To think the West wouldn't bother with Syria if it wasnt for oil?

[malificent7]

According to google crude oil is the no one Syrian export.

Whilst im glad we are helping victims of gas attacks i dont think US or UK would be that bothered if it wasnt forboil.

Islamophobia has historically been increasing in Western Europe and the Commonwealth, particularly amount the previously liberal middle class and younger demographics, whereas the opposite has been happening in the US where the Muslims are mostly considered to be a foreign policy issue. It's gotten to the stage where Islamophobia is worse in the Commonwealth than in the US.

There's a strong chance that Syria would have been bombed for the sake of Islamophobia. A lot of European countries have a strong nationalist culture derived from the crusades against Syria - think about the national anthem of English, Jerusalem, if you want to understand what I mean.

OP the war in Syria is a civil war. Between the Syrian government openly supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
Opposing factions such as ISIS and the free Syrian Army are but two of the groups opposing Assad. Britain has nothing to gain from oil in Syria it was managed by Assad and the Syrian government which is why before the war Syria was quite a wealthy country.
Please explain how the UK can benefit from Syrian oil? The recent bombing was because of the use of chemical weapons. Which are illegal. Precision bombing took out the chemical warfare facilities. There were no civilian casualties. This was not an intervention in the war.
cocacolamonster
What utter nonsense you have written. Syria was not not bombed because of Islamaphobia which in fact is growing faster in Europe than anywhere else.
The national anthem of the United Kingdom is God Save the Queen.
Jerusalem is not and never has been the national anthem.

Poshindevon is quite correct re our involvement in Syria and also that the English national anthem is God Save the Queen, NOT Jerusalem.

think about the national anthem of English, Jerusalem, if you want to understand what I mean.

Well you've just made yourself look utterly stupid!

There's not really enough crude oil in Syria for it to be of concern to most countries, hence why they stayed out of it for almost a decade. It's not Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait or Libya. The gas attack is the only reason for them to go in, because it violates so many international conventions that they can no longer ignore it. Also, it's become to much of a focal point for Russia and Iran, and a threat to KSA & the rest of the Gulf.

cocacolamonster are you sure you're from Sri Lanka, as you claim elsewhere (I remember you for your odd posts)?

You make very odd mistakes for someone actually from there.

Eg US is actually less Islamophobic than Europe or anywhere in the Commonwealth

It's strange that the fact that eg Pakistan, Malaysia and Brunei are part of the Commonwealth, would have passed you by.

@UserInfinityplus1 Read up on the national anthem of England - Jerusalem is widely considered to be the main one in many circles, notably middle class settings like cricket and rugby.

And besides the middle class, Google informs me that The Sun agrees to: www.thesun.co.uk/sport/5955767/jerusalem-english-national-anthem-god-save-the-queen-commonwealth-games-england/

Sorry you lost me at that link to The Sun! Seriously give it up because you could not be more wrong —or more of an ignoramus—

@PerkingFaintly

Canada and Australia are certainly more Islamophobic than the US, particularly among certain classically liberal demographic groups such as urban middle class and youth, but one thing to note is that Muslims are somewhat thought of as a foreign policy issue rather than a domestic policy issue in the US,

Western Europe has a strong Pro-Muslim lobby which doesn't really exist in the Commonwealth.

So you're using the word "Commonwealth" to mean the UK, Canada and Australia, cocacolamonster?

Or, better than us inferring it from your posts, how about you state which countries you are referring to when you use the word "Commonwealth" in this thread, cocacolamonster.

Syria probably ranks quite far down the list of prospective oil producers. I used to work in the energy sector and I think it's production has fallen for years plus the big companies (the supermajors that were there) pulled out years ago, mid 2000s from what I can remember.

Oops' 'its production' not it's...

When I was at school, my English teacher explained to us that Blake's poem JERUSALEM (the set to music version of which is NOT the National Anthem) was really an attack on the Church of England (those dark satanic mills), so might not be useful for your purposes, Coca-cola

cocacolamonster
There is a lot of relevant history in regards to Britain's Middle Eastern policy, but I would go as far back as the crusades, FFS. The crusades were nearly 1000 year ago and were an attempt to control Jerusalem.

