Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)

2. Under normal circumstances I'd say the idea that the Rebels

Reply to whathehell (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:29 PM

Sep 2013

Released the gas on their own, either accidentally or on purpose, was a ludicrous conspiracy theory. However, the fact that so many of the rebels are now made up of Al Qaeda, foreign jihadis, and other "professional" terrorists leaves that door wide open.

The "freedom fighters" in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, kill their own civilians all the time to make some kind of point, and often (these days, usually) by strapping explosives to a small child.

I don't know what happened two weeks ago with any kind of certainty and I doubt anyone else does, either.

I would have no problems dropping food, clothing, medicine, etc daily, by the ton, in civilian areas. But taking a military side in this conflict is just dumb.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I admit to being "on the fence" about the proposed strike on Syria -- until I read this [View all] whathehell Sep 2013 OP

Its a blood letting and those participating with the rebels... Historic NY Sep 2013 #1

Yes, I'm hearing that too. n/t whathehell Sep 2013 #5

Under normal circumstances I'd say the idea that the Rebels Nevernose Sep 2013 #2

+1 snagglepuss Sep 2013 #4

I agree. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #6

Yep.. whathehell Sep 2013 #11

I think it's safe to say we have no idea who used the chemical weapons. reformist2 Sep 2013 #3

Then please describe to me how rebels could have carried out such an attack. Barack_America Sep 2013 #8

No. Our leaders need to show it was Assad. The world is unconvinced. reformist2 Sep 2013 #10

Saudis MNBrewer Sep 2013 #18

+1 to every post on this thread. We have no business taking sides in a civil war. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2013 #7

agreed ... x1000 nt littlewolf Sep 2013 #16

And we all know that bombs are so much more humane than chemical weapons. GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #9

Humanitarian relief, for sure. tavalon Sep 2013 #12

I also have felt "uncertain" but have come to much the same conclusion as you have... jimlup Sep 2013 #13

Do you think Kerry is being honest, though? MNBrewer Sep 2013 #19

Yes mostly his dishonesty is... jimlup Sep 2013 #23

concealing the truth. Lying. Being "least untruthful".... MNBrewer Sep 2013 #24

Right...I don't know that Kerry is lying either whathehell Sep 2013 #25

TBH, I read that myself, and.....While I remain skeptical....my position has not changed. eom AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #14

Actually, it's a genocide on both sides. There are no good guys in this. Cleita Sep 2013 #15

NO GOOD GUYS !!!! agree littlewolf Sep 2013 #17

Since we are part of the problem, we are going to have to be part of fixing it. Cleita Sep 2013 #20

It's not a "genocide" on both sides MNBrewer Sep 2013 #21

There is also the UN, and The Hague as well ... 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #22