[MERGED] Syrian rebellion, troop movement & negotiations

WakeUp · 19-07-2012 8:26pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

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..

Jonny I didnt mean to start a lengthy debate on this thread with my reply to that guy:) I just wanted to hear what he had to say. Saying somebody is anti-American to me is more than lazy, it shows a lack of understanding of the situation and its a weak retort/response. Personally speaking the truth with me, not that he was addressing me directly for the record and all that is nowhere in between. There are many things I like and admire about the US. On the other hand there are many things I disagree and dont like about their foreign policy - nothing to do with your average American man or woman on the street - thats pretty much where I am and where I stand.

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..

Saying they dont kill when they choose and admitting that infact they do (Iraq & Afghanistan) I think thats a contradiction. Maybe there has been positive sides from issues they have become involved in but in my opinion they most certainly, pick fights start wars and kill and maim if and when they choose. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on that.

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.

Since 2011 Pakistan has been calling for an end to the drone strokes this is common knowledge. If they had the ability to stop them they would stop. The US killed 20 of their soldiers not too long ago in a blue on blue incident. Pakistan has openly objected to each and every strike since late 2011. I agree they are helping radicalise young people in Pakistan - how couldnt they - if an outside country was dropping bombs on you and your families heads. Pakistani/US relations are tense and strained.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/29/pakistani-objection-to-us-drones-puts-nations-at-war-says-leading-democrat/

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..

I dont think its over the top. The US is the worlds sole super power. They have over 900 military bases in 130 countries. Their navy cant be challenged in the open oceans with any hope of defeating them. Their sphere of influence can be felt in every continent on the planet. Their foreign policy is interventionist and military projection unchecked - and they still want more. I would call that an empire perhaps not how you would understand it but in my mind it makes sense.
The days of MAD are numbered this is something most people either dont know about or dont understand. The US is moving away from MAD and toward a policy, although they will never admit it, of nuclear primacy. This is crazy. Encircling Russia with a radar shield the purpose being to detect and neutralise a nuclear Russian first strike is utter madness yet this is what they are doing - the Russians know well what they are up too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57400611/medvedev-russia-must-counter-missile-shield/
WIth regard to Asia the US is trying to forge an alliance against China and Chinese interests and have been the past number of years. It revolves around the South China Sea as ridiculous and all as Chinese claims are to that ocean, the US is still attempting to challenge them and is building up its military quietly but constantly is places like SIngapore. The bigboys may well be at peace right now but behind the scenes moves are being made in each of their interests and as Im sure you know things can change. You can never say never in this world life doesnt work like that we can never be certain what the future holds only make decisions and take actions that we hope can influence it. I have no desire to see Iran go nuclear and I dont believe it will happen. That country will be attacked when they finish with Syria its coming.

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

Agreed. Each of those nations are abusers of human rights and as you rightly point out kill when they want. Im not defending them and not particularly fond of either.

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..

I disagree with your empire comment:) Policing the world from what though? a threat to our freedom? our way of life? what are they policing - I would call it bullying and self interest some would call it policing.

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.

Regional flare ups in that part of the world affect us all and we should be concerned about them. I have no love for Assad and if he goes and it stops the misery I would be happy. Western involvement in Syria removing Assad and backing their own man does two things as far as I can see - Weakens Iran and deprives Russia of direct access to the Mediterranean which in turn weakens them. Its for those reasons I believe they are showing such a keen interest in that country.

plasmaguy · 19-07-2012 9:01pm

You cannot take what the Pakistanis say at face value. This is a country that supports and aids both the US/NATO and the Taliban and there has been several intelligence reports linking them to the Taliban.

The Pakistanis condemn the drone attacks and ask for them to end, but they know at the same time they are a godsend, as there are entire regions of Pakistan which the regular army cannot go near because of the Taliban. Pakistan has suffered more than anyone from militant attacks, yet also support many of these militant groups behind the scenes. There's a lot of competing factions in Pakistan politics and nothing ever is what it seems.

The Americans couldn't even tell the Pakistans about their attack on Bin Laden because they were certain Bin Laden would have been helped escape. The Pakistanis also jailed the doctor who helped catch bin laden for more than 30 years. Bin Laden was also hiding out within a kilometre of a major Pakistani army barracks.

My bet re the Pakistanis is they condemn they drone strikes in public while in private are supplying the Americans with intelligence from spies and sources on the ground to help them with the drone strikes.

As for the attack in Damascus, it wasn't a suicide attack but a carefully planned operation involving bodyguards.

I expect many more like this.

