[MERGED] Syrian rebellion, troop movement & negotiations

cyberhog · 06-07-2012 6:36am

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

If you were genuinely interested in knowing you would have gone to google to find out for yourself.

Amnesty International has been receiving increasing numbers of reports of serious abuses, including possible war crimes by some members of armed opposition groups, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Amnesty International is looking into reports that members of armed opposition groups have been responsible for summary executions of captured members of the security forces and other unlawful killings, abductions of civilians, torture and other ill-treatment, use of children in hostilities and the reckless use and storage of arms.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/friends-syria-must-use-their-influence-stop-cycle-repression-and-violence-2

Eggy Baby! · 08-07-2012 8:08pm

Now what can every nation and group represented here do? I ask you to reach out to Russia and China and to not only urge, but demand that they get off the sidelines and begin to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. It is frankly not enough just to come to the Friends of the Syrian People, because I will tell you very frankly, I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price, because they are holding up progress – blockading it – that is no longer tolerable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/07/08/should-russia-pay-a-price-for-supporting-syria/

Some more mad language from Crazy Clinton.

Jonny7 · 08-07-2012 8:18pm

cyberhog wrote: »

If you were genuinely interested in knowing you would have gone to google to find out for yourself.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/friends-syria-must-use-their-influence-stop-cycle-repression-and-violence-2

We already know this, there are reports and even videos online of these abuses.

I recently saw a report/video of a member of the opposition just "offing" a member of the Syrian military force.

One of the posters said this wasn't being reported, when it clearly is.

Again, its a two-way conflict, not a "point-scoring" exercise.

cyberhog · 09-07-2012 1:19am

Jonny7 wrote: »

We already know this, there are reports and even videos online of these abuses.

I recently saw a report/video of a member of the opposition just "offing" a member of the Syrian military force.

One of the posters said this wasn't being reported, when it clearly is.

Again, its a two-way conflict, not a "point-scoring" exercise.

I think you need to check your glasses Jonny7. He did not say opposition abuses were not being reported. The point he rightly made was that the equally heinous opposition abuses are not receiving anywhere near the same media attention as the abuses committed by Syrian Forces.

cyberhog · 09-07-2012 1:41am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/07/08/should-russia-pay-a-price-for-supporting-syria/

Some more mad language from Crazy Clinton.

Clinton is turning into quite the megalomaniac. I suspect she is still bitter that her presidential bid against Obama failed.

Eggy Baby! · 09-07-2012 6:36pm

The thing is, her words fall on deaf ears. America's opinion doesn't seem to matter any more.

stevedublin · 09-07-2012 7:11pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The thing is, her words fall on deaf ears. America's opinion doesn't seem to matter any more.

:rolleyes:
They only have the the strongest military in the world!

AlekSmart · 09-07-2012 9:23pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Clinton is turning into quite the megalomaniac. I suspect she is still bitter that her presidential bid against Obama failed.

I'm not sure that meglomania as a disorder quite manages to cover whatever this woman suffers from....

I'm equally unsure as to whether she would see the masive irony in her reaction to Gadaffi's execution....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

In reality,Libyans,Syrians or indeed any other peoples in that region need to be very aware of whatever thought processes are going on inside that womans head....steer-clear I'd suggest. :eek:

Eggy Baby! · 10-07-2012 7:38pm

stevedublin wrote: »

:rolleyes:
They only have the the strongest military in the world!

Yet they have zero respect any more. Hence why people are turning to the EU, Russia, Brazil, India and China for guidance or patronage. The USA is a bankrupt has-been hegemon. Its gotten so desperate these days it solely uses its army to get people onside, when before it actually weaned people over to its side with "soft power".

In a large war, America's large army would be undersupplied all over the place because it has no money to enact large-scale campaigns.

plasmaguy · 11-07-2012 7:48pm

People turning to the EU for what? You think they are going to solve anything? Speaking of the EU, they imposed very restrictive sanctions on the Assad regime and Syrian government officials so that basically blows your theory out of the water. The EU have been critical of Assad from day one. Brazil and India have negligible influence on anything. Russia and China are pro Assad and always will be.

The Syrian situation is just a stand off on the Security Council between the US, France and Britain on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. It's not going to come to a war between them over something like Syria. If you knew the history of the Security Council, you'd know from the very start it's just been a place where each of the five nations protect their own interests and veto whatever is in their best interests. It's one of the major flaws of the UN in my opinion as when it comes down to it the UN isn't a proper democratic organisation for the most part.

Regards Syria, we are looking at a long bloody drawn out conflict as the months blend into years. Neither side has what it takes to decisively beat the other side. The government troops can flatten cities with indiscriminate shelling but that's ineffective against rebels who often leave before the shelling starts and just go back in again once its finished. The government have no control over large parts of the country and simply don't have the means to take them back. The rebels also probably don't have the means to take centres of power like Damascus. Neither side is willing to give in as they know if they give up it will probably mean a bloody end of them and their families.

As for Kofi Annan, the guy is on a fools errand, and secretly the Russian, Iranian and Syrian governments are probably having a laugh at his gullibility that he could negotiate a peaceful solution.

troposphere · 11-07-2012 8:35pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Yet they have zero respect any more. Hence why people are turning to the EU, Russia, Brazil, India and China for guidance or patronage. The USA is a bankrupt has-been hegemon. Its gotten so desperate these days it solely uses its army to get people onside, when before it actually weaned people over to its side with "soft power".

In a large war, America's large army would be undersupplied all over the place because it has no money to enact large-scale campaigns.

Funny then why countries like Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Laos, etc, have all hosted either the US Defense Secretary or Secretary of State in the past few months. Australia agreeing to host more US troops and countries like Philippines seeking assurances about the defense pact they have with the US. Debt is also a bit different to bankrupt since basically the US has been in debt since WWI. Also what period did the US rely on soft power?

Eggy Baby! · 11-07-2012 10:59pm

Also what period did the US rely on soft power?

Soft power in that it spread its influence and culture peacefully, not through armies or big stick diplomacy.

You think they are going to solve anything? Speaking of the EU, they imposed very restrictive sanctions on the Assad regime and Syrian government officials so that basically blows your theory out of the water. The EU have been critical of Assad from day one. Brazil and India have negligible influence on anything. Russia and China are pro Assad and always will be.

