Syria bombings.

[barbos]

Is it so hard to see that both sides of this conflict are bastards? Assad is a bloody dictator who has been oppressing the Sunnis for ages,

You confuse two Assads again.

and they had every reason to be pissed about it. But maybe had they not been influenced by foreign manipulators (Qatar, KSA, Turkey) they might not have bothered to do anything, or they could have had a bit more realistic view of the consequences.

I asked you a question, why Kerry became so active? Could it be he realized that he is about to et his legacy turned into utter crap and that the only way to prevent it is to keep civil war going and to do that he has to keep Al-Qaida alive?

How is Kerry more active than usual? Could it be that lots of stuff is happening so he needs to react and comment on current events, or is he actually doing anything about anything?

Kerry is more active, that's a fact which everyone (except you) noticed and reported

Ok, so what did he do in particular? Be specific.

He has been calling Lavrov 100 times a day.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Fair play, if the West supported the legal Syrian Government and stopped financing the terrorists, Syria could get back to the contented place it was, and we could start looking into the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

Ideally it could and force a cease fire with attention on ISIS. A better solution is 'not having gone there in the first place.
ISIS still holds large areas in IRAQ and SYRIA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034

 

[Jayjay]

Fair play, if the West supported the legal Syrian Government and stopped financing the terrorists, Syria could get back to the contented place it was, and we could start looking into the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

The legal Syrian Government is also financing terrorists: Syria is the main conduit of arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it is known to have turned a blind eye to terrorists going to Iraq (although since that was one of the reasons why ISIS was able to take hold in Syria, they probably learned their lesson). So it's not so much a question of whether US should stop supporting regimes that finance terrorists, as it is which regimes it should support: The Shia axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, or the Sunni axis of KSA-Qatar-Turkey. Both are shit choices.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm not calling her a liar, just that she was fed only one side of the narrative. The trip she is referring to was 100% organized by Syria and Russia. This does not mean that everything she is saying or that she observed is a lie, only one-sided and carefully orchestrated, for example the people she was able to talk to were likely hand-picked by the regime. And she betrays her own bias pretty quickly in the interview when she starts ranting about "US and NATO" funded terrorists. I doubt she personally verified what supplies the insurgents have, and it would be a major scoop if NATO was somehow involved.

Right, she should have her next trip organized by ISIS and State Department.

No, that would be just as bad. Rather she should find out the facts for herself, and exercise some critical thinking when it comes to the motivations of her hosts.

 

[Jayjay]

You confuse two Assads again.

Like father, like son. Or are you referring to his brother Maher?

and they had every reason to be pissed about it. But maybe had they not been influenced by foreign manipulators (Qatar, KSA, Turkey) they might not have bothered to do anything, or they could have had a bit more realistic view of the consequences.

I asked you a question, why Kerry became so active? Could it be he realized that he is about to et his legacy turned into utter crap and that the only way to prevent it is to keep civil war going and to do that he has to keep Al-Qaida alive?

How is Kerry more active than usual? Could it be that lots of stuff is happening so he needs to react and comment on current events, or is he actually doing anything about anything?

Kerry is more active, that's a fact which everyone (except you) noticed and reported

Ok, so what did he do in particular? Be specific.

He has been calling Lavrov 100 times a day.

And what has that achieved? It's not the first time he's tried to broker a ceasefire, and won't be the first time when he fails either.

 

[barbos]

Right, she should have her next trip organized by ISIS and State Department.

No, that would be just as bad. Rather she should find out the facts for herself, and exercise some critical thinking when it comes to the motivations of her hosts.

I think this is what she did. And no, her visits were not organized by anybody but herself. She had spent in ME enough time to know her way around.

 

[barbos]

Fair play, if the West supported the legal Syrian Government and stopped financing the terrorists, Syria could get back to the contented place it was, and we could start looking into the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

The legal Syrian Government is also financing terrorists: Syria is the main conduit of arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it is known to have turned a blind eye to terrorists going to Iraq (although since that was one of the reasons why ISIS was able to take hold in Syria, they probably learned their lesson). So it's not so much a question of whether US should stop supporting regimes that finance terrorists, as it is which regimes it should support: The Shia axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, or the Sunni axis of KSA-Qatar-Turkey. Both are shit choices.

So they are not so different from legal US government then

 

[iolo]

Fair play, if the West supported the legal Syrian Government and stopped financing the terrorists, Syria could get back to the contented place it was, and we could start looking into the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

Ideally it could and force a cease fire with attention on ISIS. A better solution is 'not having gone there in the first place.
ISIS still holds large areas in IRAQ and SYRIA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034

I think the Syrian army could see them off in a week or two, left to get on with it.

 

[iolo]

Fair play, if the West supported the legal Syrian Government and stopped financing the terrorists, Syria could get back to the contented place it was, and we could start looking into the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

The legal Syrian Government is also financing terrorists: Syria is the main conduit of arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it is known to have turned a blind eye to terrorists going to Iraq (although since that was one of the reasons why ISIS was able to take hold in Syria, they probably learned their lesson). So it's not so much a question of whether US should stop supporting regimes that finance terrorists, as it is which regimes it should support: The Shia axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, or the Sunni axis of KSA-Qatar-Turkey. Both are shit choices.

Hezbollah are the main resistance force defending Lebanon from the zionist Nazis, as you know, and deserve all the help we can give them. I have never heard them called terrorists by any but the servants of those Nazis, have you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kerry is not going to be on the job that long so my guess is nothing besides rhetoric. But if you think people that have been living under constant bombing will blame the people who fight the ones bombing them, you are deluded. That has never happened happened before, and will not happen now.

I don't know what the news coverage is like in Finland but here in the US it is pretty much just a repeating of our government's position - in other words, propaganda.

You may try adding Al Jazeera news to your watch list. I find them to be much more objective in their reporting. Their on the ground reporting shows that reality is something quite different than your supposition.

Here's a link if you want to try them: http://www.aljazeera.com/live/#

Al Jazeera was once a good source but now they're owned by some of the terrorist backers.

 

[Jayjay]

The legal Syrian Government is also financing terrorists: Syria is the main conduit of arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it is known to have turned a blind eye to terrorists going to Iraq (although since that was one of the reasons why ISIS was able to take hold in Syria, they probably learned their lesson). So it's not so much a question of whether US should stop supporting regimes that finance terrorists, as it is which regimes it should support: The Shia axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, or the Sunni axis of KSA-Qatar-Turkey. Both are shit choices.

Hezbollah are the main resistance force defending Lebanon from the zionist Nazis, as you know, and deserve all the help we can give them. I have never heard them called terrorists by any but the servants of those Nazis, have you?

Satire or not? Sometimes it's not easy to tell.