the Berlin Wall squarely on the shoulders of the Communists). If the Syrians are suffering under CW attacks and/or other brutality, the US must seek the evidence that shows it, and put it on display for the world to see. Let the world repeatedly see the images of the suffering, through solicitation of the assistance of US and other world media organizations. If there is cause for Syrian intervention, I have faith that the US can make the world pressure Russian and China into voting for intervention authorization. But to do this, the US must invest its resources into not military action, but a propaganda campaign that puts the ball into the Russian court, and puts the pressure on them to allow authorization.

4) I also have general concerns about the timing of Obama's request to the American people for military intervention into Syria. Congress is out of session until Sep 9, 2 days before Sep 11, the 1 year anniversary of Benghazi and worldwide anti-American protests. So the Congressional vote for Syrian intervention authorization will probably occur after Sep 11, which means it may occur after an AQ strike on the US, thus influencing the vote for unilateral action.

In conclusion, I do not support unilateral US action. The US must get approval from the UN to act, in order to better protect US and world long term security interests. If this causes temporary UN impotence, the world and Syrians must endure it. It must be endured until whichever nations are holding up UN action, are convinced that it is in their (and the world's) interest to act. I have listed the reasons I do not support it, as well as the questions I must have answered in order to support it. I know the post is long, and feel free to attack and/or answer individual points within it; I am posting this to answer my questions, and to further my information available in order to make an informed opinion as a world citizen on whether or not to support military intervention in Syria.

 

Heard about

:

Considering that Congress voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, cheering long and hard for Netanyahu, have Rabbinical prayers, support terrorist attacks on numerous countries, and give the Isrealis everything they ask for, It is a very good bet that those guys will approve war against Syria almost unanimously.

 

I'd quite like as a Muslim if you would remove the words Islam and Islamic and Muslims when talking about these terrorists because there is zero Islamic about them this is first.

Second this is what it is all about

Saudi Arabia Wahabi ideology creates these terrorists.
They want to create a caliphate and therefore are not nationalist and don't see any loyalty to a country only loyalty first to tribe then caliphate. You have to understand the thinking of these people.

Saudi is split.
You have the Al Saud family in conflict with the wahabis there. Wahabi ikhwan want a caliphate and all who do not follow them are infidels. The major infidel even before the West are the Shia in Iran. They want to wipe them out. Finish them. This is why Saudi is leading the fight in Syria because if they can bring down Syria the next move is Iran their mortal enemy.
Now Israel and USA are happy with this because to bring down Iran would mean a whole country once again under Western control like in Shah days.


Now the worlds Muslims are not wahabi. Wahabi are very few. Most are moderate sunni and reject Wahabism BUT petrol $$$$ helps radlicalize and spread Wahabism and that is what Al Saud allows to happen even though his royals are playing roulette in Monaco and drinking cognac.

Assad is fighting terrorists in his country just as we are here in Egypt who also want a global caliphate and that is why we rejected them. The USA however is funding and arming and aiding the terrorists and it is plain to see to anyone with eyes and functioning brain cells.

The question you should be asking is why?

Also I wouldn't worry about Obama making any connection to the return of congress on 9th so close to 9/11
Obama is a complete donkey and probably doesn't even know what day today is

 

You are quite right Abu Sina that the fake Muslims terrorizing Syria have nothing in common with True Islam

The terrorists pretend to be Muslim, but in acutality they are allied with those who killed the Prophets and Ali. The terrorists are basically following Talmudic doctrines, not Islam.
They kill Christians, deny that the Perfect Man was murdered by the Pharisees, deny that God/Allah came to us as a man to prove Himself, show us His Character, and catch us all in the act of hating Him.
View attachment 22095

 

I believe I stated why I use the terms Islamic extremists and fundamentalists. I mean no offense by these terms; I only mean to distinguish the differences and motives of Islamic terrorists (and potential supporters of these terrorists in Islamic fundamentalists) as opposed to other terrorists (such as domestic right-wing and left-wing terrorists within the US). The attachment of the word "Islamic" is simply a descriptive term that helps the reader more narrowly identify the type of terrorism (just as the prefixing of "right-wing" or "left-wing" does), which does matter, as the strategy and response to deal with the different terrorist goals and motives depends on the type of terrorist. I also do not mean to identify the religion of Islam as unique in spawning terrorists, as the Inquisition and other events throughout history show that any religion has the potential to create terrorists that warp its teachings in order to promote violence.

 

call them Wahabi Ikhwan

The Brotherhood who follow AbdelWahab Arabian ideology who to them we are all infidels except them.

