[MERGED] Syrian rebellion, troop movement & negotiations

Jonny7

lagente wrote: »

As for the last question, I stand by that there were and are many Irish in the ongoing Libyan war, and also that it was and is, in the hundreds.

You need to back that up.

And I am also saying that there are many Irish in Syria right now, and I'll go for a figure in the hundreds again. Religion is too big a
motivator for too many Irish going there. But I will point out, without trying to sound too exclusive, that I do use 'Irish' very loosely.

Bizarre claim, evidence of this?

That Tripoli Brigade wikipedia article, is propaganda to me, in what is said and what is left out. And once again, wikipedia is being used as propaganda throughout all these conflicts.

Again, try to to provide evidence or a source or something.

plasmaguy

I see, just as in the previous threads about Libya, more examples of the Irish looney left, of whose representitives are posting on this thread as well, tying themselves up with such hatred of all things Western that they end up taking the side of unelected dictators like Assad and Gadaffi.

Assad had ten years to carry out reforms and hold genuine democratic multi party elections, including presidential elections, and he failed to carry out such reforms and he was no nearer to doing it in 2011. He wants to be president for life, that is pretty clear, and the Irish looney left see no problem with Assad being president for life. They cannot get their head around the fact that some people in Syria would like a vote on who their president is, in fact the Irish looney left are disgusted by such a concept as they are disgusted by the thought of democracy in general. For the Irish looney left, their nirvana is North Korea, Cuba and similar states, presidents for life, and no economic or democratic freedoms.

The idea of a president for life in the 21st century is utterly disgusting and cannot be supported. It's also strange how the few remaining presidents for life these days are either communist or supported by the Irish looney left.

If it was up to the Irish looney left, every country in the world would have a president for life and anyone who opposed such a situation would be labelled a western backed terrorists or some such name.

The Irish looney left never move with the times, in fact they regress into their old behaviour and attitude. They certainly don't do progress, particularly democratic freedom and freedom from secret police and all that.

Thank god we don't like in the Irish looney left idyl, what a nightmare that would be!

plasmaguy

Jonny7 wrote: »

The situation will not be 'solved' just moved into another phase, hopefully a more peaceful one.

This will either be via international means, via Assad stepping down, or via Assad being ousted/killed by the opposition.

Assad stepping down and holding free and fair elections (internationally monitored) at the beginning of this conflict would have been relatively the most successful and peaceful means of securing the transition.

However, even if he does this at this point in time, the country will still be in chaos, albeit a lower level, but would expect a large amount of reprisals and revenge killings.

If the international community steps in via UN plan, unified pressure, peacekeepers, etc then the violence should drop but the main problem will remain. I doubt there will be international military action unless the situation escalates or there are unexpected events, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Finally, if the rebels do oust him, there will still be a lot of violence, again the form of retribution, revenge. Also armed groups, different factions, militants all of varying motives will find their way easier into positions of power.

When the country does reach the stage of holding elections I expect a similar situation to Egypt, e.g; the old guard in a new guise trying to retain power, and then Islamic brotherhood style parties vying for power.

I would not expect moderates to intially do well after 1.5 years of serious civil strife and violence.

If democracy can survive the first decade or so, then there is a hope the country can be on its way towards peace and normality.

If any sort of dictatorship or military coup occurs, then back to square one, rinse repeat.

Good post. Couple of points.

1. The situation has reached a stalemate in Syria today, albeit an incredibly bloody one and increasingly so. Yesterday over 150 people died, today it was over 200, its gradually increasing every day. Neither side has what it takes to wipe out the other, which is ok if it wasn't for the fact that the regular Syrian Army indescriminately shell civilian areas which is a war crime regardless if there is FSA there or not, its no justification for such shelling. Assad is just a dumb animal who would be quite happy to shell for eternity if needed.

2. Assad has zero intention of stepping down peacefully or through mediation. At this stage I don't think even the Russians would be able to encourage him to step down.

3. This conflict if left to internal players in Syria could go on for years. The approach of the Syrian Army has been to shell a town or city first and ask questions later, even if there was only a handful of FSA in the area. The Syrian Army always go way over the top and shoot anything that moves in a restive area, including red crescant staff or innocent people at checkpoints.

4. Assad is not a credible partner in any peace negotiations. Unfortunately something will have to be imposed on him. The alternative is that this goes on for years in a situation similar to Bosnia with no winners.

5. For anyone to condemn the FSA is pointless. They are far from a small group of terrorists. They command a lot of support among the civilian population no-one can seriously doubt that. They constitute the only credible opposition to Assad in Syria and are about the only means the Syrian people have of stopping Assad being president for life which he clearly, insanely, wants to be. Like I said earlier, presidents for life in this day and age is out of the question.

