Arabs are vile backwords subhumans this is well established and well known. Best to just use rockets to destroy the entire peninsula and move on forever. And whilst we're at it we may as well pour acid all over the entire continent of Africa, nothing of value is to be found there in the way of lifeforms.

^ Blacklisted and reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10796150/Syria-chemical-weapons-how-the-Telegraph-found-evidence-of-chlorine-and-ammonia-gas-bombs.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/evidence-mounts-of-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria-a-968108.html

both about the same incident.

There are a few more, but I don't feel like copy/pasting them all and I feel these two are sufficient evidence.

I concur with the comments below both articles. There "found evidence" is no real evidence at all for assad's regime using chemical weapons.

I didn't say that link was about him not using chemical weapons... oO
But for you: here a link that says he did not oder chemical wapons attack -> [uCuqxbz33vWGPxHDUg=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild[/i][/uCuqxbz33vWGPxHDUg]

Yo, the article itself says there is no identified source for the information. Assuming it has some truth, though, all it says is that Assad himself did not order the attack.

I mean, I completely agree that we should discount the arguments from the rebels about the radio broadcasts, but by that same reasoning, we should also discount the government's claim of innocence. All we are left with is the clear fact that SOMEONE used chlorine weapons, and then we have multiple eyewitnesses saying a Syrian plane bombed them. Would they have reason to lie? We don't know. Could they be mistaken? Sure, but the only credible third-party evidence that we have is evidence that says the Syrian government did it.

True. There is no real hard evedence that Assad regime used or not used chemical wepons.
The U.N. has said chemical weapons have been used in Syria without blaming either side.

The only other fact is that there is a stockpile of chemical weapons held by the Assad regime. Of course, the rebels/terrorists could theoretically have stolen some, but I haven't hear anything about that. Things do point to the regime, in the 2011 case, of course.

Exercising my worse eye today, pardon if I misread something.

When a man uses chemical warfare on his own unarmed civilians, there should be a whole line of countries competing to be the first to beat the living sh*t out of him.

The grounds that this man uses chemical warfare is the same with why countries aren't being first in line to help in other serious conflicts, such as the Congo: Pragmatism (some folk call this "real politics").

The USA and Russia are both making the same stupid mistake in this case. Russia is supporting Assad, a terrible leader who is doing harm to his people. Many of the Syrian rebels (as the American media describes them) or terrorists (how Syria describes them) have committed atrocities attempting to take down Assad.

Folk say its often a mistakes, but it's precisely what America was aiming for - destabilisation and violence, putting the SAR, a country who has spoken against American policy in recent years, disabled. Russia's policy is not to lose an ally in the Middle East. In my opinion, though, it doesn't seem like Russia will do much - one, since they already have problems near home, two, since Iran has way more troops in Iraq (why hasn't anyone made a big deal of that?

Both Assad and most of the groups fighting him are also fighting ISIS. I feel that there was a huge chance missed by Russia and the USA. They could have jointly threatened to pull back aid unless their respective proxies in the region (Assad and some of these groups) agreed to a temporary ceasefire while ISIS was being fought.

America's primary goal isn't do destroy the Levant, the Levant is doing good things for America in world oil economy, it's to destroy the SAR, a country who does not want to become another American base in the region. The Levant works well for the SAR, as well; it has the few borders with it, so they can both attack their foe.

Currently, these two sides are taking resources intended to be used against a common enemy and using them against each other.

That's what civil wars are all about.

As a result, ISIS continues to be a regional power, because Assad and these groups won't leave each other strong enough to fight ISIS. Making this agreement (which Assad and the groups would almost certainly agree to) would not only serve to unify Syria against ISIS, it would also provide the first step in any possible peace negotiations between Assad and the rebels, while also providing a step towards deescalation for the USA and Russia.

As terrible as it sounds, the Levant is good for America (somewhat) and the SAR (somewhat).

The only other fact is that there is a stockpile of chemical weapons held by the Assad regime. Of course, the rebels/terrorists could theoretically have stolen some, but I haven't hear anything about that. Things do point to the regime, in the 2011 case, of course.

Is that even a proven truth? Or is this like Iraq's nukes? And even if there was, what are the rebels going to say? We stole some chemical weapons, this will make us look so good, and the government doesn't want to be seen as that weak and incompetent to have these weapons stolen, so it will keep quiet as well.