The same ideology as Bin Laden and the Syrian liver eating cannibal and Taliban follow

Zero link to Islam

 

Why do you not use the term fundamentalist when talking of American evangelical zionist rapture seeking Christians? What about all the American fundamentalist Christian sects in US history?

I am reading a very good book at the moment on Christian Jewish and Muslim Fundamentalists by Karen Armstrong. It's very good to read about American and Jewish fundamentalism in history too especially in the USA.

you can read it in pdf here

http://sufibooks.info/Integral/Kare...Theology - Judaism - Chritianity - Islam).pdf

 

Most if not all of them were and are possessed by the doctrines of the Pharisee and the Nicolaity (victory over the peeople).
They say the Omni-Present Christ is coming some day, which means they are saying that He is NOT here now. That is totally contrary to the Intent & Words of "nature's God".
In a nut shell, after so many thousands of years, they are still at Mount Sinai, telling God that they don't want His Word in them direct, but they want it through preachers and priests.
They are like the adulterous woman in Proverbs 7 whose husband went on a trip leaving her to play around in his absence.
They are like the unfaithful steward that said in his heart, "My master delayeth his coming," only now they are screaming it all over the place in public.
Their denial of the Kingodm of Heaven in the Here and Now, and their love of lies and wars of aggression has made them to lose the flavor of Christ in them, and are fit for nothing, not even fertilizer, but to be thrown out and trampled under the feet of men. (Matthew 5:13)

 

Because those fundamentalists represent an entirely different problem, that is another debate, that has different solutions than the debate here, which is about Islamic fundamentalists and extremists in Syria.

 

It is because of apostate Christians that America is arming fake Muslims to terrorize and slaughter our mother nation, Syria.
It is because of them that we took a lion cub, fed him, protected him and helped him become a great lion that is making our neigbors disappear one after the other.

 

Dude, whoever you are, awesome post! Thank you. Where have you been? Welcome aboard!

I like logic very much. I like a crystal-clear definition of terms very much. I like the consideration of alternative models very much. All of which you have provided. Stellar. Thanks again.

 

That, unfortunately, is not true. The OP is exactly correct, and the definition of terms there is exactly correct. IMO.

There are Christian extremists too, yes? Fundies, we call 'em. Some of them are willing to engage in violence to accomplish political objectives. Like the abortion bombers, that kind of thing.

What it is all about, is respecting the political rights of religious minorities.

The "mandatory Sharia law" simply will not do. Such a thing is entirely unacceptable to the vast majority of people on this planet.

Maybe so. There are other factors, to be sure.

"These people"? Prince Bandar bin-Sultan certainly doesn't want a caliphate - unless it's one where he himself is the Caliph.

That's all very simplistic, IMO.

Business does play into it, yes.

I don't think it matters "why" they exist. Killing people in the name of God is not acceptable. I do not care what religion you claim to be, or where you're from geographically, or what color your skin or hair is. Killing in the name of God is entirely hypocritical, and the only people who are going to buy that kind of logic are the ones who are truly desperate.

I'm very sorry, but there comes a time when a mad dog simply has to be put down. Hopefully the world will not come to that condition.

This policy long preceded our current President, or even the last one.

We are asking that question, believe me.

Ten days is a long time in US politics.

 

Like all weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons are the most closely-guarded weapons in any nation's arsenal. I have zero doubt that the Syrians have maintained full and complete control over their inventories by troops that are unquestionably loyal to the Assad regime. Historically, this is the case, even in the United States, those who maintain care,custody, and control of such weapons are the most loyal.

The vast majority of modern chemical weapons such as the G-Agents, of which Sarin is one, are binary agents. There are two chemicals, that when mixed, react to produce the chemical weapon. The precursor chemicals are themselves, volatile and toxic. As such, it is prudent to have full personal protective equipment when loading the precursors into the shells. Furthermore, the processes of loading the weapons must be followed without deviations. Such a process is intricate and delicate and can not be learned easily. The training is incredibly difficult to come by without specialized training. As I pointed out above, the members of the Syrian Armed Forces responsible for care, custody, and control of such weapons are unlikely to be defection risks.

Chances are, he will direct the US Armed Forces to strike against the delivery systems, not the stockpiles to limit any risk of the release of chemicals. There have been mentions of certain anti-agent bombs that, when detonated, burn at such a high temperature that it destroys the chemicals safely, similar to how the United States has destroyed its own stockpiles of nerve agents. Such anti-agent bombs are, as far as I know, unproven in combat, and I would imagine the military is loathe to attempt to use an unproven weapon in such a scenario.