Eggy Baby!

plasmaguy, you are crazy.

"Irish looney left"?

For the Irish looney left, their nirvana is North Korea, Cuba and similar states, presidents for life, and no economic or democratic freedoms.

The Irish looney left never move with the times, in fact they regress into their old behaviour and attitude. They certainly don't do progress, particularly democratic freedom and freedom from secret police and all that.

Thank god we don't like in the Irish looney left idyl, what a nightmare that would be!

They cannot get their head around the fact that some people in Syria would like a vote on who their president is, in fact the Irish looney left are disgusted by such a concept as they are disgusted by the thought of democracy in general.

You are using the phrase "looney left" like a 12 year old who just discovered it on the internet and are in general acting like a right-wing ragebaby.

Note to all readers of this thread- don't walk on plasmaguy's posts, because they are so full of holes you will probably fall right through!

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode " The Yada Yada".

WakeUp

The free Syrian army / rebels V's Assad regime forces. That to me is the US/West V's Russia Iran Syria and to some extent China. Syria is the first proxy war of the new cold war. The new cold war began in 2008 when the US began building its missile defence shield on Russian borders to counter Iran or so they claim. Now its gone "hot" albeit via proxy Before somebody accuses me of bashing the west I am not, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Yes Assad has done horrible things and yes the rebels have done horrible things but the realpolitik of the situation is that bigger powers are at play aswell as a bigger game - not the black and white situation as is portrayed in the main in our media. Syria Libya it is not. Anyone who believes Syria will go the way of Libya in so much as the west will become involved stroll in, drops bombs - for humanitarian reasons - crush the army then parade Assad on TV with a bunch of animals inserting guns up his rectum are away with the fairies it aint gona happen. The Russians and Iranians will not let it happen for so many reasons economic and geostrategic. The West is backing the rebels and Russia Iran Assad - cold war take two.

Dont have much time for either Assad or the rebels but they are mere pawns in a game. The real players are the big boys and they are playing their own game. The Russians after initially trying to arm the Serbs ( who declined ) pre NAT0 invasion of 99' eventually let the West have its way with Yugoslavia and its regarded today as a strategic mistake even though they played a part in the eventual downfall of Milsovic. They wont make the same mistake with Syria. This "war" unrest call it what you will has been happening for a year and a half Assad aint going unless he is military defeated that much is quite obvious be it a good or bad thing.

So who is going to start the war that ignites the region draws in Iran, Israel, Gulf states ,Russia, US, NATO all of them are on a war footing to some extent ..????

Turkey could be the trigger, that plane was very close to the shore it was taken down with an AA gun if Im correct, not even a missile shows they are alert and ready to repel any incursions into their air space - which brings us back to the question are they prepared to potentially start world war three to take out Assad. Is Erdogen crazy enough to kick things off? Syria is a pandoras box of ensuing chaos to come. Assad saw what happened Gaddafi his "fight" is for him and his peoples survival.

AlekSmart

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

plasmaguy, you are crazy.

"Irish looney left"?

You are using the phrase "looney left" like a 12 year old who just discovered it on the internet and are in general acting like a right-wing ragebaby.

Note to all readers of this thread- don't walk on plasmaguy's posts, because they are so full of holes you will probably fall right through!

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode " The Yada Yada".

Am I missing something in Plasmaguy's post..or is there a certain confusion between Left and Right...?...(In political terms,that is )

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

The free Syrian army / rebels V's Assad regime forces. That to me is the US/West V's Russia Iran Syria and to some extent China. Syria is the first proxy war of the new cold war. The new cold war began in 2008 when the US began building its missile defence shield on Russian borders to counter Iran or so they claim. Now its gone "hot" albeit via proxy Before somebody accuses me of bashing the west I am not, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

I wouldn't agree, these are just tenuous links.

As I've said in another post Russia does not want a missile shield from anyone on its doorstep, its certainly not a prelude to another Cold War.

Russia already has pre-signed contracts with the Syrians for a lot of military hardware and they are determined to fulfil these contracts, the vast majority of which were signed before the conflict.

The Russians are keen to point out that other nations, including the US, have merrily been doing business with other unsavory regimes, the Uzbek's, the Bahraini gov.

Lastly the Russians are standing their ground because Syria is one of their remaining few toeholds in the Middle East.

The US and Russia have been engaging each other on the issue through the various channels, not always agreeing, but continuing signs that Russia is making concessions toward international feeling (albeit slow ones)

TLDR The Cold War is over, but Real Politik continues, business as usual.

Suff

plasmaguy wrote: »

5. For anyone to condemn the FSA is pointless. They are far from a small group of terrorists. They command a lot of support among the civilian population no-one can seriously doubt that.