You do realise I'm not talking about Syria here, right? :rolleyes: "Your theory" hahaha.

Funny then why countries like Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Laos, etc, have all hosted either the US Defense Secretary or Secretary of State in the past few months.

Thats because the USA gives off the impression that its army is invincible, when it isn't really. Plus it sponsors mutual security pacts in those regions. Russia is courting India much more successfully than America is. America can't support India and Pakistan at the same time, you see. It has to balance its interests.

People turning to the EU for what?

i.e the EU had a very large diplomatic role in Libya and the South Ossetian War. It continues to try and court nations in the Balkans, Eastern Europe as well as Turkey so its diplomatic presence is vastly increasing.

secretly the Russian, Iranian and Syrian governments are probably having a laugh at his gullibility that he could negotiate a peaceful solution.

If you say so.

Vladimir Kalashnikovski: "MUAHAHAH THAT SILLY KOFI ANNAN HE SO SILLY VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY VAY"

Etc.

Australia agreeing to host more US troops

Australia is a longstanding foreign policy goon of America's so I'm not surprised.

Philippines seeking assurances about the defense pact they have with the US.

That's because they want US support for fighting Islamic fundamentalists. And the Filipinos are clever- all they have to do is link their Islamic fundamentalists with the "War on Terror" and the USA will come barging in as usual.

By bankrupt, I was exaggerating. It is in serious debt and is approaching bankruptcy if it doesn't change its ways.

Without a doubt, the diplomatic prestige of the great powers has increased exponentially since people have started to regard recent American foreign policy as simply one failure after another. That is definite. The USA has lost significant respect since the "War on Terror".

The Syrian situation is just a stand off on the Security Council between the US, France and Britain on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. It's not going to come to a war between them over something like Syria. If you knew the history of the Security Council, you'd know from the very start it's just been a place where each of the five nations protect their own interests and veto whatever is in their best interests. It's one of the major flaws of the UN in my opinion as when it comes down to it the UN isn't a proper democratic organisation for the most part.

I bizarrely agree with you here.

Frankly, this situation is delicate and we can't go barging in all guns blazing.

troposphere · 12-07-2012 2:17am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Soft power in that it spread its influence and culture peacefully, not through armies or big stick diplomacy.

I know what soft power is, I was asking what time period did the US solely rely on soft power post WWII? Every decade they have used their military in some conflict.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Thats because the USA gives off the impression that its army is invincible, when it isn't really. Plus it sponsors mutual security pacts in those regions. Russia is courting India much more successfully than America is. America can't support India and Pakistan at the same time, you see. It has to balance its interests.

The US has the strongest military in the world. The countries I listed are not the traditional Asian countries that historically have had alliances with the US and many of them were getting bombed by the US in recent history.

Indian and US relations have improved dramatically in the past decade. Russia and India were Cold War allies so they are obviously going to have closer relations compared to the US who had sanctions on India as recent as a decade ago. The US relationship with Pakistan will never be the same again and US and Indian relations are going to get closer.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

That's because they want US support for fighting Islamic fundamentalists. And the Filipinos are clever- all they have to do is link their Islamic fundamentalists with the "War on Terror" and the USA will come barging in as usual.

Actually they are worried about Chinese claims over some of their islands but the US-Philippines defense relations goes back decades. Also Ramzi Yousef had plotted attacks from Philippines before his capture and Abu Sayyaf was kidnapping US citizens even prior to the War on Terror.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

By bankrupt, I was exaggerating. It is in serious debt and is approaching bankruptcy if it doesn't change its ways.

The debt crisis in the US was manufactured by the GOP to attack Obama. The CBO have even published reports indicating that if the tax increase and spending cuts that are already law to take place at the end of the year the debt will stabilize. The only debate at this time is whether the economy is healthy enough or should they pass 1 year extension.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Without a doubt, the diplomatic prestige of the great powers has increased exponentially since people have started to regard recent American foreign policy as simply one failure after another. That is definite. The USA has lost significant respect since the "War on Terror".

How is that any different to the failures in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, etc, all that came before War on Terror? Your entire original rant comes across more of what you are hoping will happen than anything grounded in reality.

southsiderosie · 12-07-2012 3:16am

MOD NOTE:

I'm a little concerned that this thread is drifting into a US political thread when it is meant to revolve around Syria. While I understand that the US plays a role in negotiations, I think that "Is the US a fading superpower/bankrupt" debate is best suited for a thread of its own.

AlekSmart · 12-07-2012 5:23am

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

I'm a little concerned that this thread is drifting into a US political thread when it is meant to revolve around Syria. While I understand that the US plays a role in negotiations, I think that "Is the US a fading superpower/bankrupt" debate is best suited for a thread of its own.

Spot-On.

As we saw with Libya,there are many powerful and self-regarding democratic entities who are preparted to embrace militarism at the drop of a hat should one of their former "friendlies" get a bit too Independent.

America is'nt the root of all evil.

WakeUp · 12-07-2012 2:11pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

The Syrian situation is just a stand off on the Security Council between the US, France and Britain on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. It's not going to come to a war between them over something like Syria. If you knew the history of the Security Council, you'd know from the very start it's just been a place where each of the five nations protect their own interests and veto whatever is in their best interests. It's one of the major flaws of the UN in my opinion as when it comes down to it the UN isn't a proper democratic organisation for the most part.

I agree with that in the main but its more than a standoff. None of the above countries want to get involved in a shooting war because of Syria but the fate of Syria will not be decided by the UNSC. The two countries who hold the key to a "peaceful" outcome in Syria are Turkey and Iran. If these two nations can find a common understanding with regard to an acceptable heir to Al Assad then a diplomatic option may be possible. The UN - Russians, US are not in a position to resolve this through diplomatic means they seem to be playing a game of get one over on each other at the moment and supporting their proxies - this will not end the conflict.

Regards Syria, we are looking at a long bloody drawn out conflict as the months blend into years. Neither side has what it takes to decisively beat the other side. The government troops can flatten cities with indiscriminate shelling but that's ineffective against rebels who often leave before the shelling starts and just go back in again once its finished. The government have no control over large parts of the country and simply don't have the means to take them back. The rebels also probably don't have the means to take centres of power like Damascus. Neither side is willing to give in as they know if they give up it will probably mean a bloody end of them and their families.