Attacking the delivery systems will, in effect, remove the ability to effectively employ the weapons.

Generally, the world will see this as America trying to impose its will on the world, no matter what we do. We've already seen that Russia and China will block any attempts to confront Syria.

The United States and the wider world community has a history of allowing authoritarian regimes to utilize chemical weapons with impunity. In 1988, the Halabja gas attack in Iraq was perpetrated in response to the perceived support the Kurds of Halabja had given to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq was not punished at all. Now, almost a quarter century on, another Ba'athist has more than likely perpetrated yet another chemical weapons attack.

The United Nations system is already corrupted. In order for any action to be undertaken in the name of the United Nations, the Security Council must approve it, however, just one vote by one of the five permanent members of the Security Council is enough to block any action. There is no way to override a Security Council veto. China could conceivably utilize a nuclear weapon to retake either the Republic of China on Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, and the world community would be powerless to do anything because China holds a permanent seat on the Security Council and, thus, can block any action.

Russia and China's motives are clear-cut.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has seen the market for its military hardware shrink. Many of the Gulf states that used to rely almost exclusively on Soviet-supplied hardware has either switched to purchasing Western hardware (in the cases of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan), have invested in domestic hardware development (such as Iran, India, and China), or no longer have the hard currency to purchase new hardware (North Korea, Cuba, many sub-Saharan African nations). Only emerging nations like Venezuela, Malaysia, and Syria have hard currency in the amounts needed, as well as the lack of a domestic defense production infrastructure to maximize Russia's profits.

With China, their objections are based upon their political identity. China is an authoritarian country, and they prefer to not acquiesce to seeing another nation led in a dictatorial manner be held accountable, because that would then open the door for them to be condemned if a movement similar to the Arab Spring were to start in China. China has a well-known history of using paramilitary and military force to quell disturbances within their own country. If they stand idly by, that is sending a message they do not want to send to their own people.




The United States is in a no-win situation:

We can do nothing, and risk empowering dictatorships to use whatever weapons they have to quell any dissension within their country with no fear of being held accountable.

We can do a limited-scope military intervention similar to Odyssey Dawn, and be seen as imperialists trying to get our hands on more oil, no matter how strong the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons.

We can do an all-out offensive and intervene directly to effect a regime change. Such an attack will be costly in terms of American lives and American weaponry. Such an intervention could also lead to a domino effect of drawing Iran into the conflict.

Of the three options, a limited intervention is the best option.

This can be done without a single American servicemember flying over Syrian territory. Our warships will be well offshore, and likely outside of Syrian missile envelopes. Even if our warships are within range of being retaliated against, the United States Navy has the most technologically advanced destroyers deployed to do the strike, and would be well capable of self-defense.

Syria has threatened to attack Israel, such an attack would be a catastrophe for the Assad regime. Israel is more than capable of not only defending itself, but of crushing Syria's military. The IDF has faced off against Syria four times,,and all four times, Israel has utterly decimated the Syrian military. In all but the last of those engagements, the Syrians acted in concert with at least Egypt and Jordan. Now, Egypt and Jordan are non-factors, and have at times, even had cooperative military exercises with Israel. If I remember correctly, at Red Flag in the Nevada desert, Egyptian and Israeli F-16s have flown in the same strike packages during exercises. When Jordan, after their peace treaty with Israel, approached the United States to buy F-16 fighters, the United States was hesitant, even though Israel was enthusiastic for the sale to Jordan. Some reports even say that Israel threatened to sell Jordan some of their more capable F-16s if the US deal was rejected.

If Bashar al-Assad is as psychologically unstable as he is claimed to be, chances are if we engage him, he will seek to retaliate. Retaliation will require him to redeploy forces away from the rebels. The rebels will then be able to have a stronger offensive toward the heart of Damascus.

As CNN pointed out as I am typing this, by merely threatening an attack, the Syrians will likely scramble to move their military assets to hidden and more secure locations. As long as they're secured, they're not being used against the rebels, and thus we have taken away some of their capabilities without even firing a shot. Certain targets cannot be moved. For example, airfields, command and control nodes, and the Syrian Defense Ministry headquarters can not be moved. If you bomb the airfields, you force the Syrian Air Force to rely on their aircraft's rough-field capability. When an aircraft takes off from an unprepared runway, it cannot carry as much weaponry as it could from a prepared runway. If we strike their command structure, their military will end up in disarray. Syria uses an old Soviet model of centralized command and control. Take out the generals, and everyone below them will have no clue what to do.