This is a bald clam, the civilian population have not, and does not support the FSA. The FSA use rural and urban towns to hide within as a launching pad for their assaults on the Syrian Army, which in response would bombard the entire town.

Eggy Baby!

Yeah its not a Cold War, but its definitely a war of information.

The US and Russia have been engaging each other on the issue through the various channels, not always agreeing, but continuing signs that Russia is making concessions toward international feeling (albeit slow ones)

Agreed. Russia is becoming more integrated into the international community, thankfully. But this transition began a long time ago with Yeltsin (joining the G8). Some remnants of its insular roots remain, however (it seems to behave as a mirror to America's actions a lot of the time).

As for the missile shield, imagine if my neighbour in Navan put up huge walls with barbed wire on top, guard towers at each corner and a moat all around. And imagine if to make me feel easy he told me that the defenses weren't aimed at me but instead at a guy who lives in Donegal...!

And the missile shield costs heaps of money the Americans (and most NATO countries) don't have.

plasmaguy

Suff wrote: »

This is a bald clam, the civilian population have not, and does not support the FSA. The FSA use rural and urban towns to hide within as a launching pad for their assaults on the Syrian Army, which in response would bombard the entire town.

Nonsense. There have been thousands of demonstrations across Syria since this all began demanding the downfall of Assad.

In any number of those demonstrations there have been chants in support of the FSA.

To be honest, your knowledge of Syria and the events there seem limited for someone from the country.

Have you any relatives in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib for example or anywhere outside of Damascus.

Assad has set himself up as president for life and he was only going to step down/be overthrown as a result of a violent uprising, surely even you recognise that fact.

He was never going to go peacefully, anyone who thinks he would have is naive in the extreme and needs to wake up.

The Syrian people are not freaks. They want democracy like everyone else. Do you think they enjoy having Assad's secret police monitor everything they do and detain and torture them mercillessly? Do you think they are ok with that and wanted it to continue indefinately? Many Syrians are prepared to die than put up with Assad any longer and these are not terrorists but ordinary Syrians.

Assad is a murderous thug, always was and always will be and that is the principal reason for this revolution.

The Sunnis are not allowed have a say in who their president is, is that acceptable in the 21st century? Of course it isn't, it's a worse situation than prevailed in Northern Ireland up to the 1960s and which lead to the civil rights movement.

All the Syrian people have asked for from the start is democracy. And in return they were met with snipers, shelling, torture, execution, tanks and helicoptors. Welcome to a country run by Assad the thug.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

This is a bald clam, the civilian population have not, and does not support the FSA. The FSA use rural and urban towns to hide within as a launching pad for their assaults on the Syrian Army, which in response would bombard the entire town.

The various factions opposing Assad are vastly outgunned and outnumbered.

There is no genuine reason for using artillery on towns and population centres, it's modern day Syria not Stalingrad. I doubt you keenly supported Fallujah in Iraq, the only difference being that Assad is having his own countrymen shelled. Its punitive and doesn't deserve any weak excuses like the above.

Eggy Baby!

Nonsense. There have been thousands of demonstrations across Syria since this all began demanding the downfall of Assad.

..but not in support of the Free Syrian Army.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

..but not in support of the Free Syrian Army.

Because they didn't exist then.

I get the serious impression some of you people have followed only select parts of this whole situation

lagente

plasmaguy wrote: »

The Sunnis are not allowed have a say in who their president is, is that acceptable in the 21st century? Of course it isn't, it's a worse situation than prevailed in Northern Ireland up to the 1960s and which lead to the civil rights movement.

This quote you gave I feel gets to a big part of the problem.
Why should a group of people under the heading of a 7th century religion get their way over a smaller number of secularists (ie. people wanting a secular state), simply because there are more of them!
Are the people ready ready for that kind of power? Maybe, ....but maybe not. And maybe Saudi, Qatar, Egypt Jordan etc will have influence there, if it goes to the Sunnis.
Is Sunni Islam going to have a say in this country which is currently relatively secular, and would that be acceptable in the 21st century?

Yes usually best to have democracy and could potentially be here, but needs to be with guarantees, and with things such as the above fully addressed.

All external players (states and individuals) need to back off Syria, if they don't it will be worse,
and more out of control. And then you can expect they will want their 'just' rewards and influence afterwards.
There needs to be a big ceasefire attempt.
No more fighters from Ireland should be allowed go to Syria!

plasmaguy

lagente wrote: »

Is Sunni Islam going to have a say in this country which is currently relatively secular, and would that be acceptable in the 21st century? Yes usually best to have democracy and could potentially be here, but needs to be with guarantees, and with things such as the above fully addressed.