The current regime has been preparing for what is happening at the moment for some fourty years. When you think that the Alawite sect who are currently in power comprise some seven percent of the population, and are still standing and strong, well it tells you all you need to know about the structures they have put in place to consolidate their power. For hundreds of years the Alawites (and other secular minorities) were treated as second class citizens by the Sunni majority - Sunnis being backed by the Ottomans whilst the French post world war 2 supported the Alawaites for their own strategic reasons. The military in many instances was the only type of stable meaningful job an Alawite could attain - the Sunnis took their eye of the ball consumed by internal feuding - and a coup occured and the power shifted.

Since the coup Al Assads clan has done the complete opposite. The Alawites are unified. They have complete control over the military apparatus and a monopoly on the political system. "Smart" bunch them Alawites. When you look at the breakdown of the Syrian military - of 200,000 full time soldiers - 70 percent are Alwaite along with 80 percent of the officers. The Army is broken down into three corps - two of which are commanded by Alawites and the Republican guard the most elite unit they have is all Alawite. Most Syrian pilots are Sunni though the ground crews, support, technicians and maintenance people are nearly all Alawite meaning its near to impossible for the airforce to rebel without either being twigged or stopped.

The FSA or rebels are made up in the main from Sunni conscripts who serve two to three years in the army and then leave - 300,000 of them - and a number of career sunni soldiers. In a straight up fight the FSA havent a prayer against the Syrian military as long as the Alawites remain unified which they will as you have pointed out its a fight for their survival.

It will be all out Civil war in Syria with Al Assad coming out on top or a "diplomatic" solution driven by the Turks and Iranians for their own strategic interests. Ive said it before but Syria is the proverbial Pandoras box is impossible to see or say what way it will turn out all I know is its an extremely dangerous situation for all concerned.

Eggy Baby! · 12-07-2012 9:35pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

I'm a little concerned that this thread is drifting into a US political thread when it is meant to revolve around Syria. While I understand that the US plays a role in negotiations, I think that "Is the US a fading superpower/bankrupt" debate is best suited for a thread of its own.

Sorry about derailing the thread- I agree that some form of discussion about America is necessary though.

plasmaguy · 13-07-2012 8:47pm

I think we need to be realistic about Assad's intentions. He has no intention of leaving power peacefully, not now, not ever, anyone who thinks he does is pitifully naive. He has no intention of stopping the massacres either which are a daily occurance now. Gadaffi was the same. What some people foolishly and naively assume, Kofi Annan among them, is that you can somehow persuade someone like Assad to stop killing his people or persuade him to step down peacefully.

I don't think the West will intervene militarily any time soon. I think Assad is testing the resolve of the west with each of these massacres, seeing how many people he can kill in a day and get away with it. However, his policy is terribly misguided. If he killed rebels fair enough. But with each massacre it encourages more defections particularly from important allies in government. It also saps the morale of soldiers who defect.

The similarities between Syria and Rwanda grow by the day despite what the Assad supporters on here and elsewhere believe and of course they will deny this as they always stand up for Assad in any dispute, in fact there isn't a bloodthirsty dictator the world over that the Irish radical left aren't in love with. In Rwanda, a government desperate to hang on to power and not share power as part of a recently signed peace agreement carried out a genocide. In Syria a particular sect in society are equally desperate to hang on to power and are committing ethnic cleansing and genocide to stay in power.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Assad uses sarin gas in Homs, not one bit surprised, especially if he is facing immenent downfall. He would have absolutely nothing to lose using sarin gas at that stage.

And yes Russia and China are as much to blame for these massacres as Assad, no question. They have supplied him with the arms and ammunition and are sending even more attack helicoptors there which unquestionably will be used in further massacres.

I also don't believe the radical leftist posters on here will ever fully and unequivocally condemn Assad. Their equivocation on the issue is truely stomach turning but I guess for them Syria is just another stick to beat the west with. Whatever position western leaders take, the Irish radical left take the opposite stance, mostly just for the sake of it and in this regard the Irish radical left end up looking foolish most of the time. Strange how they hate the west yet still continue to live here and enjoy its freedoms.

Eggy Baby! · 13-07-2012 10:54pm

n fact there isn't a bloodthirsty dictator the world over that the Irish radical left aren't in love with.

Yep, I love the Saud family, Khomeini, Kim Jong Un, Lukashenko, Nazarbeyev, Hu Jintao, Mugabe etc. I love them all! They're my best friends...I have their posters on my wall, beside Pinochet, Milosevic and Stalin.

mostly just for the sake of it and in this regard the Irish radical left end up looking foolish most of the time. Strange how they hate the west yet still continue to live here and enjoy its freedoms.

Obviously you are a very precocious conservative and arguing with you any further will be like spitting in the wind. I think that most people here have realised this too- just reminding you!

btw "the left" don't "hate the west!!!11122!" they just disagree with the foreign policy of some choice western nations. Notice that there are people on the right too who disagree with the foreign policies of many western nations. But of course that fact eludes your biweekly rants.

wingsof daun · 14-07-2012 12:44am

If a sovereign country is under attack it defends itself with it's army. That is the purpose of the army to defend the people, land and borders. Why do people say Assad can't defend his country especially when they don't know who the opposition (rebels) are? Why do they insist such a leader give up power to an unknown group? The Syrian army had 4 days of military manoeuvres so it looks like they are preparing for war (from NATO?). The final day, very recently, was the jewel of the Syrian army Missile Force:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSxi0ProCZw&list=FLP4EBzqAgiwnc9Wt49B5NxA&index=1&feature=plpp_video

cyberhog · 14-07-2012 4:29am

Hmmm, it seems alleged massacres often coincide with UN security council meetings.

Liz Sly, the Washington Post Foreign Correspondent on Syria, remarked today:
The pattern of massacres on the eve of UNSC meetings on Syria is starting to look very real. Reports of 200 dead near Hama; UN meets tmrw.

And Paul Danahar, the BBC Middle East Bureau Chief tweeted:
'Massacre in #Syria as UN meets' is headline everywhere....again. This is either an increasingly odd coincidence or it isn't one at all

Read more: http://www.moonofalabama.org/

What the opposition seem to be doing is making false allegations of civilian massacres so that their Western supporters can make wild accusations about the Syrian army deliberately murdering civilians try to ramp up the pressure on Russia and China at the security council.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed outrage over the assault and urged the U.N. Security Council to make clear to Damascus that there would be consequences.