 

no it is all interconnected my friend

 

what part is not correct in what I said about those terrorist not having anything to do with Islam?

what do you mean?

Islam orders Muslims to protect Christians and Jews and to respect their faith and allow them to practice it so what do you mean?

As I already said the House of Saud is not following Wahabism or Islam for that matter

We have two very different sides in Saudi fighting for control

and this is why I say to you that this is not Islamic so what are you talking about?
Killing is haram UNLESS you are defending yourself in an attack and if the attacker stops then you must also stop


Quran
"There is no compulsion in religion

to you your religion and to me mine"

it is very clear

what mad dog and be put down like a dog by whom? is that what your religion says and instructs? because someone is mad but is a thousand miles away you have the right to go to his country to attack him on his soil? Is this Crusader talk not just like Al Qaeda?

 

strange don't you think that Americans are so eager to remove Assad who has kept that part of the region stable and install Al Qaeda instead

strange don't you think that Turkey doesn't mind having AQ on it's border......................

Who is AQ for them to be so popular is the question...................

 

Well, its all win/win for Obama. It won't be his fault if we do something and open up a big can of worms, he gets cred if we blow Assad out of his socks since it was what he intended to do from the beginning. If Congress votes no, then he can blame Congress for failing to act and is blameless. Slick move.

 

First off, thank you for the dialog. It's a pleasure. Tip o' the hat to you, sir.

I don't know, perhaps I misunderstood. We ("generic" we) have been led to believe that the Islamist ideology (as distinct perhaps from the Islam"ic" ideology) has a lot to do with religion. My understanding is that politics and religion are one and the same to many Muslisms. But I'm not a Muslim, so I should shut up and learn. How do you see it?

Well, religious minorities are heavily oppressed in much of the Islamic world.

Are you saying that's entirely political, as distinct from religious?

My understanding is, that such a distinction is difficult to make in the non-secular world. Is that not true?

Understood. How do you view the royal Saudis? Financially corrupt, mainly?

Well, okay, I hear you. "This is not Islamic". But that's the same thing that most Catholics and most Presbyterians would say about the abortion bombers. "This is not Christian", right? And yet it exists, and it's being done in the name of Christianity.

The excuse being used is that we are "all" the attackers. We vote, we elect the people who are in office, therefore we are "all" responsible for their policies. There are no innocents, right? Isn't this a very extreme viewpoint?

So you're basically saying the Wahabbis are "abusing" the Quran, yes?

I'm saying, that if a red-headed Chechen Muslim tries to force me to convert to Islam while I'm in Syria (or equivalently, wants to blow me up or slice my head off), then I'm going to shoot him first.

 

WND and Breitbart (both of which are CONSERVATIVE sources) say the evidence points to al-Nusra terrorists as the cause of the chemical attacks:


http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

More importantly, what will the American population's reaction be?

We know the MAJORITY of Americans oppose war:



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97T0UO20130830




Up to all this time President Obama has spoken of himself as a champion of majoritarian democracy and a man of peace. Now it's time for him to be consistent in the application of his principles.

 

From what Obama says about America's constitutional democracy, I don't believe that he believes there is such a thing as unilateral action in the United States, there is only such a thing as united action, is why there is the United Nations, because it's all about the common defense. Following this story, I see there has been many a rush to judgement about Obama's intentions concerning Congress, like he's risking impeachment over showing up to a press conference on time. Vice President was out there with him, didn't say anything, just stood there like a stooge next to the flag.

We can have all these debates forever, but if the President says right makes might, all these debates are about is to determine the facts, which means if there's any discrepancies of Obama's evidence of chemical weapons, then they will have many radical opinions all at once, I think. If it is impossible to determine which side is which in Syria between the regime and the rebels, yet it is still the responsibility from the perspective of one President to another in some ways, will still be a reason to invade Syria with drones in days, weeks, or months, sooner the better for military industrial complex.

They probably need to filibuster to stop this thing. Good luck with that.

 

First you need to understand the difference between those that call themselves Islamist and Muslims.
There are 1.9 billion Muslims. How many do you think agree that eating someones liver and shouting Allahu Akbar has anything to do with Islam?
It would be like you calling the pope in Rome a christian and watching him on TV eating someones liver straight out their chest on his U Tube video.
These madmen are NOT Muslims. There is nothing at all Muslim about them. They do not practice Islam. I have no idea what they are BUT they are not Muslims.

