China and Russia refuse to allow any intervention on Assad govt

[JayAtl]

This interview was a couple months into the "uprising", stop being retarded the point was if you watch the interview the reporter tries to bait Assad into some questions to paint him in a negative light but if you would have cared to watch it you would see that he isn't a raging psycho.

I'm being retarded and your judging a man's deeds based on his demeanor on an Interview.

 

[fly2012]

Tragic as it is, I am against military intervention. It not only won't solve the problem, it will also make middle east more violent in the future by super powers arming rebellions against whatever government it doesn't like.

International community should pressure Russia to clean the mess, in the mean time, stop arming the anti-government force.

 

[JayAtl]

Tragic as it is, I am against military intervention. It not only won't solve the problem, it will also make middle east more violent in the future by super powers arming rebellions against whatever government it doesn't like.

International community should pressure Russia to clean the mess, in the mean time, stop arming the anti-government force.

in other words , let the massacre continue of Muslims . After all we have history of knowing the Assad family eventually finishes killing enough of Muslims . We are against intervention unless its south china sea.

 

[gambit]

in other words , let the massacre continue of Muslims . After all we have history of knowing the Assad family eventually finishes killing enough of Muslims . We are against intervention unless its south china sea.

The Chinese crowd's attitude of neutrality is momentarily convenient. For now, it serves as a (dubious) moral high ground, but notice they are mute when it comes to Iranian interventions in the ME.

 

[Desert Fox]

classy upbringing.

You're the one who got personal with me in the first place, i only gave you a befitting reply. Don't like your image in the mirror? Don't break the mirror, break your face bharatiya!

Then again perhaps the apple did not fall far from the tree

Thanks for describing yourself, but we are not interested.

 

[zzzz]

in other words , let the massacre continue of Muslims . After all we have history of knowing the Assad family eventually finishes killing enough of Muslims . We are against intervention unless its south china sea.

There is massacre going on in Afghanistan. Just few days ago US army massacred another 6 children. Why do you let massacre continue?

 

[fly2012]

The Chinese crowd's attitude of neutrality is momentarily convenient. For now, it serves as a (dubious) moral high ground, but notice they are mute when it comes to Iranian interventions in the ME.

There's no moral high ground, it is just dirty politics. Why anti-government movement get suppressed in Bahrain but not in Syria. Why no international community blamed the terrorism attacks in Damascus? It is all superpowers dirty games on proxy fightings. If Arab world decides to intervene, I don't have any problems. But I don't want to have US involved. It will be another Iraq. I'd rather have my tax money spent inside the country.

No country has the moral high ground in thie world, all governments are hypocrites. So let's not go there.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The Chinese crowd's attitude of neutrality is momentarily convenient. For now, it serves as a (dubious) moral high ground, but notice they are mute when it comes to Iranian interventions in the ME.

An american talking about moral high ground.

After the lies about WMD in Iraq, the hundreds thousands of civilian 'collateral' deaths both in Iraq and Afghanistan, people who never declared war to the US, most probably didn't even know where the US is, after the propaganda against Libya and the sudden silence when things all went wrong after Gaddafi was murdered.

 

[amidamaru]

Fine they are weak right now, so you think handing them a sovereign nation where they can organize a real army with weapons that they will obtain from Syria's arsenal is a good idea?

i am against overthrowing assad... i am against backing of terrorist, i am against reporting bs and putting assad government down, when the murders are by the terrorist, not assad...

i said it is very smart on americas part.. if they have designs for war and control of the region... if ww3 ever broke out, which i think it will, if america has assad overthrown, even if there troops r not in syria, it works in americas favor.. as it is.. in ww3.. syria would fight against the usa... if assad overthrown, in ww3, the terrorist controlling syria would fight against the usa... but if u had a choice who would fight against u, better choose terrorist who in modern warfare are not very good, as opposed to a proper government, military etc

 

[fly2012]

i am against overthrowing assad... i am against backing of terrorist, i am against reporting bs and putting assad government down, when the murders are by the terrorist, not assad...

i said it is very smart on americas part.. if they have designs for war and control of the region... if ww3 ever broke out, which i think it will, if america has assad overthrown, even if there troops r not in syria, it works in americas favor.. as it is.. in ww3.. syria would fight against the usa...

