Now, when everybody knows with so many proofs against US that it is the biggest enemy of Muslim world, so at this point of time all Muslim nations should unite together to fight their real enemy but actions and recent support by KSA to US for waging war on Syria shows different story.
Recently "Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Sunday that Saudi Arabia has agreed to support a U.S.-led military "strike" in Syria, and that other Arab governments are prepared to sign a statement denouncing the use of chemical weapons in Syria and blaming it on President Bashar al-Assad".
Robert Fisk writes in The Independent, "Really, who writes this stuff for Kerry? There was "armchair isolationism". Why an armchair? And who was the target of the weird reference to post-First World War US isolationism?
In other article Robert Fisk criticizes, "While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad's Alawite dictatorship; Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them.
President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world.
Rulers of both states inherit power from their families - just as Bashar has done - and Saudi Arabia is an ally of the Salafist-Wahabi rebels in Syria, just as it was the most fervent supporter of the medieval Taliban during Afghanistan's dark ages".
Two great and most significant points made by the author reveals the hypocrisy as well as conspiracy which actually not intended to dissolve Syrian crisis but to wage war against Iran, Lebanon (Hezbollah).
Russia is on the side of Syria ironically to take revenge against America and not letting go the Richest Oil resources from their hands while America wants to capture it.
In G-20 summit, Joint Statement on Syria the Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leader's Meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia:
We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children.
The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.
Again here one this is paradoxically worth noticing that there two Muslim Nations in the joint statement against Syria.
While on the other side according to Vladmir Putin, "Those against include the Russian Federation, - India, China, Indonesia ("the world's largest Muslim nation", he points out), Argentina, South Africa, Brazil and Germany". Iran and Egypt are also the very important contenders on their side.
Here India stands out in support with Russia and Syria which have a mix population and most are against war on Syria.
Fortunately India denounces US for war with very serious concerns for economy. "Any prolonged conflict involving US personnel on the ground could send oil prices soaring. Crude prices remaining above $110 per barrel is a concern for the government," said Sachidanand Shukla, economist with Axis Capital. "From here on, what the government does with diesel prices will be important in lieu of what is happening in Syria," he added.
Now moving on to the reason why US wants to throw war on Syria is that, they have used chemical weapons, sounding absolutely similar to the reasons behind war on Iraq.
Obama refers to the Second World War in context of Syria intervention: "These kinds of interventions are always unpopular because they seem distant and removed. I'm not making an analogy to World War Two but when London was getting bombed it was profoundly unpopular in Congress to take action - but it was the right thing to do".
Michael Snyder of ‘The Economic Collapse' writes in his piece-
"Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?" The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting. They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria".
Most valid and the true reason behind the conflict is exposed by the author and I like to add one thing, Every time the blame comes on Shiite-Sunni sectarian violence but the fact here is, it is deliberately flogged in by Arabs and actually it's not the issue at all.
Both USA and KSA are against Iran so by getting it under their gloves they are actually trying to fight or give an ultimatum to Iran.
This threesome ally system of America, Saudi and Israel is the force which is compelling US senate and Congressmen and other countries to be with them.
Repercussions can be anything but one thing is confirmed, the evil will be exposed and the Truth will prevail so all the humans regardless of the religion, sect, caste unite together against the oppression and tyranny.
(All references are quoted along with The Telegraph, Business standard and Guardian)