I need some specific examples so I can answer you

there are a few factors but I need specific examples because each case is different

morally, spiritually, financially bankrupt

First thing you need to understand is that in Islam you have the right to defend but not attack. Women and children and elderly must never be attacked. If two forces are fighting we must mediate a peace and a treaty and it must be respected. If you lived in MENA region you would rarely see any fight escalate to calling police. Why? because Muslims Must mediate in any dispute so you will find in any conflict there will be many watchers watching and some will intervene to mediate. Usually within 10 minutes the conflict will be over and they shake hands and this is very common in MENA region. Here age is very important and respect for age is very important so no youths would fight in front of an older man and if an older man intervened they would both stop. I know Egypt is a bit crazy right now but this is not normal behaviour if you knew the region.
So just because something exists and they say it is Islamic doesn't mean it is. Did you not hear Erdogan saying about Al Azhar last week?

The question you have to ask yourself is this.

IF Americans and Europeans did not invade the MENA region and install dictators and loot the wealth and force slavery etc etc etc and stayed in their own countries and left us all alone would we be having this problem today because it is not Syrians invading you, it is you coming to OUR region threatening us and planting an Israel in the middle of it all. What did you expect to happen? For us to sit and allow it and say nothing? It is you who are on the wrong side of the world instead of your home not us.

of course

That red headed Chechen probably doesn't read or write and attended Saudi built Pakistani madrassa where his head was filled with rubbish so you can do as you please with him and as Assad is doing today

 

Question

How does Syria thousands of miles away from the USA threaten US national security exactly?

Is everything and everybody a threat to the American dream now?

 

Assad kept the Middle East stable? LOL in what parallel universe are you living in? The Middle East has never been stable. The so-called stability was because the United States had a centralized presence in the region by virtue of our presence in Iraq.

What make you think Al Qaeda will win in the end? Al Qaeda is nothing but a loosely cobbled together bunch of Wahhabi idiots. They're a threat, but nowhere near as big a threat as they used to be.

Islamists blew their chance in Egypt, and those seeking true secular democracy will win out in the end.

Syria is directly allied with Iran, who has the delivery systems to strike our allies in NATO. Furthermore, it is in every civilized nation's interest to ensure that chemical weapons are never used. Bastard al-Asshead already demonstrated a willingness to use them.

 

Thank you, this is very helpful.

Understood.

Well, let's see, these are the Christians: http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/middle-east/islam/

And for the Jews, the European situation is probably the nastiest, but there's other stuff too. http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/category/bulletin-of-jew-hatred/

I'm sure both of these are "propaganda sites" to some degree, but nevertheless, the hatred does seem to exist, at some level. The Jewish relationship may be somewhat easier to understand, but I'm not sure where the Christians fit in.

"Women", though, is probably the primary beef in the Western world. (The Iranian regime seems to be quite odd in this area at times - they're Shia though but still Muslim).

Okay. Not sure I can give you specific examples here. It's kind of more of a generalized concept. For instance, here we have "Separation of Church and State". It's kind of "philosophical", I suppose. I'm aware of several interesting Constitutions out there (Pakistan, for instance), some that give people choices by which law they wish to be judged. Some regimes are more secular than others.

"All Muslims are not alike". Hm. So like, where does Morsi fit into all of this? How come he has/had so many supporters? Do you think the Egyptian Army is somehow linked to the Saudis?

I find it interesting you're identifying with the "MENA Region".

"Us". You identify with the MENA Region. "Us" is pretty broad, isn't it?

Do you think Assad's method is the only way to control these people?

 

This link is not what I need. I need specific incidents so I can reply about the Christians.

The Jews are different. Throughout history Jews have been hated by Christians and it was Muslims that gave them protection and shelter from Christians like Isabella and Ferdinand in Spain for example. The Muslims turned against the Jews at the creation of Israel when they took the land and homes of palestinians. Most Jews till then flourished when living with Muslims.

what do you mean 'women'?

I am Egyptian so can only talk of my country and law and people accurately so ask me something about Egyptian separation of church and state if you like.

This is not about Morsi. This is about the murshid. Morsi is just the spare tyre. The murshid is the driver of the car. Ikhwan supporters majority are the low class uneducated people. This is because Mubarak ignored them and they are the majority so the Ikhwan fed them and clothed them and educated them and gave them health care. BUT today many now do not support them like before. They are simple people, farmers and villagers and illiterates. That is why Saudi Wahabis targets them and brainwashes them.

Here is just one example

http://rt.com/news/peninsula-saudi-grand-mufti-701/

and what are we if not in the MENA region?

what people? if you mean the terrorists running wild then in a normal world Assad would be getting help to fight Al Qaeda not being threatened himself by the West for fighting them but unfortunately we are not surrounded by sane people.