Clinton said accounts of the attack provided “indisputable evidence that the regime deliberately murdered innocent civilians.”

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-14/180557-atrocity-in-tremseh-stuns-world-russia-cool.ashx

When in fact accounts of the attack suggest most of the casualties were rebels.

...activists told the AFP news agency that rebel fighters had attacked an army convoy, but were beaten back and many were killed in a counter-attack.

"At this stage, though we do not yet have the final count, the number of civilians killed by shelling is not more than seven," said Jaafar, an activist from the anti-regime Sham News Network.

"The rest were members of the Free Syrian Army."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18838825

I have to laugh at Western powers regurgitating stale propaganda over and over, do they think Russia and China were born yesterday? :rolleyes:

troposphere · 14-07-2012 4:57am

About as funny as the support for al-Assad on here as long as he is not a US puppet. Clinton should come out and say they are going to back him. Deliver some Apache's from a US ship in the Russian US controlled Tartus port.

cyberhog · 14-07-2012 6:38am

troposphere wrote: »

About as funny as the support for al-Assad on here as long as he is not a US puppet.

You are committing an ad hominem by attempting to conflate criticism of the West's propaganda with support for Assad. If you were smart you would not engage in that sort of intellectually dishonest tactic as it only weakens your own credibility.

troposphere · 14-07-2012 7:47am

cyberhog wrote: »

You are committing an ad hominem by attempting to conflate criticism of the West's propaganda with support for Assad. If you were smart you would not engage in that sort of intellectually dishonest tactic as it only weakens your own credibility.

Do you think I care about my credibly from anti-American posters like you? We all know what side you are always going to be on.

Eggy Baby! · 14-07-2012 9:49am

troposphere wrote: »

Do you think I care about my credibly from anti-American posters like you? We all know what side you are always going to be on.

So begins again the overblown accusations...."you're anti-American and therefore lose credibility!!1!1!"

"You're either with us or against us" attitude being displayed here again. And also notice its easy to criticise US foreign policy lately- just saying.

I was wondering about this earlier- if Assad suddenly changed sides to the USA the rebels would most definitely and suddenly be labelled as terrorists!

That is a fact so nobody try to deny it!

plasmaguy · 14-07-2012 4:40pm

Yet another attempt to derail the thread from cyberhog.

It has been well established by all concerned that the most recent massacre in Tremseh involved tanks and helicopter gunships.

cyberhog, can you please stop peddling lies and tripe such as accusing the FSA of being responsible for the Tremseh massacre.

plasmaguy · 14-07-2012 8:17pm

Normally I wouldn't cite wikipedia, however articles on the Syrian conflict are often written by people with on the ground knowledge of the situation either directly or indirectly.

There is a good article already on the Tremseh massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turaymisah_massacre

The most important thing is the sources used.

As for only 7 killed as cyberhog cites, that is simply not a credible account. Dozens were killed in a mosque which collapsed.

Typically then, cyberhog cherry picks one account and posts it as fact in an attempt to shore up his crumbling credibility and overlooks the other accounts which far outnumber the one he posts.

Here are some accounts he chose to ignore as it clearly doesn't fit his agenda:

An opposition member was quoted saying, “It appears that Alawite militiamen (Shabiha) from surrounding villages descended on Turaymisah after its rebel defenders pulled out, and started killing the people. Whole houses have been destroyed and burned from the shelling."[26]

Another was quoted as saying, "Around 6:00 AM of Thursday morning, Assad forces surrounded the village with heavy weaponry and tanks, more than 800 soldiers of Assad forces were in the mission, after couple of hours, they started arbitrary artillery shelling on the village. People fled their home to seek shelters in school and the mosque. Assad forces shelled the school and the mosque causing collapses in the buildings which resulted in tens of deaths. Shabiha from the surrounding villages came to support Assad forces and to kill more of the village people, which escalate the number of victims in this massacre."[27]

wingsof daun · 15-07-2012 1:28am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Yet another attempt to derail the thread from cyberhog.

It has been well established by all concerned that the most recent massacre in Tremseh involved tanks and helicopter gunships.

cyberhog, can you please stop peddling lies and tripe such as accusing the FSA of being responsible for the Tremseh massacre.

Haha, it has been well established by the foreign conspiracy against Syria that it was tanks and gunships used, and their various media outlets who report only from one side of most conflicts.
Well, it either one of two, the FSA or the government army, it's a bit much to call it "lies and tripe". Syrian people are in the Syrian army, but the FSA, well I'm sure you'll see plenty of non-Syrian faces - nice bunch of fellas! Syrian people have brothers, sons, uncles in the government Syrian army, it's unlikely they would have anything to do with civilian deaths, but accidents do happen.

plasmaguy · 15-07-2012 3:32am

wingsof daun wrote: »

Haha, it has been well established by the foreign conspiracy against Syria that it was tanks and gunships used, and their various media outlets who report only from one side of most conflicts.
Well, it either one of two, the FSA or the government army, it's a bit much to call it "lies and tripe". Syrian people are in the Syrian army, but the FSA, well I'm sure you'll see plenty of non-Syrian faces - nice bunch of fellas! Syrian people have brothers, sons, uncles in the government Syrian army, it's unlikely they would have anything to do with civilian deaths, but accidents do happen.

Think I'll take the word of the head of the UN monitoring mission over someone like you if that's all the same.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/syria-helicopters-tanks-tremseh

The UN monitoring mission which by the way is supported by all sides including Iran, Russia and China, has verified the use of helicopters and tanks. Are you going to accuse the UN as being part of your "conspiracy" now? It wouldn't surprise me if you did.

Like many conspiracy peddlers, facts are pretty irrelevant to people like you. Your fellow conspiracy peddler cyberhog cited a Frankfurter Almeinge article as his source for the Houla massacre, an article which was completely flawed stating for example that the victims were Alwite and Shia when in reality they were Sunni. The survivors of the same family ended up seeking protection by the FSA in the aftermath which tells its own story and no-one in Houla had ever even heard of the author of the newspaper article let alone spoke to him.

