Incorrect interpretation of the Geneva agreement!

A completely wrong interpretation of the agreement between Russia and the United States is now cabled out in Sweden and the Western media. On the contrary, Russia has not backed down the least, however, it has agreed that military intervention should be possible on countries and regimes that use chemical weapons and do not follow international regulations. As the Syrian regime has accepted the destruction of their chemical weapons, consequently Russia's attitude rules, that no intervention is necessary. It is difficult to understand how Sweden and the West have been able to interpret the agreement so wrong, but it's probably because they don’t want to lose face?

Personally I am neutral towards the civil war in Syria, since it is not possible to find any group that clearly struggles for democracy. Assad is certainly a dictator who must be removed, but the alternative today is even worse. The most successful opposition force in Syria is Al-Nusra, which is cooperating with Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab, and intends to transform Syria into a Sunni Muslim Sharia state through Jihad. The rebels are committing unspeakable terror crimes, erasing entire villages and communities and behead men, women and children alive with dull knives in sacrificial ceremonies. It would be appropriate if the FSA promptly deleted them out of their forces and made it abundantly clear that FSA have democratic intentions.

During Assad’s regime, there has at least been room for some kind of religious freedom although the dictatorship has been relentless. It is inconceivable that the U.S. with its approach to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, finances these rebels without proper democratic demands.

I'm still waiting for a credible democratic alternative!

Medkänsla Socialism Rättvisa

Promotion: Politometern Intressant