Silvio Burlusconi
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 152
Seeing how one of the parties that WANT the US to attack is Al Qaeda they really need to think twice. And then think it through again.
- Thread starter Candyman
- Start date
A
Al Bumin
Guest
[h=1]Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal[/h]
Write it down in your calendars, because this is the week that America lost its superpower status,” Glenn Beck said on his weekday radio program Tuesday.
Beck was speaking about the international response to the conflict in Syria, and asserted that it has been Russia, not the United States, that has emerged looking like a competent leader.
This is particularly the case after the country offered to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons, thereby potentially averting an international conflict, Beck said.
“When I saw the story that Putin came out and said, ‘I just was wrestling a bear here about 10 minutes ago…and I called up Assad and I said, ‘Hey! You’re gonna give me your chemical weapons.’
And he said, ‘Okay, dude.’ After [Putin] made that statement and then the president said, ‘Okay, uh, we could do that…’ I thought to myself…we’re done as a superpower,” Beck said. “He has just put the final nail in the coffin.”
https://www.theblaze.com/stories/20...week-that-america-lost-its-superpower-status/
Beck was speaking about the international response to the conflict in Syria, and asserted that it has been Russia, not the United States, that has emerged looking like a competent leader.
This is particularly the case after the country offered to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons, thereby potentially averting an international conflict, Beck said.
“When I saw the story that Putin came out and said, ‘I just was wrestling a bear here about 10 minutes ago…and I called up Assad and I said, ‘Hey! You’re gonna give me your chemical weapons.’
And he said, ‘Okay, dude.’ After [Putin] made that statement and then the president said, ‘Okay, uh, we could do that…’ I thought to myself…we’re done as a superpower,” Beck said. “He has just put the final nail in the coffin.”
https://www.theblaze.com/stories/20...week-that-america-lost-its-superpower-status/
I will agree that it was a win for the Russians. But they likely did it for different reasons.
I think Obama and his administration made an error in the handling of this issue especially if Syria actually signs a treaty.
My golly he may have got that right.
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you.
We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different.
It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.
Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=1&
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you.
We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different.
It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.
Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=1&
A
Al Bumin
Guest
Will this change anything now?.
(CNN) - The head of the opposition Free Syrian Army told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Thursday he has intelligence showing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government is moving its chemical weapons out of the country.
"Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq," Gen. Salim Idriss said from inside Syria.
CNN could not independently verify Idriss' claim.
Several senior Israeli officials told CNN's Elise Labott that they have not seen movements into Lebanon or Iraq, and that they did not believe it made sense for the Syrians to be moving weapons so soon.
And Iraq categorically denied that chemical weapons had crossed into its territory, with an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speculating "there is a political agency behind this claim."
"We were the victims of chemical weapons under Saddam's regime," said the adviser, Ali al-Moussawi. "And we will never allow to let any country to transfer chemical materials to our lands at all."
Still, if the allegation were true, it could fundamentally shift the assessments of U.S. intelligence officials, CNN's Barbara Starr reports.
Namely, these officials have said that al-Assad would not disperse his stockpile of chemical weapons because he knows the United States would not bomb it, that Syrian security forces firmly control the weapons and that there exists a large, secure infrastructure that has been moving these arms from rebel-held areas.
Moving these weapons into Iraq, Lebanon or some other country outside Syria might prompt U.S. intelligence authorities to question whether they were being transferred by a rogue element or whether it was evidence of a crack in the government's control.
The Syrian opposition is afraid, Idriss told CNN's Amanpour, that al-Assad's forces will then use those weapons sometime in the future - even after the international effort to collect and destroy its chemical weapons arsenal is finished.
"The regime," he said, "is behaving like Saddam Hussein."
Idriss said he talked Thursday about what's happening diplomatically with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who the rebel leader claimed told him "that he will discuss with the Russians how honest the regime is."