But hey, never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, right?

cyberhog · 15-07-2012 3:37am

plasmaguy wrote: »

cyberhog, can you please stop peddling lies and tripe such as accusing the FSA of being responsible for the Tremseh massacre.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. What I said was the opposition appear to be making false allegations of civilian massacres.

Even the wikipedia link you posted backs up my argument.

On 14 July 2012, the facts over the event remained unclear with new details emerging that would indicate that what was called a massacre may have been more of a battle between the military and opposition fighters that ended in a defeat for the rebels.

...

The opposition activist group SOHR stated that it had been able to confirm only 103 deaths, 90 percent of them young men, and the group's director, Rami Abdul-Rahman, said that the majority of people killed in Tremseh were either rebel fighters from the town or from surrounding towns.

The UN also say the Tremseh killings targeted rebels.

A UN spokeswoman issued a statement after inspectors visited the scene of Thursday's attack, in which at least 200 people are said to have died.

The BBC's Jim Muir says the initial findings seem to contradict earlier reports of a massacre of civilians.

Instead, the inspectors' preliminary findings are more in line with the government's claims that it was attacking what it calls "nests of terrorists" or rebel hideouts, our correspondent says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18840535

You can spout all the regime change flogging rhetoric you want, the reality is that what happened in Tremseh was not a civilian massacre.

Eggy Baby! · 15-07-2012 12:59pm

Yet another attempt to derail the thread from cyberhog.

It has been well established by all concerned that the most recent massacre in Tremseh involved tanks and helicopter gunships.

cyberhog, can you please stop peddling lies and tripe such as accusing the FSA of being responsible for the Tremseh massacre.

Says the guy who is using this thread as a platform to incessantly attack the "dictator-loving radical left".

Seems to be conflicting reports on the massacre:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18832286

Oh whoops, looks like I cherry picked a link! I'm sorry! Of course, when you do it, you are simply "quoting evidence" but when cyberhog does it, he has "an agenda". Because a random poster from boards.ie would have vested interests in Syria :rolleyes:

This particular segment of Syrian government propaganda is especially pathetic:

Security forces only arrived at the village after receiving calls from residents, officials said.

Once there, the troops clashed with the attackers, "inflicting huge losses upon them, capturing scores of them, confiscating their weapons, among which were Israeli-made machine-guns", the Sana report added.

Some of those captured were paraded on state TV, which also showed large quantities of arms and ammunition it said were seized.

KIERAN1 · 15-07-2012 1:23pm

A wider middle eastern regional conflict hypothetically will happen this year or early next year sometime. In my mind only peace or a complete collapse of the Assad regime will stop this from unfolding now. American and Israel are likely to give the go-ahead for a strike on Iran within the next 12 months? The movement of US aircraft carriers and destroyers from other sea locations to the 'Strait of Hormuz' currently is a clear sign war between the United States and Iran is close. Syria, is obligated to defend Iran and 'vice versa' under the terms of a military treaty signed between both administrations in years past. Will either country fulfill their agreements if attacked separately?

What will China and Russia do if either country is attacked? Its unforseen what actions they would take if Nato got involved?, but even limited involvement from either country, could ignite a massive war involving nuclear weapons. This is not fear mongering or a far out theory folks, its a real possibility. Be thankful we haven't progressed to that stage yet. Most of the diplomatic talk has been disagreeable, but still both sides agree a peaceful resolution to the Syrian conflict and a negotiated settled agreement with the Iranians over the nuclear issue, is better, than the alternative ones.

Theres so many ifs, and buts here. But is doesn't look like this going to turn out well in the end. Pray for miracles maybe their is a God who'll listen?

plasmaguy · 15-07-2012 2:48pm

Cyberhog, I am in favour of all butchering, mass-murdering, dictators being removed from power, I make no apologies about that nor will I ever, whether they are left wing, right wing, capitalist, communist or socialist.

Unfortunately the same does not apply to you or many of the radical left in Ireland.

As long as the butchering, mass-murdering, dictator calls himself socialist (even though they might have personal fortunes in the hundreds of millions like the Assads and Gadaffis and are personally the biggest capitalists of them all since for these dictators socialism is for the little people while they and their children enjoy all the trappings of capitalism) or call themselves anti American, the Irish radical left will support said butchering mass murdering dictator to the hilt and spew some spurious nonsense about regime change as the reason butchering mass murdering dictator should be left in power.

You even tried to shore up your argument with a bogus Frankfurter Almeigne article which has since been shown to be a tissue of lies.

I'm in favour of Assad being removed from power by a variety of means. Firstly in a democractic election but that's not going to happen. Secondly by persuasion from Russia, but that's even less lightly than a democratic election, thirdly by Assad voluntarily stepping down, again zero chance of that, fourthly by arming the opposition in Syria and evening the playing field so that eventually Assad will be persuaded to step down.

And if all these options fail and butchering mass murdering dictator still remains in power and continues to perpetrate massacres like the Houla massacre, a no fly zone should be imposed, something the Irish radical left will oppose to the end I have no doubt, since they feel its their mission to shield every anti western butchering dictator the world over.

Eggy Baby! · 15-07-2012 3:40pm

This thread is being derailed by plasmaguy more often than a Nigerian train.

*gives out about others generally condemning "The West"*
*gives out about "the Irish radical left" all loving dictators*

Secondly by persuasion from Russia, but that's even less lightly than a democratic election

This is probably going to happen.

a no fly zone should be imposed

No fly zone or NATO fly zone? Wouldn't happen in a million million years with Russia and China on the UNSC.

since they feel its their mission to shield every anti western butchering dictator the world over.

Lol.... I have no idea why you are still posting because you have vindicated your own point of view so much with hilariously bad rhetoric like this.

What is happening in Syria is a classic example of "conflict of interests". You want the west's and only the west's interests to be honoured. No chance. It is incredibly naive to think that "the west" (by this I mean the powerful NATO nations so I'm not actually attacking the west and neither is anyone else despite your delusions) has anything but its own interests at heart, let's get this out of the way.

And I like the way you are 95% ignoring me too- very clever.

The hilarious thing is that you were given an infraction for mentioning the Irish "looney left" and you basically just post the same things over and over again now, except instead of "looney left" its "radical left" to avoid infractions. The gist of your posts are the same every time- vehement, zealous and deluded attacks on "the Irish radical left" your scapegoat for everyone that doesn't agree with you.

But hey, never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, right?