It would be a lot more relevant to discuss the Syke-Picot line post WWI, and the policies after WWII to install leaders in the middles east who were friendly with the British or French.

Putin would clearly like to control the area, he would then have a port on the Med. Britain/USA has been trying to keep Russia north of the middle east for years.

*wouldn't

Cocoacolamonster
The consensus of opinion is that your ignorance is astounding.
God Save the Queen/King has been the British national anthem since 1745 . Jerusalem the hymn using Blakes poem was set to music in 1916. It is not the national anthem.
So you mix in middle class cricket and rugby circles do you?
You have gone so far off the original question its ludicrous.
The UK France and the USA are part of NATO the bombings are not oil related. OP you are misguided if you think it is.

I forgot to add that to change the national anthem from God Save the Queen to another song is a constitutional matter and a couple of numptys cant change it because they prefer a different song. That is an insult to her majesty and would create a legal problem.
But its in the SUN therefore it must be true

My take on this current interest in Syria is for the U.K. to sell more weapons to the Saudis who happen to want Assad out because among other things, he has protected Christian communities in Syria.

Also, Turkey has an interest in destroying this neighbour because it wants to stop the Kurds gaining any power and also it has an expansionist policy - Neo-Ottoman style.

We support Turkey because they can help destroy the EU which is the main competitor of the petrodollar. Our main ally is the USA and we are Trump's poodles.

The rest of Europe is desperately trying to generate peace which included negotiating with Putin but we, with our Brexit, cannot exist without conflict. We sell weapons, that's what we do, sadly.

The USA has an interest in expanding its NATO bases all round the world and it doesn't like Russia having bases, with the blessing of Assad, in Syria. We help.

It had been trying to overthrow Assad so that it can create more NATO bases there. We help.

Ultimately it does all come down to oil because it is about protecting the petrodollar. We help.

If it wasn't for oil, the west would have no interest in any part of the Middle East apart from Israel, and maybe the Suez Canal.

And poor Cocacolamonster. I'm sure she is well aware that GSTQ has been the national anthem of Great Britain since God was a boy.

However, the adoption of Jerusalem as an English anthem has been discussed in Parliament and it has been officially adopted as such for many international sporting events: 'On St George's Day, 23 April 2010, the Commonwealth Games Council for England launched a poll to allow the public to decide which anthem would be played at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India. Voters could choose between "God Save the Queen", "Jerusalem" and "Land of Hope and Glory" with the winning song being adopted as the official anthem for Team England. "Jerusalem" was declared the winner on 30 May 2010, securing 52% of the vote.'

Maybe Cocacolamonster isn't so dim after all.

As for bombing Syria because we suspected 'gas attacks', the truth is slowly coming out - even though it's all gone quiet from mouthy Boris&May:

NEW YORK, (InterPressService) – US Defense Secretary James Mattis dropped a political bombshell last week when he said the U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports that the Syrian government had used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens.

truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/mattis-drops-syria-chemical-weapons-bombshell-we-have-no-evidence/

Syria government behind Sarin attack - UN investigators
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41173133

UN human rights investigators have concluded that the Syrian Air Force carried out a chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town in April. At least 83 people died when a Su-22 jet dropped a bomb filled with the nerve agent Sarin on Khan Sheikhoun, a report by a commission of inquiry says.

That was for the chemical weapons attack on 4 April last year. (Russia was an apologist for the Syrian govt in that attack, denying the Syrian govt had dropped chemical weapons.)

For the attack on 7 April this year, the OPCW team only collected samples 2 days ago due to being fired on when they first visited. I haven't seen any results published from that yet.

Syria 'chemical' attack: Experts finally visit Douma site
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43850979

(The editorial item from counterpoint is dated March 2018, before the most recent attack but after the OPCW identified that sarin was definitely used in the April 2017 attack.)