All external players (states and individuals) need to back off Syria, if they don't it will be worse,
and more out of control. And then you can expect they will want their 'just' rewards and influence afterwards.
There needs to be a big ceasefire attempt.
No more fighters from Ireland should be allowed go to Syria!

Do you think it could be possibly worse than it is now? Seriously?

Backing off Syria is definitely not an option, that would be a thumbs up or even a pat on the back to Assad to continue as he is, and believe me the guy has no problem destroying the whole of Syria to stay in power, he's utterly ruthless and without morality.

Allowing Assad remain in power is simply not an option and since Assad doesn't do democratic elections, its hard to see how he will leave power, unless after a long bloody conflict where eventually after several years the FSA finally come out on top. Apart from that I don't see him stepping down, ever and the FSA have said they won't stop fighting until he steps down, so its an impasse. The resolution in Geneva today was just a fudge, no-one even knows if it means Assad steps down or not and there is absolutely no way of enforcing it and no chance of him volunteering to step down and no chance the FSA will lay down their arms while he is still president. So the whole thing was another waste of time.

We saw today where Assad forces mortar bombed a funeral procession killing 30 people. That is just another of his daily crimes against humanity.

lagente

plasmaguy wrote: »

Do you think it could be possibly worse than it is now? Seriously?

Absolutely.

plasmaguy wrote: »

So the whole thing was another waste of time.

Just as in every conflict both sides wish they got a few more shots at the opponent during it.

plasmaguy

lagente wrote: »

Absolutely.

Well I don't.

It hasn't been any worse in Egypt, Libya, Lebenon and any other country where there has been a similar political transition or unity government and perhaps a unity government in Syria minus Assad would be the best solution.

Assad is just clinging on to power and doing everything he can to do that.

Suff

plasmaguy wrote: »

Nonsense. There have been thousands of demonstrations across Syria since this all began demanding the downfall of Assad. In any number of those demonstrations there have been chants in support of the FSA.

Your confidence in such a clam is astonishing!

To be honest, your knowledge of Syria and the events there seem limited for someone from the country.

So... if I did jump up and down whilst chanting the downfall of Assad it would display a better knowledge of the Syria and the current conflict?

Have you any relatives in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib for example or anywhere outside of Damascus.

Yes, I did have friends in Doma, Edsaya, Zamalka, Yabroud, Aboon, Jobar, Demar, Homs and Aleppo; most of which have left the country or have died.

Assad has set himself up as president for life and he was only going to step down/be overthrown as a result of a violent uprising, surely even you recognise that fact.

He was never going to go peacefully, anyone who thinks he would have is naive in the extreme and needs to wake up.

The Syrian people are not freaks. They want democracy like everyone else. Do you think they enjoy having Assad's secret police monitor everything they do and detain and torture them mercillessly? Do you think they are ok with that and wanted it to continue indefinately? Many Syrians are prepared to die than put up with Assad any longer and these are not terrorists but ordinary Syrians.

Assad is a murderous thug, always was and always will be and that is the principal reason for this revolution.

The Sunnis are not allowed have a say in who their president is, is that acceptable in the 21st century? Of course it isn't, it's a worse situation than prevailed in Northern Ireland up to the 1960s and which lead to the civil rights movement.

All the Syrian people have asked for from the start is democracy. And in return they were met with snipers, shelling, torture, execution, tanks and helicoptors. Welcome to a country run by Assad the thug.

To simply answer all the above; You've just happen to discover Syria after hearing about the current situation on the news, no disrespect here, but you have no knowledge on the country, of Assad or the political structure of the region. Democracy is not a pill to be taken after a meal, or applied within a month after removing Assad. The issue here is much larger than Syrians vs Ba'ath Party. If it was it would have been resolved within few months but there are other factors at play here which have delayed it.

The major powers of the world have been fighting among themselves on the fate/ plan/ solution/ approach -or whatever you want to call it- to be applied to the Syrian situation, its a negotiation over power, footholds and strategies.

You seem to mistake my posts for being in favour or in support of the Ba'ath party or Assad. This isn't the case, I am trying to broaden your prospective on the situation that its much broader and more complex than what we see and hear in the media. Its mean mentioned few times ... the situation in Syria could easily escalate into world war 3. No, I'm not being dramatic, just look at who's sitting over the Syrian-chess-board!

With all honesty; I do appreciate your support for the Syrian people and for the hope of maybe one day we'll have a better Syria, I truly do, Thank you.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

...the Russians are standing their ground because Syria is one of their remaining few toeholds in the Middle East.