Like....the conspiracy of the Irish "looney left"? Trollers gonna troll.

WakeUp · 15-07-2012 6:19pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Cyberhog, I am in favour of all butchering, mass-murdering, dictators being removed from power, I make no apologies about that nor will I ever, whether they are left wing, right wing, capitalist, communist or socialist.

Unfortunately the same does not apply to you or many of the radical left in Ireland.

As long as the butchering, mass-murdering, dictator calls himself socialist (even though they might have personal fortunes in the hundreds of millions like the Assads and Gadaffis and are personally the biggest capitalists of them all since for these dictators socialism is for the little people while they and their children enjoy all the trappings of capitalism) or call themselves anti American, the Irish radical left will support said butchering mass murdering dictator to the hilt and spew some spurious nonsense about regime change as the reason butchering mass murdering dictator should be left in power.

You even tried to shore up your argument with a bogus Frankfurter Almeigne article which has since been shown to be a tissue of lies.

I'm in favour of Assad being removed from power by a variety of means. Firstly in a democractic election but that's not going to happen. Secondly by persuasion from Russia, but that's even less lightly than a democratic election, thirdly by Assad voluntarily stepping down, again zero chance of that, fourthly by arming the opposition in Syria and evening the playing field so that eventually Assad will be persuaded to step down.

And if all these options fail and butchering mass murdering dictator still remains in power and continues to perpetrate massacres like the Houla massacre, a no fly zone should be imposed, something the Irish radical left will oppose to the end I have no doubt, since they feel its their mission to shield every anti western butchering dictator the world over.

Some of your rants are really ridiculous don't suppose you can tangibly show me this mythical all encompassing "Irish radical left" you bluster on about? . I see you accused a previous poster and question credibility. And then posted the above, doesn't do much for your own in my opinion.

The ICRC today labeled Syria a non international armed conflict - its officially a civil war . The rules of war are now in play as outlined in the Geneva convention/s. It also gives both sides the right use appropriate force to achieve their aims. The gloves would appear to be off, all sorts of ramifications legally and on the ground will now arise though the outcome is still impossible to call.

wingsof daun · 16-07-2012 1:09am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Cyberhog, I am in favour of all butchering, mass-murdering, dictators being removed from power, I make no apologies about that nor will I ever, whether they are left wing, right wing, capitalist, communist or socialist.

Unfortunately the same does not apply to you or many of the radical left in Ireland.

As long as the butchering, mass-murdering, dictator calls himself socialist (even though they might have personal fortunes in the hundreds of millions like the Assads and Gadaffis and are personally the biggest capitalists of them all since for these dictators socialism is for the little people while they and their children enjoy all the trappings of capitalism) or call themselves anti American, the Irish radical left will support said butchering mass murdering dictator to the hilt and spew some spurious nonsense about regime change as the reason butchering mass murdering dictator should be left in power.

You even tried to shore up your argument with a bogus Frankfurter Almeigne article which has since been shown to be a tissue of lies.

I too would be happy if Assad is voted down in a democratic election with any civilian SYRIAN opposition, but there is no chance because he would win any election with the public support he has. Hence there will never be any election, the opposition will choose violent means to get what they want. I am all for the Syrian people deciding their government.
Strange how you describe these people as the worst capitalists... neither of the 2 men left their countries in financial ruin, neither gambled the countries money, one spent billions on a civilian water project. The Gaddafi's actually lived under strict socialist ideals - lived as modestly as the rest of the general people, they do not live in palaces and drive rolls royce, which the media led us to believe. The Japanese jeep the "dictator" himself used to parade through Tripoli last year was years old and was what many of the ordinary people themselves drove.

AlekSmart · 16-07-2012 12:15pm

wingsof daun wrote: »

Strange how you describe these people as the worst capitalists... neither of the 2 men left their countries in financial ruin, neither gambled the countries money, one spent billions on a civilian water project. The Gaddafi's actually lived under strict socialist ideals - lived as modestly as the rest of the general people, they do not live in palaces and drive rolls royce, which the media led us to believe. The Japanese jeep the "dictator" himself used to parade through Tripoli last year was years old and was what many of the ordinary people themselves drove.

You make a set of valid points there.

I note that in the immediate aftermath of Gadaffi's execution we were not treated to a raft of evidence of vast excessive living standards enjoyed by Gadaffi at the expense of his own people.

Similarly,supportive evidence of mass killings of the general Libyan polulation have been slow to emerge,with the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre generally being the single most quoted incident.

Wikipedia,admittedly not an exhaustive source,but still widely utilized throws up this interesting list...

Name Date Location Deaths Notes
1945 Tripoli pogrom November 5-7, 1945 Tripoli 140+[1][2][3] Muslim rioters killed Libyan Jews; 36 victims were children

1948 Tripoli pogrom June 12, 1948 Tripoli 12[2] Muslim rioters killed Libyan Jews

Abu Salim massacre 29 June 1996 Abu Salim prison, Tripoli Up to 1200 [4] Prisoners expressed anger at the restricted family visits and poor living conditions, and were subsequently shot and killed.

Warehouse in Khalida Ferjan, Salahaddin 23 August 2011 Suburb to the south of Tripoli At least 47 The building was being used as a temporary prison by the Khamis Brigade, the elite force headed by Col Gaddafi's son.

Gargur District Around 21 August 2011 Gargur, Tripoli At least 17 Appear to have been shot dead by pro-Gaddafi troops as the rebels advanced on the Gargur district of Tripoli. Those killed were said to have been held prisoner at an Internal Security building in the district.

Camp outside Bab al-Azizia August 2011 Bab-al-Azizya Compound, Tripoli At least 29 Not yet known whether the killings were carried out by rebel fighters or pro-Gaddafi troops.

Hotel Mahari October 2011 Hotel Mahari, Sirte 53 HRW said they believed the hotel had been in the hands of anti-Gaddafi forces from Misrata.

The Bab al Azizia compound itself whilst extensive,did'nt exactly figure on the opulence scale of,for example Nicolae Ceaucescu,Uncle Bob Mugabe et al...

Gadaffi,like most wealthy men in the region had a fondness for large cars,and recent reports of the Bugatti Veyron appear to confirm this,but it's certainly not on the scale of many leaders in the region,particularly the Oil-Rich one's....