Edited 10/22/2015 00:07:22

Is that even a proven truth? Or is this like Iraq's nukes?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22307705

Yup, it's truth, Xapy.

murica fanboys believe every lie they are fed with. Assad used chemical weapons as much as Saddam Hussein's soldiers killed babies in Kuwait.

A lie, repeated often enough, will be believed.

Ugh. Every.single.discussion about the Middle East is filled with people either bowing down and worshipping America or people ranting on about how evil America is and how we should burn the country on a stake or something.

I'm going to go out on a big limb here and say that stopping ISIS is more important than determining America's moral alignment. But what do I know? Maybe chanting "AMERICA IS EVIL! AMERICA IS EVIL!" enough times will complete the magic spell to make ISIS vanish into thin air.

I agree with Eklipse {TJC}: America is not evil, ISIS got there weapons from them by mistake, and they only destabilize countries to help them in the long run.

You wanna know what, why don't we get the globe to Focus on Fusion energy, that away no oil interests will have any power in the Middle East, and we can just sort of let it sort its self out.

That's my 2 cents on the entirety of what to do with the Middle East.

Ugh. Every.single.discussion about the Middle East is filled with people either bowing down and worshipping America or people ranting on about how evil America is and how we should burn the country on a stake or something.

The most important issues in the Middle East are usually something that America has made and is involved in. An analogy: a boy gets beat up by his bully at school, later brought to the director's office.

Director (to boy): I'm sorry, that must have not been nice, we'll make sure this is handled.
Director (to bully): Why did you beat him up?
Bully: Ugh, stop bringing it up, What I did isn't important; we need to fix this boy's problem. Maybe chanting "BULLY IS EVIL! BULLY IS EVIL!" enough times will make his problems vanish into the air. But I think not.

I agree with Eklipse {TJC}: America is not evil, ISIS got there weapons from them by mistake, and they only destabilize countries to help them in the long run.

All major governments are evil. America just pops up way more on the evil scene in mindly talk since it's invading, influencing or strongly affecting every country there is. The Levant got bit of their equipment from America, of course - I thought this was established, that America later apologised for it by saying the Levant didn't seem so evil at the time. There'a a couple photographs of American diplomats and some Levantine soldiers smiling and ready to deal.

It's favourable to America if Levant keeps on existing - that's bit of the grounds that they're not completely destroying it in short time, like they did with Iraq and Afghanistan already.

You really need oil for more than just energy purposes japan77 plastics to bitman is made from crude oil.

Police academy 19 starring the USA

Panda you fucking narcissist no one gives a fuck. You dont have to let us know who you blacklist or report because no one gives a fuck its as simple as that. If you're trying to hurt muh fwee fwees then OH NO SOME FAGGOT ON THE INTERNET BLACKLISTED AND REPORTED ME I THINK IM GONNA CRY NOW

tbh America's military history has been almost entirely about big countries underestimating small local militias.

American Revolution, Vietnam War, arming the Taliban in Afghanistan... all instances of this that come easily to mind.

An analogy: a boy gets beat up by his bully at school, later brought to the director's office.

Director (to boy): I'm sorry, that must have not been nice, we'll make sure this is handled.
Director (to bully): Why did you beat him up?
Bully: Ugh, stop bringing it up, What I did isn't important; we need to fix this boy's problem. Maybe chanting "BULLY IS EVIL! BULLY IS EVIL!" enough times will make his problems vanish into the air. But I think not.

You're missing a very key part of that analogy. In this case, the boy who was victimized isn't just reporting to the director. No, this boy has grabbed an arsenal of weapons and is on a mass shooting spree to get revenge for his mistreatment.

Does the bully take a lot of blame for pushing the boy that far? Yeah. However, I would think that stopping the omnicidal maniac who's bent on killing as many people as possible is a far more pressing concern than telling the bully how evil he is.

Your analogy is also wrong.

More correct would be, a guy goes from school to school, finding him some outsiders, supply them with weapons and encourage them to go on a homocidal rampage, so that he can take over the school indirectly, or directly later in justifying his intervention.

He did that in countless schools before, Guatemala Elementary, Honduras Middle School, El Salvador School for Higher Learning, Venezuela University, Ecuador School of Economics, Bolivia Elementary, Lybia Technical University, Vietnam People University, Iraq Modern School and so on, and so on.

While the homicidal maniac with the gun must be stopped, it should be clear who the real bad guy behind all the school killings is and who also must be stopped to prevent future schools from being victimized. Not to mention that he should be put to trial.

Edited 10/22/2015 14:59:53