The US and Russia have been engaging each other on the issue through the various channels, not always agreeing, but continuing signs that Russia is making concessions toward international feeling (albeit slow ones)

Russia doesn't want to be seen to be ignoring the opinions of the West that's why we've seen Russia agree in principle with the idea of a transitional governing body in Syria but Lavrov includes the usual caveat.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "How exactly the work on a transition to a new stage is conducted will be decided by the Syrians themselves."

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi also stressed that "outsiders cannot make decisions for the Syrian people."

Anyone who thinks Russia and China are moving closer to backing the West's wet dream of Assad leaving power as part of a transitional process is not living in the real world.

cyberhog

Doubts Cast on Turkey's Story of Jet

U.S. intelligence indicates that a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials said, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497081567553846.html

AlekSmart

Perhaps I'm mistook,but I would have thought that shooting down an aircraft such as a Phantom F4 with Anti-Aircraft fire over an extended range would be at the outer end of the believability spectrum ?

Whilst I note the search for the Crew is ongoing,I wonder if there is any information on Remotely Piloted Aircraft technology as applied to service aircraft such as the F4 ?

It's a wee bit Suss to me,which is why I'll agree with Suff on this ......

Suff: The situation in Syria could easily escalate into world war 3. No, I'm not being dramatic, just look at who's sitting over the Syrian-chess-board!

plasmaguy

Suff, I 'm well versed in Middle East politics so lets knock that one on the head and I'm not a johnny come lately either to the middle east situation nor am I trying to exploit the current situation in the region to further some other unrelated agenda about capitalism, anti NATO, imperialism, etc.

To clear something up, I am in favour of Syrians sorting all this out through the ballot box without outside interference, in a proper society that's how the Syrians, Libyans and Egyptions would effect regime change.

In the US there is regime change every 4 or 8 years, its called democracy. The same in the UK, Ireland, France and so on.

Regime change should be carried out peacefully and democratically. But when you have a president who refuses to leave office peacefully to facilitate that regime change, and who shoots and murders people who ask for him to step down, what then?

I am also in favour of the Arab League sorting this out by imposing a no fly zone to protect civilians if nessecary. But you and I know the Arab League is a talking shop and nothing more, incapable of mounting any serious type of no fly zone and they always need big brother ie NATO to dig them out of a hole.

There isn't a hope of the Syria situation leading to WW3. Russia is grandstanding but they know if it came down to it they wouldn't last a week against the combined firepower of NATO countries, ditto China.

In an age of M.A.D. there has never been a direct military conflict between two nuclear powered nations and there never will be. There has been low level proxy wars but the prospect of a nuclear conflaguration over Syria is nil, so again lets knock that particular outcome on the head. Just because you say it might happen won't make it happen.

Finally, Assad is the number one threat to the peace and stability of Syria. He started this. The FSA was formed over 4 months after Assad started the shooting and arrests and they were formed initially to protect civilians who wanted to protest peacefully which was a very noble aspiration.

cyberhog

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps I'm mistook,but I would have thought that shooting down an aircraft such as a Phantom F4 with Anti-Aircraft fire over an extended range would be at the outer end of the believability spectrum ?

Maybe so, but as far as the correct location of the shoot down goes neither the US or Russia are backing Turkey's version of events.

Russia possesses “objective observation data” concerning the downing of a Turkish jet off the Syrian coast one week ago and is prepared to present it, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference in Geneva on Saturday.

“We have our objective observation data and we are prepared to present it,” Lavrov said.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120630/174333287.html

cyberhog

plasmaguy wrote: »

Finally, Assad is the number one threat to the peace and stability of Syria.

The threat to peace in Syria is coming from the violent uprising. The rebels haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of ousting Assad but they carry on fighting and making everyday life a misery for those who are blighted by their activities and whether you admit it or not Syria would be in far worse shape if Assad were forced out.


The simple truth is, the rebels you admire so much see creating chaos and disorder in the country as the way to gain power and spit on the UN's attempts to broker peace.

BEIRUT (AP) – Syrian opposition groups on Sunday rejected a U.N.-brokered peace plan for a political transition in Syria, calling it ambiguous and a waste of time and vowing not to negotiate with President Bashar Assad or members of his "murderous" regime.

The disappointed reaction underlined the seemingly intractable nature of the Syrian conflict, which this week saw some of the bloodiest violence since the start of the uprising against Assad's regime in March 2011.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-01/syria-un-plan/55957804/1

Eggy Baby!

Perhaps I'm mistook,but I would have thought that shooting down an aircraft such as a Phantom F4 with Anti-Aircraft fire over an extended range would be at the outer end of the believability spectrum ?

Russian AAA systems are excellent and often use guns to take down jets (such as the PANTSIR-S1 or Tunguska).