If WW3 ever breaks out, trust me, Syria is US's last concern.

 

[Juice]

I'm actually suprised the west doesn't take this line too. Better the devil you know. While we did beat the snot out of Iraq, our experience shows the best way to rule most Muslim nations is with a hard @55 who doesn't mind killing millions of his own people (this may be the reason for Chinese support, the "great leap foward" and "cultural revolution" show this works best in China too). But we always have these bleeding hearts in the west.

(and why are we back to the "WW III" will break out fantasy? Recent history shows the big boys look out for their own, despite the ankle-biter nations delusions that they will sacrifice themselves for a little nation that is only a pawn or source of sales to them. WW III will break out if the big guys attack each other only)

 

[fly2012]

I'm actually suprised the west doesn't take this line too. Better the devil you know. While we did beat the snot out of Iraq, our experience shows the best way to rule most Muslim nations is with a hard @55 who doesn't mind killing millions of his own people (this may be the reason for Chinese support, the "great leap foward" and "cultural revolution" show this works best in China too). But we always have these bleeding hearts in the west.

(and why are we back to the "WW III" will break out fantasy? Recent history shows the big boys look out for their own, despite the ankle-biter nations delusions that they will sacrifice themselves for a little nation that is only a pawn or source of sales to them. WW III will break out if the big guys attack each other only)

All superpowers like friendly dictators and there's no exception in the history. Do we prefer a friendly monachy like Bahrain, or a democratic elected Hamas?

People all over the world have bleeding hearts. But when national interests are involved, bleeding hearts are merely taken advantage of. Western powers have done the most horrible things in the last several centuries not because western people are more humane.

I agree with you that WWIII will not break out. Globalization makes the nation boundaries blur and billionares and coorperates that controls all countries will not allow their profit to be damaged. Fight will be among those countries that have nothing to lose.

 

[gpit]

The Chinese response so far on this thread, oh Muslims of these forums. China is right in supporting the genocide of Muslims by Assad because:

1. It keeps the west away
2. Because 2 million Indian kids starve
3. Because India does not treat its Muslims well
4. Because BBC and west lies about Muslims being slaughtered
5. Because reports of Muslims being slaughtered are lies put out by Muslims

This is your higher than mountain pals? heh

We all know it’s pain in the @ss talking to illiterates. Still:

1) It is not that China that involved in the killing.
2) China exercises its due rights to stop others from interfering Syrian internal affairs.
3) Many of the killings are faked by Western countries.


Nonetheless, we the people find a criminal supporter whose country kills millions of its own children now points his dirty finger to Assad, attempting but in vain to contrast to others that his country called India is an angel.

LOL! Here is an India that kills enormous Muslim and millions of children a year. Dude, million is not a small number. As I calculated earlier, if Assad governemnt is a criminal, India government is 200 more criminal than Assad's. Why the heck the loser has never condemned the crime back his country?

Yet, the criminal sponsor rather blames irrelevant countries. Anyone would believe the word from the criminal sponsor?

You the illiterate: the Chinese response so far here is: you pee a puddle and take your own reflection from it, before opening your typical "shinning" but stinky mouth.

 

[muse]

Kudos to Russia and China - for being RESPONSIBLE -- Murderous terrorists made in Saudi and Qatar and trained and armed by US and NATO to create sectarian wars among Muslims, is the last thing anybody should want - but Saudi, Qatari under the tutelage of the US imagine that the demand for liberty and dignity can be suppressed by creating Wahabi/Salafi colonies, and this for the US is an an opportunity to secure it's energy at least till the Canadian shale can come online.

Kudos to Russia and China, for being responsible.

 

[amidamaru]

If WW3 ever breaks out, trust me, Syria is US's last concern.

you fail to see the point..... if ww3 broke out.. a lot of it would be in the middle east... america will be in the middle east.. strategically it is very important... now if you were the usa, and taking on many countries at one time, would rather face a proper organised military, along with 3 or 4 other organised militaries... or would you rather face 3 or 4 organised militarys, and some weakened ones?