"And if our friends discover that the regime is trying to play games and waste time," Idriss said by way of summarizing Kerry's remarks, "the threat of the strikes is still on the table."
Earlier on Thursday, Idriss told NPR that he had not received "any weapons from our American friends," despite reports that lethal aid had indeed started reaching the Syrian opposition.
That includes a U.S. official who told CNN on Wednesday that light and anti-tank weapons as well as ammunition - paid for by the United States albeit made elsewhere - had begun flowing to Syrian rebels over the past two weeks.
Idriss told Amanpour that he "can't talk about weapons," though he did stress that opposition forces were getting help.
"We are getting now a lot of support from our American friends, but I can't talk in detail about all kinds of the support," he said.
For its part, the opposition will support efforts to take control of and eventually dismantle Syria's chemical weapons, with Idriss saying, "We will do our best to help them." But the rebel leader questioned that things will play out as hoped.
"I think the regime will prevent them to go to the locations and to do their job," Idriss said. "I think the regime will tell them, 'Today you can't go out of the hotels because the situation is very dangerous, and tomorrow you can't go,' and they will delay and delay."
And even if Idriss is proven wrong and Syria's chemical weapons are wiped out as part of this process, the rebel leader stressed that bigger issues remain in a civil war that the U.N. estimates has killed more than 100,000 people - most of them by conventional weapons.
"
We have many, many problems with the regime," he said. "The chemical weapons (are) not ... the only problem that we have."
CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.
UPDATE 1: This article has been updated with reaction obtained by CNN from the Iraqi government.
UPDATE 2: This article has been updated with reaction obtained by CNN from Israeli government officials, and with CNN reporting on the delivery of U.S. weapons to the Syrian opposition.
https://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013...general-salim-idriss-claims-to-cnns-amanpour/
(CNN) - The head of the opposition Free Syrian Army told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Thursday he has intelligence showing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government is moving its chemical weapons out of the country.
"Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq," Gen. Salim Idriss said from inside Syria.
CNN could not independently verify Idriss' claim.
Several senior Israeli officials told CNN's Elise Labott that they have not seen movements into Lebanon or Iraq, and that they did not believe it made sense for the Syrians to be moving weapons so soon.
And Iraq categorically denied that chemical weapons had crossed into its territory, with an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speculating "there is a political agency behind this claim."
"We were the victims of chemical weapons under Saddam's regime," said the adviser, Ali al-Moussawi. "And we will never allow to let any country to transfer chemical materials to our lands at all."
Still, if the allegation were true, it could fundamentally shift the assessments of U.S. intelligence officials, CNN's Barbara Starr reports.
Namely, these officials have said that al-Assad would not disperse his stockpile of chemical weapons because he knows the United States would not bomb it, that Syrian security forces firmly control the weapons and that there exists a large, secure infrastructure that has been moving these arms from rebel-held areas.
Moving these weapons into Iraq, Lebanon or some other country outside Syria might prompt U.S. intelligence authorities to question whether they were being transferred by a rogue element or whether it was evidence of a crack in the government's control.
The Syrian opposition is afraid, Idriss told CNN's Amanpour, that al-Assad's forces will then use those weapons sometime in the future - even after the international effort to collect and destroy its chemical weapons arsenal is finished.
"The regime," he said, "is behaving like Saddam Hussein."
Idriss said he talked Thursday about what's happening diplomatically with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who the rebel leader claimed told him "that he will discuss with the Russians how honest the regime is."
"And if our friends discover that the regime is trying to play games and waste time," Idriss said by way of summarizing Kerry's remarks, "the threat of the strikes is still on the table."
Earlier on Thursday, Idriss told NPR that he had not received "any weapons from our American friends," despite reports that lethal aid had indeed started reaching the Syrian opposition.
That includes a U.S. official who told CNN on Wednesday that light and anti-tank weapons as well as ammunition - paid for by the United States albeit made elsewhere - had begun flowing to Syrian rebels over the past two weeks.