A lot of Assad's close circle want to defect but the FSA have asked them to remain where they are as they are more useful on the inside of government than outside.

It might be that Assad is also assassinated in a similar way.

Manic Moran · 19-07-2012 9:43pm

The days of MAD are numbered this is something most people either dont know about or dont understand. The US is moving away from MAD and toward a policy, although they will never admit it, of nuclear primacy. This is crazy. Encircling Russia with a radar shield the purpose being to detect and neutralise a nuclear Russian first strike is utter madness yet this is what they are doing - the Russians know well what they are up too.

That is simply political granstanding. Unless the Russians have decided to decomission a few thousand nuclear missiles, to include those launched from SSBNs or even strategic bombers, the ABM sites proposed would not provide nuclear primacy. How will an anti-missile station in Poland prevent Paris (or New York) from being attacked by a Delta IV floating around somewhere a few hundred miles SouthWest of Rockall? How would it affect a saturation attack even from land based missiles in Western Russia? They're just not capable of dealing with anything more than advertised.

WakeUp · 19-07-2012 9:47pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

You cannot take what the Pakistanis say at face value. This is a country that supports and aids both the US/NATO and the Taliban and there has been several intelligence reports linking them to the Taliban.

The Pakistanis condemn the drone attacks and ask for them to end, but they know at the same time they are a godsend, as there are entire regions of Pakistan which the regular army cannot go near because of the Taliban. Pakistan has suffered more than anyone from militant attacks, yet also support many of these militant groups behind the scenes. There's a lot of competing factions in Pakistan politics and nothing ever is what it seems.

The Americans couldn't even tell the Pakistans about their attack on Bin Laden because they were certain Bin Laden would have been helped escape. The Pakistanis also jailed the doctor who helped catch bin laden for more than 30 years. Bin Laden was also hiding out within a kilometre of a major Pakistani army barracks.

My bet re the Pakistanis is they condemn they drone strikes in public while in private are supplying the Americans with intelligence from spies and sources on the ground to help them with the drone strikes.

Maybe so. But it would appear for all intent and purposes that they want the US to stop carrying out drone attacks unilaterally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120718/us-us-pakistan-drones-and-jets/

As for the attack in Damascus, it wasn't a suicide attack but a carefully planned operation involving bodyguards.

I expect many more like this.

A lot of Assad's close circle want to defect but the FSA have asked them to remain where they are as they are more useful on the inside of government than outside.

It might be that Assad is also assassinated in a similar way.

I havent seen any reports saying this do you have any links?

plasmaguy · 19-07-2012 10:25pm

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claiming 250 people minimum killed today including 144 civilians and 93 Soldiers. No figures for FSA killed.

This in addition to 200 killed on Wednesday.

Entering a very bloody phase now with both sides upping the intensity of their fighting.

The nearer the fighting gets to Damascus the higher the number of daily dead I would say.

It's a shame someone couldn't just take Assad out. Ah well I guess in the absence of UNSC agreement, this conflict will drag on needlessly to its bloody and violent conclusion.

Suff · 19-07-2012 10:31pm

The current rumour in Syria is that Bashar has fled to lattakia.

If true, it would indicate that Damascus will see similar bombings to that of Homs, and the country will be divided similar to Iraq - where we'll have the Alawayts in the northwest leaving the rest of the country under the control of the FSA.

Eggy Baby! · 19-07-2012 11:27pm

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.

Is this implying that the USA is a "policeman"?

jank · 20-07-2012 6:50am

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"..

Are they intervening in Syria. I have heard reports that the CIA are involved. However there are other left leaning groups urging the west to get involved. Can’t win really.

WakeUp wrote: »

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..

Very dramatic there! Alternatives such as regional power brokers who would try and have a hegemony over a geographic region. Do you think the world would be safer if Iran dominated the middle east without American protection of Saudi? Would you be comfortable with that?

WakeUp wrote: »

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 more internal worries than external.

WakeUp wrote: »

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

What is this empire you are on about? Is Ireland part of this "Empire". Is Australia where I live now? Rethoric like that is a dead give away to your bias.

WakeUp wrote: »

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"?.

Well, yes the Russians. Would you rather the USSR won the cold war. I suppose some of the SWP get emtional to think of the "what if". They almost had their day!!

The Chinesse, yes, another bastion and exporting of human rights and freedom.

Iran, again I do not want to be lving under Shaira law. So yes take those three as examples I would rather the US to dominate the world from a military point of view than any of those three. Would you. Of course in an ideal situation no country would bother its neighbours and everywhere would be peaceful. For the moment that is fiction.

WakeUp wrote: »

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.