As a Head of State...THE head of state,I would suggest Gadaffi had a lifestyle pretty much in line with the norms of that position.

But what does strike me as noteworthy is the dearth of evidence that he and his family were enjoying a phenomenal lifestyle,which no doubt they could have well afforded.

I found this interview with his former Nurse quite interesting...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/10/my-years-as-gaddafi-s-nurse.html

Gadaffi's eventual downfall centred on his failure to maintain a strong enough Military to defend his country...the much vaunted Libyan Military strength was largely outdated and quickle neutralized by UN/NATO air operations,leaving only the far smaller loyal "Brigades" to stick with him to the end.

Syrian is a different proposition altogether,as I believe Bashir Al Assad has nowhere near the sense of national vision possessed by Gadaffi,however,the living Al Assad is testimony to his far more astute understanding of a requirement for a strong cohesive Military than the dead Gadaffi..

plasmaguy · 16-07-2012 11:38pm

It's amazing how even still some people fall for the 'poor Gadaffi living in a tent' routine.

If you ignored the $200 billion offshore, the £10 million house his son owned in London and dozens of other overseas properties and assets, sure the guy hardly had a cent to his name.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/gaddafi-s-hidden-wealth-could-exceed-200b-1.913928

And this was the guy the anti imperialists sided with? You couldn't make it up!

As for the Abu Slim massacre, I'm glad someone brought that up, 1200 prisoners murdered in one day in a country with a population slightly bigger than Ireland's.

It would be the equivalent to 7/800 Mountjoy prisoners being massacred in one day in Ireland.

Yeh that Gadaffi was a hero alright to the Libyan people. :rolleyes:

In any case this thread is about Syria, not Libya.

plasmaguy · 16-07-2012 11:49pm

wingsof daun wrote: »

I too would be happy if Assad is voted down in a democratic election with any civilian SYRIAN opposition, but there is no chance because he would win any election with the public support he has. Hence there will never be any election, the opposition will choose violent means to get what they want. I am all for the Syrian people deciding their government.
Strange how you describe these people as the worst capitalists... neither of the 2 men left their countries in financial ruin, neither gambled the countries money, one spent billions on a civilian water project. The Gaddafi's actually lived under strict socialist ideals - lived as modestly as the rest of the general people, they do not live in palaces and drive rolls royce, which the media led us to believe. The Japanese jeep the "dictator" himself used to parade through Tripoli last year was years old and was what many of the ordinary people themselves drove.

Assad and his father before him had 40 years to hold proper presidential elections and always chose to ban opponents so that they ended up as the only candidate in the election.

If Assad contested a free and fair election (impossible though because of who he is) and won fairly I'd be the first to congratulate him. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of him winning a democratic election by the way, the Sunnis detest the man and they make up 80% of the population. He knows this well hence the reason he has banned democracy in Syria and there is no hope of a smooth transition to democracy while he is in control, not a hope.

As for Gadaffi living under strict socialist rules, read by previous post. He was no more socialist than the Pope is a Muslim.

AlekSmart · 17-07-2012 12:54pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

It's amazing how even still some people fall for the 'poor Gadaffi living in a tent' routine.

If you ignored the $200 billion offshore, the £10 million house his son owned in London and dozens of other overseas properties and assets, sure the guy hardly had a cent to his name.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/gaddafi-s-hidden-wealth-could-exceed-200b-1.913928

And this was the guy the anti imperialists sided with? You couldn't make it up!

As for the Abu Slim massacre, I'm glad someone brought that up, 1200 prisoners murdered in one day in a country with a population slightly bigger than Ireland's.

It would be the equivalent to 7/800 Mountjoy prisoners being massacred in one day in Ireland.

Yeh that Gadaffi was a hero alright to the Libyan people. :rolleyes:

In any case this thread is about Syria, not Libya.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding ?

I'm not one of those who subscribed to the "Ordinary Guy iun a Tent" jazz.

All Gadaffi was doing here was playing to the gallery in the exact same manner as every major Political leader does,or rather is expected to.

If they do not,they are accused of being aloof and remote,when they do,they are accused of acting the eejit....Heads,Tails....

Of course Gadaffi was a wealthy man,but I see little evidence of that wealth being accumulated by presiding over famine or poverty amongst his countrymen ?

However,as is pointed out,it's not directly Syrian related,but I feel the Libyan "revolution" is providing the templates for much of what Syria's warring factions are doing...so you'll just have to deal with it I guess ?

Abu Salim is also quite an interesting scenario,and it's perhaps ironic that some of the senior Libyan rebel leaders managed to survive lengthy spells of incarceration and/or re-education at the hands of the Gadaffi regime within it's walls....some might suggest that an actual truly oppressive Dictator would'nt have bothered with the oul Prison thing at all......?

RobitTV · 18-07-2012 2:11pm

President Bashar Assad's brother-in-law Assef Shawkat, and Syrian Defense Minister Dawoud Rajih have been killed during fierce clashes in Damascus, Arab media outlets reported on Wednesday. Shawkat died in a Damascus hospital where he was taken after the attack.

According to the reports, the officials were killed after a bomb struck a government building in Damascus; other Syrian officials were injured in the explosion, including Intelligence Chief Hisham Bekhtyar. Al- Arabiya reported that the terrorist who activated the bomb worked as a bodyguard for Assad’s inner circle. It also claimed that Syria's Interior Minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Chaarand was also killed in the blast, but Syrian state television denied the reports, stating that he was in stable condition. The reports could not be confirmed.

Shortly after the blast, five additional explosions were heard near the northwestern Damascus district of Muhajireen, close to the base of the Fourth Armoured Division that is led by Assad's brother Maher, residents said. It was not clear whether those forces were being targeted.

Is this the beginning of the end of the regime?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4257155,00.html

cyberhog · 19-07-2012 7:56am

The US has not joined the UN, UK and Russia in condemning the bombing in Damascus. The sense you get from some US tweets and elsewhere is that Americans are rejoicing.

Rumsfeld's former chief of staff applauded the suicide bombing, calling it a 'martyr' operation.

Foreign Policy Editor Blake Hounshell described it as "#thatawkwardmoment [that awkward moment] when Westerners and secular Arabs cheer a suicide bombing"

It seems the US has no problem aligning itself with suicide bombers as long as they share a common enemy.

