Search results

really? because i found it fitting there was barely a mumour when the result was given. certainly no cheering. maybe they did in responce to speeches earlier, but the main even was sombre.

except this is nonsence, ignorant of the fact we are already attacking Isil in Iraq.

you are taking one story and overlaying on another. CIA actions to destabilise Syria does not lead to US creating Isil, as you seem to want to imply. and this is all a distraction from the main point i made earlier that Assad is not in an shape of form part of the solution to Syria.

the narrative to this conspiracy, as with so many, doesn't fit with the real world events. Isil didnt get going going until several years into the Syrian civil war. thats not to say the US didnt meddle, but suggestions of direct involvement with Isil are far fetched. and "the US" didnt write...

that's a sad indictment of the Alawites and other groups that they have no other potential leader among them. the problem with your position is that Assad is not an option either for the millions flee him and his regime in the first place. anyone that thinks supporting him will lead to a...

i'm a No because there is no strategic objective, its more about being involved because everyone else is, than actually addressing the problems in Syria. not that you can negotiate a solution all the time Assad is in power and backed by Russia, the whole situation is a big fustercluck.