Massed fire is effective against aircraft.

In the US there is regime change every 4 or 8 years, its called democracy. The same in the UK, Ireland, France and so on.

Not really, but anyway.

There isn't a hope of the Syria situation leading to WW3. Russia is grandstanding but they know if it came down to it they wouldn't last a week against the combined firepower of NATO countries, ditto China.

Although you are "well versed in Middle Eastern politics", you clearly have no idea about military realities.

nacho libre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18683208

Navi Pillay must be a cozy armchair observer, who doesn't have a clue. Unlike the cozy armcahair observers on here who, because they are FSA supporters, automatically have a clue about what's really going on.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18683208

Navi Pillay must be a cozy armchair observer, who doesn't have a clue. Unlike the cozy armcahair observers on here who, because they are FSA supporters, automatically have a clue about what's really going on.

So in context of the situation, do you feel that the FSA (who are recieving outside "aid") are at fault or is it the nations providing this aid which are at fault?

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

So in context of the situation, do you feel that the FSA (who are recieving outside "aid") are at fault or is it the nations providing this aid which are at fault?

I would say the nature of the 'aid' is at fault.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

I would say the nature of the 'aid' is at fault.

Exactly, so do you believe that the FSA should not receive any outside help in any way shape or form whatsoever? (I am not condoning outside assistance just analysing the root cause here)

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

So in context of the situation, do you feel that the FSA (who are recieving outside "aid") are at fault or is it the nations providing this aid which are at fault?

personally, to answer your question, i think there is such a thing as co-responsibility.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

personally, to answer your question, i think there is such a thing as co-responsibility.

Absolutely, but for argument sake what are the FSA doing wrong in this situation?

plasmaguy

Here is the HRW report for the year 2010 on Syria, just in case people think Assad started to be a thug in the last year..he was always a vicious nasty piece of work just as bad as Gadaffi.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/syria

Some excerpts:

In December 2009 State Security detained Tal al-Mallohi, a 19-year-old student blogger, reportedly for a critical poem she wrote. At this writing the security services are holding her incommunicado and have not referred her to the judiciary.

Dr. Kamal al-Labwani, a physician and founder of the Democratic Liberal Gathering, who is serving a 15-year sentence for advocating peaceful reform, remains in prison.

In January blogger Karim `Arbaji was released by presidential pardon. The SSSC had sentenced him in 2009 to three years in prison for moderating a popular online youth forum, akhawia.net, which contained criticisms of the government.

Just a flavour. Its not hard to understand why Syrians hate Assad when you read instances like this.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Absolutely, but for argument sake what are the FSA doing wrong in this situation?

The biggest mistake the FSA are making is believing they can win militarily.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

The biggest mistake the FSA are making is believing they can win militarily.

I rarely reply to your posts anymore because this is a "cause" for you to prove how "evil" the West is and nothing more.

On a technical level you are correct, the FSA have little chance of "winning" militarily.

For instance, if caught they will probably face death or tough reprisals. Their families, friends and relatives are also at risk from internal security. They are severely outgunned, outmatched on virtually every level, they have little or no frontline (a mistake Gadaffi made but Assad has not - by surrounding any "trouble" spots). Assad's brother is a shrewd and brutal commander, whilst the morale of the Syrian army is obviously very low, many will follow orders and they also have at their disposal the militia's, e.g. the Shahiba, who have little problem carrying out the more nasty jobs

However, they are putting a heavy strain on the Syrian military in terms of loyalty and in terms of the overall situation in Syria. The key for these opposition groups is obviously not to win a conventional fight, but to put enough pressure that the regime collapses or capitulates or that the international community somehow intervenes.

Basically, these are desperate men fighting for different reasons, but generally all with the same purpose. Being desparate I don't they will turn down help from any quarter, whether its night-vision goggles coming in from the Turks or whatever.

I don't think the issue is the FSA here (which would exist in some form in any similar situation) - its the outside 'interference' in the conflict - which, up to now, has generally been 'under the radar' and coming from many different sources - also including the Russians and Iranians lest we forget.

plasmaguy

Well that's not what the FSA think.

http://mar15.info/2012/07/assad-loses-control-over-60-pct-of-syria/#more-26806

In just 12 months the FSA have gone from a rag tag group under manned and under equipped to now controlling 40% of Syria and recruiting new defectors every day while putting massive strain on the regular Syrian Army and killing thousands of regular army soldiers.

The defections are happening at a steady stream to the FSA, they are getting more arms by the day, while at the same time, no-one is defecting in the opposite direction.

If anything it's Assad who cannot win militarily.

