Al Qaeda vows 'Volcano of Revenge' over Syrian suspected gas attack

[David__77]

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]

1. Ok Dave, I'll bite.

Why do you think its ok for chemical weapons to be used by anyone?

[Scootaloo]

2. When did you stop beating your wife with those loaded questions? n/t

[cstanleytech]

4. Sorry never been married, nice try though Scootaloo. nt

[Scootaloo]

5. Sometimes a statement goes over someone's head; sometimes they duck.

[cstanleytech]

7. And sometimes you shoot and miss. nt

[David__77]

3. You think using chemical weapons is OK? I don't.

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]

6. No, you were the one that seemed to be implying it was ok or atleast thats how I took

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]

8. Then you did misinterpret.

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]

9. Oh certainly the use of any military force should be the last resort Dave

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]

10. To me, this is far from such a case.

There is no national security benefit, but a lot of risk. Geneva II is the way to go.

[cstanleytech]

20. So we should only do the right thing when its a benefit? Shouldnt we instead try

and do the right thing even if there is no benefit to us simply because its the right thing to do?

[David__77]

23. This is the "right thing" for no one whose interests we should weigh.

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]

24. So then in your opinion was the government correct in not taking action

in aiding the passengers on the MS St. Louis and turning them away thus forcing them back to Europe?

[David__77]

25. So then you approve wife beating?

What's with this line of "questioning." Accepting refugees is not a violation of another country's sovereignty.

[cstanleytech]

28. "Accepting refugees is not a violation of another country's sovereignty."

On the other hand it also does not aid our national security in granting them entry.

[David__77]

29. I think violation of national sovereignty require a threat to our own.

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]

30. How exactly then is it different to preventing the usage of chemical

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]

31. You stop intervening in the civil war.

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]

32. Doesn't that include Russia not shipping those S-300s you mentioned?

[David__77]

33. No, the US should not ship weapons to any party.

Russia should provide defensive weapons to the Syrian government to help prevent intervention and a broader war.

[cstanleytech]

35. So its ok for Russia to intervene in the civil war but not the US......Okkkkk. nt

[David__77]

37. That's right. US should not support al Qaeda.

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]

39. OP did not say that the use of CW is OK

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]

11. Wait a second, they didn't blame the US

Everything is are fault! Dammit the sun came up this morning and the US is to blame.

[Turbineguy]

12. Al Qeada suddenly has qualms

about killing civilians? When did this start? Or maybe it's mostly about revenge.

[Archae]

13. Revenge! And then revenge against the revengers! Ad nausuem...

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]

17. and the informal coalitions between the parties with an interest in the ME

merge, coalesce, and slip like oil

[hatrack]

18. Not exclusive to the Middle East . . .

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]

36. Yep. Now it's the "volcano of revenge"...

... 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]

14. So we could have Obama and AQ working together??

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]

16. No. We should just stay out of it and let AQ take care of it. nt

[DeSwiss]

21. Well, we created them so why not? :-| n/t

[Bosonic]

15. ISIL/ISIS must have a better PR dept than Jabhat al-Nusra

because Jabhat al-Nusra straight up stated they would revenge attack Shiite villages (presumably containing mostly non-combatants).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014575379

[Sunlei]

19. no wonder Assad, high officials and families are reported to have left the country.

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]

22. Yeah! Our new BFFs are joining us in the attack....

now that our old BFFs decided to wait for the UN to review and vote!

Whoopee!!!!


jic.

[Squinch]

27. Well, the "freedom fighters of the mujahadeen," AKA the Taliban. were our BFF's

during the Afghan Russian war. In fact, you could say that our covert funding made the Taliban what it is today.

[pa28]

26. First do no harm.

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]

34. "...al Qaeda and (our} warmongers are in full agreement"

One cannot but be tempted ...

[Cali_Democrat]

38. So we're now allied with Al-Qaeda?

Let's just get the fuck out of the Middle East once and for all.