Eggy Baby! · 19-07-2012 8:45am

Then if the rebels win in Syria and reject America, they shall be called terrorists and their methods of rebellion scrutinised.

Seems as though a suicide bomber is okay as long as he suicide bombs for FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOM

jank · 19-07-2012 9:15am

Some serious anti-Americanism displayed here. It has always deluded me why the Irish left are so anti american. If they knew the alternative they wouldn't moaning all the time.

Suff · 19-07-2012 11:49am

NATO death squads involved in Syria bombing: American author - link

Although its very pro-Assad, they do put some interesting points cross.

brimal · 19-07-2012 12:20pm

OK first of all, that link is PressTV, Iran's state-funded propaganda machine.

Secondly, Webster Tarpley is full of sensationalist ideas, including 9/11 terror attacks were actually a false flag, and global warming is a complete fraud.

How you find this story credible enough that you post it on both Syria threads in beyond me.

Nodin · 19-07-2012 1:49pm

Suff wrote: »

NATO death squads involved in Syria bombing: American author - link

Although its very pro-Assad, they do put some interesting points cross.

Nobody can even confirm if its a suicide bombing, let alone who did it. The term "NATO death squad" is derisible.

Eggy Baby! · 19-07-2012 5:14pm

jank wrote: »

Some serious anti-Americanism displayed here.

By who?

NATO death squads involved in Syria bombing: American author - link

Although its very pro-Assad, they do put some interesting points cross.

The article itself isn't biased, but the guy it quotes (Tarpley) is very biased and sensationalist. As Press TV is a state-controlled Iranian media outlet and Iran has a clear interest in the conflict, we can rule it out as an effective source.

WakeUp · 19-07-2012 5:52pm

jank wrote: »

Some serious anti-Americanism displayed here. It has always deluded me why the Irish left are so anti american. If they knew the alternative they wouldn't moaning all the time.

Comments like that do get tiring after a while, since when is having a go at US foreign policy and their interventionist doctrine being anti-American and puts you on the left? I would be neither but you can still speak out against something without being "anti".

What alternative are you talking about? as if we have something to fear and the US/NATO should be given a free hand to kill and destroy when they choose..do you mean a Muslim empire??? last great Muslim empire ceased to exist in the 1920's these days the Turks - even with a president like Erdogen - are firmly in the corner of the West so much so that the US has tactical nuclear weapons stationed on Turkish soil.

Pakistan? plenty of nukes for many years and still cant do anything about indiscriminate US drone strikes on their soil nor the will too really confront them.

They are the only two "Muslim" nations that could even remotely consider challenging the current Anglo-American Empire.

Russians?? Chinese?? Persians?? what is this alternative you speak off?..the one that warrants taking, killing and maiming in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"?

We shouldnt be worried about the "alternative" whatever that is. We should be worried about the current empire starting wars, picking fights until eventually something happens and the entire world goes up. Unlike colonial conquests (modern day hegemony) of centuries since past - we live in a nuclear age - this and its potential seem to be lost on a lot of people. All empires eventually cease to exist, crumble from within or are challenged and defeated. The Anglo-American will go the same way one day, question is which one. I see the US currently have 3 aircraft carriers and a 4th enroute to the middle east. Suppose we can expect more "freedom" spreading and "humanitarian" missions in the coming days and months.

Jonny7 · 19-07-2012 7:17pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Comments like that do get tiring after a while, since when is having a go at US foreign policy and their interventionist doctrine being anti-American and puts you on the left? I would be neither but you can still speak out against something without being "anti".

Can't believe I am getting sucked into this, but here goes. I used to loathe being labelled "anti-American" esp. during the whole Iraq war debate, but its a lazy moniker for those who's primary (and often sole) interest is just to use political incidents and situations to "prove" that whatever countries (usually Israel, US, UK, etc) are outside the bounds of democracy and human rights that they preach. The truth of which is usually somewhere in between.

What alternative are you talking about? as if we have something to fear and the US/NATO should be given a free hand to kill and destroy when they choose

They don't "kill and destroy when they choose". Iraq and Afghanistan are about the only unilateral examples of this outside the Cold War. Different administrations, different conflicts, there have been some "positive" interventions and humanitarian missions.

Pakistan? plenty of nukes for many years and still cant do anything about indiscriminate US drone strikes on their soil nor the will too really confront them.

Pakistan has a huge problem and it isn't India. They have the ability to stop the drone strikes if they so wish, however they choose to allow the US to keep striking the militants which are a cancer for Pakistan as well. Sadly the drone strikes just help the radicalise young men being pumped out of the Madrassa's. Very circular really.

They are the only two "Muslim" nations that could even remotely consider challenging the current Anglo-American Empire.

The use of the word "empire" is a bit over the top. Sphere of influence might be a better term, the major powers are constantly jostling, e.g. China, but remain at their most peaceful point in history and trade/business links are high. Muslim nations are still at a regional level not really the world stage. Although if Iran went nuclear..

Russians?? Chinese?? Persians?? what is this alternative you speak off?..the one that warrants taking, killing and maiming in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"?

The Russians and the Chinese are well capable of oppression and killing people in the name of... whatever they choose.

Severe (internet) fall-out from the Iraq war, Afghanistan and to a lesser extent memories of the Cold War mean a new generation of ultra-cynical armchair generals feel that every new conflict involving any typical Western nation is something much more sinister than it generally is.

We shouldnt be worried about the "alternative" whatever that is. We should be worried about the current empire starting wars, picking fights until eventually something happens and the entire world goes up.

Again the word 'empire' is a little over the top. Would be morbidly interesting to see what would happen to the world if the traditional "policemen" took an extremely isolationist policy.

Unlike colonial conquests (modern day hegemony) of centuries since past - we live in a nuclear age - this and its potential seem to be lost on a lot of people. All empires eventually cease to exist, crumble from within or are challenged and defeated. The Anglo-American will go the same way one day, question is which one. I see the US currently have 3 aircraft carriers and a 4th enroute to the middle east. Suppose we can expect more "freedom" spreading and "humanitarian" missions in the coming days and months.

Not really, nothing like Iraq anyway.

I would be more concerned about regional flare-ups, Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi. I do believe its only a matter of time before Assad goes, but that amount of time is crucial, people will suffer even after it ends and they are certainly suffering terribly now and that is regardless of how the rest of the world is reacting in its current state.