See its crap like that I am on about. Lefties like you think the world should be all lollipops and sunshine and the big bad wolf (the US and its allies) is causing more harm then good. Things would be a lot better if they weren’t around to police the world... Its bull****! it's emotional claptrap. What is more you are prepared to see ANY alternative than carry on with the status que even if the alternative is vastly worse then now.

Meanwhile in the real world someone has to carry a stick. As I said, I prefer that the US carry that stick rather then some Russian autocrat or some Chinese communist. You want alternatives? How about Tojo's Japan or Hilter's Germany? No matter how bad you think the present US administration is or have been historically they have never been that bad.

So yes the alternative is regional powers fighting it out among themselves for material resources causing the rest of the world serious economic hardship nevermind more countless and needless suffering and deaths in these regional struggles.

By the way I say all that as someone who did and still opposed the invasion of Iraq. Is American foreign policy perfect? No way, sometimes its deeply flawed but lets not get too excited now with the anti-western rhetoric. We have to remain somewhat grounded and find realistic alternatives. Not some emotional "cant we all just get along" $hite the left usually come out with.

cyberhog · 20-07-2012 9:11am

China slams Western diplomats for trying to force an unbalanced resolution through the UNSC.

The latest draft, backed by Britain, the United States and some other countries, threatens to impose sanctions against the Syrian government without exerting enough pressure on the increasingly violent opposition groups.

Given to the unbalanced nature of the draft and the Western envoys' intransigence in the negotiations, no one has really expected the document to get anywhere. It is doomed from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, some Western countries hastily pushed for a vote on the immature draft, which, if adopted, will only lead to more violence in Syria.

Western diplomats rushed to point fingers at Russia and China after the resolution was defeated, but they have only themselves to blame for trying to force such an ill-considered draft through the Council.

Besides, the Western diplomats displayed arrogance and inflexibility when responding to other Council members' concerns during the negotiations, ultimately leading to the failure of their efforts.

It is safe to say the resolution is dead, but the damage has been done.

The West, by pushing for sanctions against the Syrian government, sent a clear signal to the armed opposition groups that politicians in London and Washington are only interested in tieing the hands of Damascus, while the violent operations of the anti-government forces would be tolerated and even encouraged.

For the UN Security Council, its credibility has been further damaged as major powers are locked in fierce internal bickering.

The Western attempt to force the draft resolution through the Council has also poisoned the atmosphere among key council members.

Instead of taking up a confrontational approach, major Western powers should work with Russia and China to support the peace-making efforts of UN-Arab League joint special envoy Kofi Annan.

The mandate of the U.N Supervision Mission in Syria, which expires on Friday, should be renewed as soon as possible to give peace efforts another chance.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2012-07-20/content_6492920.html

Say what you will about Russia and China, if they hadn't blocked the warmongers resolution Syria would now be facing a catastrophic assault from Western powers that would lead to tens of thousands of deaths and the creation of a new breeding ground for terrorists.

Jonny7 · 20-07-2012 12:45pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Jonny I didnt mean to start a lengthy debate on this thread with my reply to that guy:) I just wanted to hear what he had to say. Saying somebody is anti-American to me is more than lazy, it shows a lack of understanding of the situation and its a weak retort/response. Personally speaking the truth with me, not that he was addressing me directly for the record and all that is nowhere in between. There are many things I like and admire about the US. On the other hand there are many things I disagree and dont like about their foreign policy - nothing to do with your average American man or woman on the street - thats pretty much where I am and where I stand.

Absolutely its a stupid term.

Saying they dont kill when they choose and admitting that infact they do (Iraq & Afghanistan) I think thats a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, different situations and different administrations.

Since 2011 Pakistan has been calling for an end to the drone strokes this is common knowledge. If they had the ability to stop them they would stop.

In 2008 Pakistan asked for an increase. Pakistan is tacitly allowing the US use drone strikes whilst at the same time publically voicing protest due to public pressure and the unpopularity. If they were Indian drones they would not be in the air very long.

The US killed 20 of their soldiers not too long ago in a blue on blue incident.
Pakistan has openly objected to each and every strike since late 2011.

24 soldiers, NATO, and the drone strikes were stopped for a few months.

I agree they are helping radicalise young people in Pakistan - how couldnt they - if an outside country was dropping bombs on you and your families heads.

I agree, however the militants who are being targeted are also slaughtering the local people, many more deaths than the drone strikes are inflicting. They are caught up in a ****ty situation.

I dont think its over the top. The US is the worlds sole super power. They have over 900 military bases in 130 countries. Their navy cant be challenged in the open oceans with any hope of defeating them.