The chances of the FSA laying down their arms now are zilch, especially in the absence of a credible peace plan and nothing Kofi Annan has come up with so far has been credible nor will ever be, because the guy always fails to mediate these conflicts and just ends up buying time for dictators which he did again this week. When the world is distracted by diplomacy and negotiations, Assad always ramps up the attacks.

As long as Assad remains as president this war will continue.

Jonny7

plasmaguy wrote: »

Well that's not what the FSA think.

http://mar15.info/2012/07/assad-loses-control-over-60-pct-of-syria/#more-26806

In just 12 months the FSA have gone from a rag tag group under manned and under equipped to now controlling 40% of Syria and recruiting new defectors every day while putting massive strain on the regular Syrian Army and killing thousands of regular army soldiers.

The defections are happening at a steady stream to the FSA, they are getting more arms by the day, while at the same time, no-one is defecting in the opposite direction.

If anything it's Assad who cannot win militarily.

The chances of the FSA laying down their arms now are zilch, especially in the absence of a credible peace plan and nothing Kofi Annan has come up with so far has been credible nor will ever be, because the guy always fails to mediate these conflicts and just ends up buying time for dictators which he did again this week. When the world is distracted by diplomacy and negotiations, Assad always ramps up the attacks.

As long as Assad remains as president this war will continue.

That is a propaganda site. The reality is quite different.

Suff

I would not hold any high regards for the FSA, for sooner or later we'll start condemning them.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Basically, these are desperate men fighting for different reasons, but generally all with the same purpose.

The majority of Syrians strongly opposed the militarisation of the protests. Syria's peaceful protesters say "Our strength is in being peaceful." and they believe the fighting alienates the silent majority.

"We want to preserve the methods of the peaceful revolution," said Manar Alsbehe, an activist with the Revolutionary Council in Horan, in Dara province, where the revolution began last year. "The armed revolutionaries need to know their parameters: It's not to attack or take over areas, because that's what the regime wants."

In the first few months of protesting last year, government forces would fire upon the crowds regularly, but it wasn't until the opposition began taking up arms that the crackdown became so brutal with tanks and military helicopters, Alsbehe said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/06/world/la-fg-syria-peaceful-revolution-20120506

Activists say they don't oppose rebels defending protestors, however they don't believe rebels should be on the offensive. The West, on the other hand, is exacerbating the crisis by ignoring the will of the majority of Syrians and choosing instead to support the rebel offensive.

The non-violent activists are clear about their purpose:

"Our purpose is to build Syria more than to destroy Syria; we don't want to destroy the country as we try to oust the regime," said Yusuf Ashami, an activist using a nom de guerre who fled Syria months ago because he was wanted by the security forces for organizing protests.

Syria's peaceful protesters are definitely not happy with the direction the FSA and their Western backers have taken the revolution.

Nadja, a Damascus activist in her 20s, had become disenchanted with the turn the revolution had taken.

"Personally I felt terribly disappointed: This is not representing me anymore, it doesn't look like me, it doesn't fit me," she said in an online interview.

Western support for the armed rebellion has weakened the peaceful revolution and put the social fabric of Syrian society in peril, and all because the West has a "hard on" for regime change. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.

Suff

Cyberhog; you got that right %100

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

The majority of Syrians strongly opposed the militarisation of the protests. Syria's peaceful protesters say "Our strength is in being peaceful." and they believe the fighting alienates the silent majority.

I agree completely, unarmed peaceful protesters at protests and funerals were shot at and killed by police, internal security and snipers. This happened extensively and on a virtual daily basis from March onwards. There was some violence from the protesters, but this was sparse.

Activists say they don't oppose rebels defending protestors, however they don't believe rebels should be on the offensive. The West, on the other hand, is exacerbating the crisis by ignoring the will of the majority of Syrians and choosing instead to support the rebel offensive.

Nope, there is no "unified" view, the country is extremely fragmented, there are those who directly support Assad, there are those who just want peace whatever the cost and will be happy to return to the status-quo and there are those who want change.

The vast majority want a change in leadership but the vast majority also do not want this level of violence in their country. Assad knows this.

Syria's peaceful protesters are definitely not happy with the direction the FSA and their Western backers have taken the revolution.

Which peaceful protesters? the ones in prison or the dead ones?

Western support for the armed rebellion has weakened the peaceful revolution and put the social fabric of Syrian society in peril, and all because the West has a "hard on" for regime change. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.

Note the bolded parts in this entire post, not that I have to highlight your agenda, but anyway, its a bit of an obsession to say the least

nacho libre

plasmaguy wrote: »

Well that's not what the FSA think.

http://mar15.info/2012/07/assad-loses-control-over-60-pct-of-syria/#more-26806

In just 12 months the FSA have gone from a rag tag group under manned and under equipped to now controlling 40% of Syria and recruiting new defectors every day while putting massive strain on the regular Syrian Army and killing thousands of regular army soldiers.

