Syria's "Arab Spring" jihad death toll now up to 10,000+ - Obama does nothing

[Jeebus]

UN says al Qaeda behind Syria suicide bombs death toll from civil war reaches 10,000

UN leader Ban Ki-moon has said he believes al-Qaeda committed a major bomb attack in Damascus that left dozens dead, and that up to 10,000 people have now been killed in Syria.

Ban said President Bashar al-Assad has still not implemented a peace plan agreed with UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan.

"Very alarmingly and surprisingly, a few days ago, there was a huge serious massive terrorist attack. I believe that there must be al-Qaeda behind it. This has created again very serious problems," Ban said at a youth event at the UN headquarters.

Why did Obama find it so necessary to use force against Libya, but ignore Syria?

Perhaps because an election is near?

Phony Dem liberals, only willing to do "the right thing" when it is politically expedient.

[Balt Observer]

Obama doesn't care about anything but his political future.

Millions of duped Americans are finally starting to see that.

In November, they will do something about it.

[Contumacious]

Why did Obama find it so necessary to use force against Libya, but ignore Syria?

Because there is a good possibility that the turmoil has been caused by Mossad provocateurs.

[StevenJB]

Because there is a good possibility that the turmoil has been caused by Mossad provocateurs.

Do you have a link to your wet dream?

[SalisburySage]

Ask yourself what is in the best interest, over all, to the United States. Assad or a fanatical AL Qaeda backed jihadist government. Why would Obama get rid of Assad.

Let them kill each other, dead jihadists can only be a plus to the United States.

[Contumacious]

Ask yourself what is in the best interest, over all, to the United States. Assad or a fanatical AL Qaeda backed jihadist government. Why would Obama get rid of Assad.

To stay the flock away from the internal affairs of other nations.

But the scumbags insdie the DC beltway like to grandstand for Bibi and also enjoy cutting off their noses to spite the faces.

.

[StevenJB]

But the scumbags insdie the DC beltway like to grandstand for Bibi and also enjoy cutting off their noses to spite the faces.

We understand your agenda quite well. You don't have to explain anymore. What is bad for Israel is more important to you than what is good for America! Is that correct? Have you sought out professional counseling?

[Contumacious]

We understand your agenda quite well. You don't have to explain anymore. What is bad for Israel is more important to you than what is good for America! Is that correct? Have you sought out professional counseling?

We understand your agenda quite well. You don't have to explain anymore. You are an Israel Firster. What is good for Israhell is more important to you than what is good for America! Is that correct? Have you sought out professional counseling?

.

[grggngll]

We understand your agenda quite well. You don't have to explain anymore. You are an Israel Firster. What is good for Israhell is more important to you than what is good for America! Is that correct? Have you sought out professional counseling?

.

The interests of the American People are generally aligned with those of Israel.

The interest of 0 and your garden variety Leftists are different.

[StevenJB]

Ask yourself what is in the best interest, over all, to the United States. Assad or a fanatical AL Qaeda backed jihadist government. Why would Obama get rid of Assad.

Let them kill each other, dead jihadists can only be a plus to the United States.

Quoted for the truth. The real truth of the matter is that Bashar al-Assad is better for the U.S. and the E.U. because he is not al Qaeda. al Assad is very progressive because he allows women freedom to pursue education and to dress as they please. al Assad keeps the Israeli border quiet. al Assad brings stability compared to the chaos of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. Syria has prospered under the Assads. He may not be democratic but Islam and Democracy do not do well together. Simply put, Bashar al Assad is the very lesser of many evils.

[zenwalk]

Simply put, Bashar al Assad is the very lesser of many evils.

For Israel perhaps.

[StevenJB]

Phony Dem liberals, only willing to do "the right thing" when it is politically expedient.

"The right thing" to do is not to do anything. Interceding in an Arab civil war will bring the U.S. many many problems including an all out regional war. Bashar al-Assad has already promised that he would fire chemically and biologically toxic missiles at Israeli population centers if Syria is attacked by the U.S. That would bring Israel into the conflict which then would bring Hezbollah in Lebanon into the conflict, as well. If Syria attacks Israel with biological and chemical weaponry, Israel would flat out destroy Syria. Then, Hezbollah responds with rockets at Israel, and Lebanon would get demolished by Israel. Hundreds of thousands would perish because of American intervention.

Let the Arabs kill each other. They have been killing each other for centuries. That will never change.

[soulflower]

Syria is a brutal autocratic regime but they've been helpful to the US in the war on terror.

They've even helped the US 'interrogate' terror suspects. That's gotta count for something right Righties?

U.S. Secretly Rendered Man to Syria and Tortured Him
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011...-tortured-him/

[Jeebus]

"The right thing" to do is not to do anything.

So explain his rationale for attacking Libya,and how it differs from Syria......

Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.

The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.

Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

or this

President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its allies launched strikes on Libya to keep Muammar Qaddafi from continuing his attacks on civilians in defiance of international demands.

“This is not an outcome that the United States or any of our partners sought,” Obama said yesterday in Brasilia, Brazil, where he started a scheduled five-day trip to Latin America. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”

et tu hypocrite?

[soulflower]

So explain his rationale for attacking Libya,and how it differs from Syria......



or this


et tu hypocrite?

It's pretty simple. Syria is not Libya. Much larger population, more diverse, and more chaotic. There's a good chance we'd end up helping some of the same folks who helped kill our troops in Iraq. Assad is the lesser of several evils...

[Balt Observer]

It's pretty simple. Syria is not Libya. Much larger population, more diverse, and more chaotic. There's a good chance we'd end up helping some of the same folks who helped kill our troops in Iraq. Assad is the lesser of several evils...

In other words, yet another example of Hussein's Audacity of Hypocrisy.

[E. Goldstein]

In other words, yet another example of Hussein's Audacity of Hypocrisy.

Since Jeebus won't answer, maybe you will. Are you in favor of US intervention in Syria?

[E. Goldstein]

UN says al Qaeda behind Syria suicide bombs death toll from civil war reaches 10,000



Why did Obama find it so necessary to use force against Libya, but ignore Syria?

Perhaps because an election is near?

Phony Dem liberals, only willing to do "the right thing" when it is politically expedient.

Are you in favor of using force against Syria?

[Gopher]

If it's just another example of Muslims killing Muslims then the only intervention necessary is to encourage it.

[soulflower]

Humanitarian reasons could apply to any country with a brutal dictatorship. Obviously there are other things to consider before bombing a country back to the stone age. Like I said earlier, Syria is far more chaotic than Libya. Lots of dueling agendas and a larger population. It's tough to see how we could have any kind of success in Syria without ground forces and after Iraq and Afghanistan, America doesn't want another ground war in a Muslim country.