Saudi Arabia: Assad cannot stay in power This post was originally published on this site. Guardian
Saudi Arabia (world's pre-eminent beheaders) has called on Bashar al-Assad to give up power or be removed by force. The threat was made on Tuesday by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel Al-Jubeir.
“There is no future for Assad in Syria,” Jubeir told journalists at the UN general assembly. “There are two options for a settlement in Syria. One option is a political process where there would be a transitional council. The other option is a military option, which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power. This could be a more lengthy process and a more destructive process but the choice is entirely that of Bashar al-Assad.” The foreign minister did not specify how Assad would be forcibly removed, but pointed out that Saudi Arabia is already backing “moderate rebels” in the civil war.
COMMENTS of people from the discussion on Facebook about this article:
'In a slightly less imperfect world there'd be no future for the House of Saud utterly corrupt monarchy! Is Syria attacking the United States? What is the real reason the United States is involved in this ? What would the United States government do if another nation injected itself into US national government ? I am very confused by all this aggressive behavior on behalf of my government. We are funding fundamentalist Islamists. Why? At least Russia is a long standing ally of Syria, does it not make sense that they would assist Assad? This is all too confusing to me and makes no sense at all. Why do ISIS militants have so much US weaponry? Don't you think that these questions should be answered at least at a basic level? Are these reasonable questions?'
- Frank Pastuck:"And we listen to them for what reason again? Oil is an all time low..."
- Bill Franklin:"In with the Israel? Maybe PUTIN WILL KICK BOTH THEIR ASSESS".
- Sandra Twang:"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. It is beyond me to understand any of this if we do not abide by historically accepted international law. Is Syria attacking the United States? What is the real reason the United States is involved in this ? What would the United States government do if another nation injected itself into US national government ? I am very confused by all this aggressive behavior on behalf of my government. We are funding fundamentalist Islamists. Why? At least Russia is a long standing ally of Syria, does it not make sense that they would assist Assad? This is all too confusing to me and makes no sense at all. Why do ISIS militants have so much US weaponry? Don't you think that these questions should be answered at least at a basic level? Are these reasonable questions? Also so the most fundamental Islam comes out of Saudi Arabia in the form of Wahhabism, they build mosques all over the Middle East to promote these kind of thinking, yet Saudi Arabia is our ally?! Again all the contradictions at this time are mind boggling."
- Larry Hoy:"Lol, it's called Full Spectrum Dominance. US has been doing it at least since 1945. And we took over it from UK. US interests mean Big Oil! You have to understand the code. And we can do this because we're exceptional (?!). The land of the free, home of the brave and all that rot."
- Sandra Twang:"Then isn't the basic problem that the United States needs to be held to uphold the international agreed upon law through a legal body of some sort? If law is not upheld then how can there be any solution to these problems? Are you telling me that the United States is beyond the law?"
- Larry Hoy:"There is such a body. The ICC, International Criminal Court. Yes, there does seem to be some hypocrisy at work here from certain quarters. Yes, I hold my country to a higher standard, and DO NOT stand behind meddling in other countries' business. US is the only country that garrisons the globe with military bases. Actions like this I would expect from George W Bush. But Barack Obama was supposed to be different."
- Sandra Twang:"I think that this goes way beyond singular politicians or congresspeople of a certain term. Is there not agreed upon international law of how nations conduct themselves and if the United States is not abiding by international law should not other nations be demanding that it does, or any nation for that matter who acts as an aggressor against another. If the laws are not upheld then won't the world continue to descend into violence and poverty? Won't we all become refugees at some point in time?"
- Larry Hoy:"I read a great deal. I am reading a book by Dean Henderson right now called Big Oil and Their Bankers. Your questions are my questions. I've come to the conclusion that this is not a world run on principles of law."
- Nedzad Besic:"Better check is there any future for you, bastards."
- Anita Lajoie:"THE ICC GAVE A PASS ON THE MAVI MARMORO... I WOULD NOT LOOK TO THEM FOR JUSTICE. THAT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW."
See original article in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/saudi-arabia-warns-there-is-no-future-for-assad-in-syria