Their sphere of influence can be felt in every continent on the planet. Their foreign policy is interventionist and military projection unchecked - and they still want more. I would call that an empire perhaps not how you would understand it but in my mind it makes sense.

The days of MAD are numbered this is something most people either dont know about or dont understand. The US is moving away from MAD and toward a policy, although they will never admit it, of nuclear primacy. This is crazy. Encircling Russia with a radar shield the purpose being to detect and neutralise a nuclear Russian first strike is utter madness yet this is what they are doing - the Russians know well what they are up too.

Hmm, this is a little more revelvant to the eighties.

WIth regard to Asia the US is trying to forge an alliance against China and Chinese interests and have been the past number of years. It revolves around the South China Sea as ridiculous and all as Chinese claims are to that ocean, the US is still attempting to challenge them and is building up its military quietly but constantly is places like SIngapore. The bigboys may well be at peace right now but behind the scenes moves are being made in each of their interests and as Im sure you know things can change. You can never say never in this world life doesnt work like that we can never be certain what the future holds only make decisions and take actions that we hope can influence it. I have no desire to see Iran go nuclear and I dont believe it will happen. That country will be attacked when they finish with Syria its coming.

They won't change, the US, Russia and China will all just jostle, posture, trade and do business as always. Armageddon isn't on the horizon don't worry.

Regional flare ups in that part of the world affect us all and we should be concerned about them.

Yes but its not a soccer game - "anyone but the West". Each situation is different. E;g; Intervention in Yugoslavia was essential, but Iraq absolutely not.

I have no love for Assad and if he goes and it stops the misery I would be happy. Western involvement in Syria removing Assad and backing their own man does two things as far as I can see - Weakens Iran and deprives Russia of direct access to the Mediterranean which in turn weakens them. Its for those reasons I believe they are showing such a keen interest in that country.

And what if the West were directly supporting Assad for purely geopolitical reasons? Russia and China really are getting off too lightly in this discussion, which is leading me to question people's motives and agenda.

plasmaguy · 20-07-2012 8:51pm

The CIA/NATO/US interference in Syria is nothing compared to the massive Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah interference in Syria, these latter states and organisations have armed and sent soldiers in to do much of the killing in Syria.

Bet you won't hear cyberhog and co. comdemn Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in Syria which dwarfs any negligible American involvement.

Every single Assad tank, all 4000 of them was supplied by the Russians, likewise every helicopter and fighter jet, artillary piece as well as the largest mortars in the world, supposed to be used to demolish reinforced concrete implacements, instead used on innocent protestors and funeral processions.

wingsof daun · 22-07-2012 1:11am

WakeUp wrote: »

The days of MAD are numbered this is something most people either dont know about or dont understand. The US is moving away from MAD and toward a policy, although they will never admit it, of nuclear primacy. This is crazy. Encircling Russia with a radar shield the purpose being to detect and neutralise a nuclear Russian first strike is utter madness yet this is what they are doing - the Russians know well what they are up too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57400611/medvedev-russia-must-counter-missile-shield/

This is totally mad, it resembles an entity or regime in the West that has gone insanely obsessed with worldwide control. It is absolutely against peace this action of conteraacting a first Russian nuclear strike with a radar shield. Why would Russians allow this thing surrounding their borders, why would they allow their dignity and soveirgnty to be violated? I don't think they will.
As for Assad and Gaddafi, the 200billion offshore was Libyan PEOPLE'S assets abroad not Gaddafis. This lie was part of the media war against Libya. The Libyan people's money abroad was stolen and was part of the resource grab by western nations in Africa and middle East. News tells us these assets are frozen by their twisted jargon, they refuse to be truthful and say it is being stolen.

AlekSmart · 22-07-2012 1:17am

wingsof daun wrote: »

As for Assad and Gaddafi, the 200billion offshore was Libyan PEOPLE'S assets abroad not Gaddafis. This lie was part of the media war against Libya. The Libyan people's money abroad was stolen and was part of the resource grab by western nations in Africa and middle East. News tells us these assets are frozen by their twisted jargon, they refuse to be truthful and say it is being stolen.

Oh dear,Wingsof Daun,you do realize there'll be a great clamour any moment now for your sources on this......:)

plasmaguy · 22-07-2012 7:13pm

And the 9 or 10 palaces that the Libyan Rebels discovered owned by Gadaffi spread throughout Libya? Those weren't his either?

Or the £10 million house in London owned by his son...let met guess, he was just minding it for the Libyan people?