The defections are happening at a steady stream to the FSA, they are getting more arms by the day, while at the same time, no-one is defecting in the opposite direction.


As long as Assad remains as president this war will continue.

Assad will remain in power as long as Russia don't pull the plug and no major figures from his inner circle sect defect- so far this hasn't happened. If we see the latter happen then it's inevitable his days are numbered. The hope from the perspective of the FSA is that quatar and the house of saud money will eventually turn those close to Assad. If they are offered immunity prosectuion then obviously there is more of an incentive to defect. The longer it goes on, without Assad being able to inflict a decisive millitary defeat on the FSA, i think the more likely we'll see a crack in his circle.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Absolutely, but for argument sake what are the FSA doing wrong in this situation?

I take it you mean from a military perspective, if so they don't need to win, they just need to ensure Assad can't inflict a decisive military victory on them, the longer it goes on the better it is from their perspective in my opinion.

If you meant from a moral perspective, i suspect you'd be unlikely to pose that question about human rights abuses by Syrian forces alone being highlighted.

plasmaguy

Threads like these always tend to go around in circles. You have posters with a certain anti western agenda who try to inject their agenda at every opportunity.

I think its important to remind people just how the Syrian peaceful revolution turned violent and who was 100% to blame for it turning violent, ie Assad.

1. Thousands of Syrians took to the streets to protest against the Assad regime starting in March of 2011.

2. The Assad regime responded in a brutal and wholly disproportionate way. Protestors were shot by snipers, others were rounded up while many were tortured to death. No-one doubts this happened, except the usual posters on here who use RT and inforwars as their sources and means of education on middle east matters.

3. A number of Syrian soldiers defected when ordered to shoot civilians. This was a brave move on their part as many other defectors were killed when they tried to defect, while soldiers who refused to shoot civilians have been shot.

4. There is absolutely 100% no question the Assad regime is a brutal murderous regime and has been for the best part of 40 years, father and son. The prospect of removing the regime through democracy was nil. The prospect of removing the regime through peaceful protest was none. But given that it is a brutal murderous regime the Syrians are fully within their right to try to remove it and given that Assad will not go peacefully, they are perfectly entitled to remove Assad by military force.

6. The FSA have committed human rights abuses but nowhere near the massive, monstrous and institutional abuses of the Syrian regime.

7. Everyone agrees there should be democracy in Syria, the main stumbling block to democracy is Assad remaining in power and as long as he is in power, there will never be democracy in Syria.

Suff

Today, Thursday 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria Files – more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012.

"The material is embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria’s opponents. It helps us not merely to criticise one group or another, but to understand their interests, actions and thoughts. It is only through understanding this conflict that we can hope to resolve it," Assange said.

I'll be busy downloading them tonight!

plasmaguy

I'm sure it's also embarrassing to Syria's friends in Iran, Russia and Lebenon.

None of it changes the fact Assad is a psychopathic mass murdering maniac who has killed more than 10,000 people and still shows no signs of slowing up, in fact he seems to be only getting into his stride.

Suff

Let's read them first

nacho libre

plasmaguy wrote: »

6. The FSA have committed human rights abuses but nowhere near the massive, monstrous and institutional abuses of the Syrian regime.

So according to this logic human right abuses are ok, so long as the instances of abuse recorded are seen to be lower than the other side. Also how do you know the exact level of abuses commited by either side? Do you have people on the ground reporting back to you, are or you basing this on media reports, the majority of which seem to highlight abuses by Syrian forces but play down abuses by the FSA?

plasmaguy

Nacho Libre are you denying the existance of Syrian government run torture centres in the country?

plasmaguy

Even if the FSA was to disband in the morning, hand in their weapons and promise to be good, Assad loving people from now on, there is no chance of Assad stopping his crackdown.

Anyone who thinks he would allow people protest peacefully against his regime are naive, we'd just be back to square one, ie Syria March 2011, with Assad still shooting protesters, torturing, rounding up suspects, terrorising the population via his Shabita militia and so on. Let's get real here.

Assad and pals are mass murdering maniacs, regardless what his left wing apologists in Ireland might like to portray him as.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

So according to this logic human right abuses are ok, so long as the instances of abuse recorded are seen to be lower than the other side. Also how do you know the exact level of abuses commited by either side? Do you have people on the ground reporting back to you, are or you basing this on media reports, the majority of which seem to highlight abuses by Syrian forces but play down abuses by the FSA?

Fair enough, can you provide the human rights abuses committed by the FSA that the media are not reporting on.