Al Qaeda vows 'Volcano of Revenge' over Syrian suspected gas attack
Source: Reuters
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda affiliate threatened a "Volcano of Revenge" against Syrian government security and military targets in retaliation for a suspected poison attack near Damascus, the SITE Monitoring Group reported late on Tuesday.
A branch of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) said in a statement it would punish Syria for a series of massacres, including last week's alleged chemical weapons attack, after meeting eight Syrian factions.
"The meeting factions decided to carry out the "Volcano of Revenge" invasion in response to the regime's massacres against our people in Eastern Ghouta, the last of which was the chemical weapons massacre," SITE quoted the statement, dated August 26, as saying.
"They have decided to strike the main joints of the regime in imprisoned Damascus, including security branches, support and supply points, training centres, and infrastructure," it said.
...
Read more: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=152101:al-qaeda-vows-volcano-of-revenge-over-syrian-suspected-gas-attack&Itemid=2#axzz2dFR0FrMe
Well it seems that al Qaeda and the warmongers are in full agreement.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Why do you think its ok for chemical weapons to be used by anyone?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)David__77
(23,386 posts)I don't think the US should intervene in the Syrian civil war, and certainly not on the side of the heirs of Osama.
I don't think their practices are OK, you know like eating their victims or shooting children for joking about god, but I also don't think the US should intervene to kill the insurgents.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)your comment to imply about the "warmongers" but if I was mistaken and you didnt mean to imply that then you have my apologies.
I will grant it to you though that I dont think we or Russia should be involved in arming either side however I do believe that a firm foot needs to be applied to the backside of whoever uses chemical weapons be it the rebels or the Syrian government.
David__77
(23,386 posts)I disagree with "firm foot" if it means military intervention, whether against the government or the insurgents. I do think that the UN inspectors should investigate if weapons were used, but they cannot possibly determine who used them. I do consider that some forces among think tanks and policy wonks, are indeed warmongers and utterly disassociated with the opinion of the large majority in this country that want nothing to do with another war in the middle east.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)but there are times when its needed as well because in general just shaking a finger at someone and telling them they were naughty rarely makes them stop.
David__77
(23,386 posts)There is no national security benefit, but a lot of risk. Geneva II is the way to go.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)and do the right thing even if there is no benefit to us simply because its the right thing to do?
David__77
(23,386 posts)Perhaps a few cliques of radical Islamists. Not the Syrian people. But the short answer is that we should only take action when it impacts US national security.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)in aiding the passengers on the MS St. Louis and turning them away thus forcing them back to Europe?
David__77
(23,386 posts)What's with this line of "questioning." Accepting refugees is not a violation of another country's sovereignty.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)On the other hand it also does not aid our national security in granting them entry.
David__77
(23,386 posts)Accepting refugees is a different matter entirely, in my opinion. This is a country of refugees, in a real sense. They have built the country into what it is.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)weapons by anyone?
Plus not preventing it can actually have a long term negative effect on national security because if such a thing isnt prevented it can cause instability which can spread to neighboring country to neighboring country.
For example say we do nothing to stop and some idiots decides to use on on Israel?
They have nukes and if they use them in a retaliatory attack......................
David__77
(23,386 posts)Reestablish normal diplomatic relations with Syria, work with Turkey and Jordan to secure the borders, and support a peace conference. That's how, and it requires no violation of sovereignty whatsoever.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)David__77
(23,386 posts)Russia should provide defensive weapons to the Syrian government to help prevent intervention and a broader war.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)David__77
(23,386 posts)Bottom line, the US is supporting al Qaeda, and Russia is supporting the legal government. Russia is not even providing offensive weapons. There's nothing immoral for the latter, but much immoral about the former.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)However, I believe that, thus far, over one-hundred-thousand people have died in the civil war by being shot, slashed, or blown-to-bits by conventional weapons: Why then does the use of tactical chemical weapons suddenly have us frothing at the mouth about protecting civilians as we prepare to launch yet another War of Choice in the middle-east in which thousands, if not tens-of-thousands, more civilians will be maimed and killed by our forces using conventional weapons bought from the same cartels which have brought the last two disastrous wars to the region?
Just askin.
Change? You can Hope.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Everything is are fault! Dammit the sun came up this morning and the US is to blame.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)about killing civilians? When did this start? Or maybe it's mostly about revenge.
Archae
(46,327 posts)Doonesbury did a good strip on this theme, a US soldier was being guided by a native Iraqi, who wanted to kill someone who's family had killed one of his family.
Turned out it happened in the 14th century.
The US soldier says "What is wrong with you people?"
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)merge, coalesce, and slip like oil
hatrack
(59,585 posts)150 years after a failed secession movement, still plenty of Rebel flags and "War Of Northern Aggression" bullshit floating around this neck of the woods.
Maybe not quite as deadly serious as such preoccupations might be in Tikrit or Damascus, but plenty of tinder ready for whenever the time is right.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... to be followed by the "tsunami of terror", the "hurricane of hell", the "blizzard of blood", et al. Maybe they can use the system from the National Weather Service for naming hurricanes, and work their way through the alphabet for the kind of terrors they will unleash upon the world. It will never end.
Township75
(3,535 posts)Imagine th us military fighting with their AQ allies to crush the oppressive Syrian regime!! We share the common goal and must unite our hands hearts and minds to achieve the new beginning in Syria. For us. For the world. For Syria!
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Bosonic
(3,746 posts)because Jabhat al-Nusra straight up stated they would revenge attack Shiite villages (presumably containing mostly non-combatants).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014575379
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)al Qaeda oh yeah, smash random buildings, ruin infrastructure, terrify random people who don't have the means to leave their homes.
al Qaeda are like an asshole who kicks their dog,beats their wife and kids..because they are miserable failures.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)now that our old BFFs decided to wait for the UN to review and vote!
Whoopee!!!!
jic.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)during the Afghan Russian war. In fact, you could say that our covert funding made the Taliban what it is today.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Given our track record counter productive screw ups in the middle east and a shallow understanding of who or what the enemy might be this could be good advice.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)One cannot but be tempted ...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Let's just get the fuck out of the Middle East once and for all.