Why We Should Not Attack Syria

The Syrian mountain town of Maaloula is almost all Christian. They all speak the oldest form of Hebrew there, Aramaic. It is the same language that Jesus spoke on the cross, when He said, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It was the Syria leader Bashar Assad, who set up and funded a school to save and teach the Aramaic language, about 9 years ago in this town of Maaloula. Those are the true facts that cannot be changed. Notice that today at sundown, September 4th, is the beginning of the Jewish New Year. The Syrian "rebels" (a.k.a. al Qaeda) ran a false flag operation, gassing fellow Syrians and blaming it on Assad.The UN has said there is not enough evidence to say Assad did it. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken claim that it was mishandling of weaponry that caused the killing (reported by AP, BBC, and Russia) Assad has point blank said he didn't do it. I know you can't trust that but here's the thing. Why would you kill your own people in the enemy territory? Why not just kill you enemy in the enemy territory? Why would you kill your own with the whole world watching knowing what the response would be. Obama, in turn, takes that staged provocation by the rebels to declare that Assad crossed Obama's red line, and tells the Republicans to do his heavy lifting by rounding up the necessary votes for Obama to send military to depose Assad. Anyone know about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from august 7 1964? Senator Ernest Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated". A traitorous lie by LBI still have not seen any evidence that Assad's forces fired chemical weapons at civilians. Sarin is easy to make. The "rebels" could have either made it themselves or stolen it from a weapons storage site somewhere where the Syrian army soldiers defected. Assad had nothing to gain from gassing civilians, but his opposition has a lot to gain from framing him. So we're all hot and bothered over chemical use in this conflict. Why is it we hear nothing from Christian president regarding Muslims attacking Christians and their churches in these areas? Why hasn't he said or done a thing about the attacks on people of his supposed "Christian" faith? Or are we to believe he has a greater interest in the victims only of Muslim faith? If we review the number of instances where he supported and backed Muslims rather than Christians we would find a great imbalance in the protection of people of his supposed "Christian" faith.The very idea of supporting "the rebels" in this Syria tragedy is well beyond ludicrous - how about "suicidal" relative to we "infidels" who value westerncivilization. Supporting the Assad side is almost as bad they want to focus on those pesky Jewish "infidels" Watch what happens, now that Obama and other countries have funded the muslim terrorists to wipe out Christians. Bush was forced to try sanctions first. Why doesn't that apply now? Why would we help the enemy? Who are the good guys? This is all smoke and mirrors. Who was giving missles to whom in Benghazi? Where are they now? Wote no on Syria intervention. We aren't home from Iraq, or Afgahnistan yet. Why on earth would we attack another country that is no threat to us? Let their neighbors deal with this. Turkey, Lebannon, Saudi Arabia. Why we should not attack Syria? This seems to be the moral dilemma confronting the prime minister of Britain and the president of the US as they gaze righteously upon the carnage in Syria. The immediate cause of their pious wrath was the use of lethal gas ("chemical weapons")to kill over a thousand people in Damascus, the Syrian capital. The 1925 Geneva Protocol outlaws chemical warfare. You may blow people to pieces with bombs but not gas them. Syria is racked in civil war between her horrible dictator Bashar al-Assad and horrible rebels, backed by al-Qaeda. The war is bloody and complicated. It is thought that Assad or one of hishenchmen was responsible for the gas but this is not certain. Russia, sensibly, wants good evidence before any action is taken. Both Cameron and Obama seemed bent on immediate action.What did they want to do? Bomb Syrian chemical facilities and perhaps release lethal gases? (to teach you not to use gas, we're going to gas your people). Or bomb a non-gas weapons facility? (to teach you not to use gas, we're going to bomb a facility that doesn't make gas). How many innocent people did they want to slaughter to demonstrate their moral superiority? In the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the USA provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to gas Iranians. In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam, and turned Iraq into a chaotic mess. This year the US did nothing when the army overthrew the democratically-elected government in Egypt and killed hundreds of people. Obama didn't even recognise the coup as a coup. Now Obama wants to pose as a moral guardian? Even allowing for the rampant hypocrisy and lack of logic, what right has the US, over 6000km away, to interfere in Syrian affairs? (Russia is 500km away). The British Parliament's refusal to back Cameron's silly warmongering was a triumph for democracy and good sense. The fact that Obama seems to have backed off because of this gives me hope, for now (I remain cynical).