Idriss told Amanpour that he "can't talk about weapons," though he did stress that opposition forces were getting help.
"We are getting now a lot of support from our American friends, but I can't talk in detail about all kinds of the support," he said.
For its part, the opposition will support efforts to take control of and eventually dismantle Syria's chemical weapons, with Idriss saying, "We will do our best to help them." But the rebel leader questioned that things will play out as hoped.
"I think the regime will prevent them to go to the locations and to do their job," Idriss said. "I think the regime will tell them, 'Today you can't go out of the hotels because the situation is very dangerous, and tomorrow you can't go,' and they will delay and delay."
And even if Idriss is proven wrong and Syria's chemical weapons are wiped out as part of this process, the rebel leader stressed that bigger issues remain in a civil war that the U.N. estimates has killed more than 100,000 people - most of them by conventional weapons.
"
We have many, many problems with the regime," he said. "The chemical weapons (are) not ... the only problem that we have."
CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.
UPDATE 1: This article has been updated with reaction obtained by CNN from the Iraqi government.
UPDATE 2: This article has been updated with reaction obtained by CNN from Israeli government officials, and with CNN reporting on the delivery of U.S. weapons to the Syrian opposition.
https://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013...general-salim-idriss-claims-to-cnns-amanpour/
What's with Putin being in all Time magazine covers all over the world but North America?.
U.S.
Europe, Middle East and Africa.
Asia
South Pacific
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601130916,00.html
U.S.
Europe, Middle East and Africa.
Asia
South Pacific
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601130916,00.html
PonkPecker
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
- Messages
- 92
Biggest crime of the century and none of us give a shit...
Biggest crime of the century and none of us give a shit...
In Nigeria, the mass abduction of schoolgirls isn't shocking
But CNN has "breaking news" every freaking day because an airplane went down.
Biggest crime of the century and none of us give a shit...
In Nigeria, the mass abduction of schoolgirls isn't shocking
But CNN has "breaking news" every freaking day because an airplane went down.
Brainstormer
New member
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1
Wow hope they can find a way to reprimand the culprits.
I agree, it is shocking how under reported this story is. Here is an update tho.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27304441
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27304441
Maurice Boscorelli
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 19,322
''The Islamist militant group has bombed churches and mosques; kidnapped women and children; and assassinated politicians and religious leaders.
Boko Haram -- whose name means "Western education is sin" in the local Hausa language -- says it wants to impose a stricter enforcement of Sharia law across Africa's most populous nation.''
More Islamic B.S....
Boko Haram -- whose name means "Western education is sin" in the local Hausa language -- says it wants to impose a stricter enforcement of Sharia law across Africa's most populous nation.''
More Islamic B.S....
Intheshadows
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 5
Here hoping the 200 US unit can make a difference.
U
User-E
Guest
#BBCtrending: #RealMenDontBuyGirls and the #BringBackOurGirls campaign
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-27328414
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-27328414
W
Wanker
Guest
U
User-E
Guest
This article is about more than 200 young girls that were kidnapped by evil men more than 3 weeks ago, who have now stated their intention to sell the girls.
Their own police force, army and government didn't really even make an effort to look for them until international social media got ahold of the story.
The reason they were abducted was because they went to school.
These militants believe that education is evil, and that women shouldn't get an education.
Not a laughing matter guys. :NoNoNo:
Their own police force, army and government didn't really even make an effort to look for them until international social media got ahold of the story.
The reason they were abducted was because they went to school.
These militants believe that education is evil, and that women shouldn't get an education.
Not a laughing matter guys. :NoNoNo:
[h=1]Michelle Obama sees own daughters in kidnapped Nigerian girls[/h][h=2]Taking over the president’s weekly radio and Internet address on the eve of the American holiday for honouring mothers, Mrs. Obama said was “outraged and heartbroken” over the abductions[/h]
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/..._girls_importance_of_education_for_girls.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/..._girls_importance_of_education_for_girls.html
Similar threads