Or the Abu Slim massacre? Gadaffi just doing the Libyan people a favour.

Or Assad's assets, reckoned to be $1 billion minimum or the fact his first cousin is the richest man in Syria and put on a US sanctions list in 2008 because of his chronic corruption and the chronic corruption around the Assad regime in general.

It's amazing the lengths so called lefties (who resemble capitalists in my book) go to, to defend their idols like Assad and Gadaffi who nothing short of criminals who have tortured and stole from their people for decades. Amazing how easily duped the Irish left are, so easily blinded they are and how they are willing to side with the worst of criminals and mass murderers all because said mass murderers oppose the west.

Shocking to be honest. They have little constructive to contribute to the debate on Syria, they try to drag in their hatred of America into every post and they will side with Assad to the very end.

plasmaguy · 22-07-2012 7:28pm

Leaving aside the love some posters have for Assad and the hatred they have of America, it's looking like this conflict is going to run and run with no end in site.

A lot of civilians are going to die, tens of thousands more, that's pretty much a given, something the Irish radical left don't care about as well as many posters on here - they mock you by saying things like "think of the children", etc, clearly stating they don't care about civilian deaths.

The FSA don't have the means to overthrow Assad as he has all the tanks, artillary, planes and helicopters. Assad probably can't stop the FSA as they have a lot of manpower. So a long bloody struggle seems inevitable in which tens of thousands more will die and neither side can win.

This conflict also underlines once more what a joke the UN are and what a joke the Arab League are, neither of these organisations have the ability to end conflicts of this magnitude. It was shown in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and several other places that the UN are utterly useless in the face of conflicts where mass murder is common place.

Only NATO could decisively end Assad's reign of terror, but NATO don't want to know, to the delight of the American haters on here who hate all things American including posters such as wingsofdawn who has stated his admiration for Gadaffi time and time again.

Jonny7 · 22-07-2012 9:21pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

This conflict also underlines once more what a joke the UN are and what a joke the Arab League are, neither of these organisations have the ability to end conflicts of this magnitude. It was shown in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and several other places that the UN are utterly useless in the face of conflicts where mass murder is common place.

There was a relatively successful intervention in Yugoslavia, a situation which had deteriorated into ethnic cleansing. Somalia was a badly planned botch job, the US completely underestimated the local warlords, and basically had to pull out.

Rwanda was a terrible tragedy in which the world should have stepped in.

The UN and the Arab League have shown they do have some back-bone when it comes to recent conflicts, Ivory Coast was very successful, however Libya just came too close to the wire. Syria is infinitely more complex on almost every level, militarily, political, geographically, etc.

Only NATO could decisively end Assad's reign of terror, but NATO don't want to know, to the delight of the American haters on here who hate all things American including posters such as wingsofdawn who has stated his admiration for Gadaffi time and time again.

NATO are more of a "tool" in these situations and does not really function as the decision making body.

Eggy Baby! · 22-07-2012 9:43pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Leaving aside the love some posters have for Assad and the hatred they have of America, it's looking like this conflict is going to run and run with no end in site.

A lot of civilians are going to die, tens of thousands more, that's pretty much a given, something the Irish radical left don't care about as well as many posters on here - they mock you by saying things like "think of the children", etc, clearly stating they don't care about civilian deaths.

The FSA don't have the means to overthrow Assad as he has all the tanks, artillary, planes and helicopters. Assad probably can't stop the FSA as they have a lot of manpower. So a long bloody struggle seems inevitable in which tens of thousands more will die and neither side can win.

This conflict also underlines once more what a joke the UN are and what a joke the Arab League are, neither of these organisations have the ability to end conflicts of this magnitude. It was shown in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and several other places that the UN are utterly useless in the face of conflicts where mass murder is common place.

Only NATO could decisively end Assad's reign of terror, but NATO don't want to know, to the delight of the American haters on here who hate all things American including posters such as wingsofdawn who has stated his admiration for Gadaffi time and time again.

.....

plasmaguy, you do realise all of your posts are the same, don't you?

There was a relatively successful intervention in Yugoslavia, a situation which had deteriorated into ethnic cleansing.

Although a success, many people were killed in the bombing campaign. And these were civilian casualties that could have been avoided. Added to this was the inaction of some certain peacekeepers as massacres were being committed.

NATO are more of a "tool" in these situations and does not really function as the decision making body.

Good point. They are more like an enforcer.

The FSA don't have the means to overthrow Assad as he has all the tanks, artillary, planes and helicopters. Assad probably can't stop the FSA as they have a lot of manpower. So a long bloody struggle seems inevitable in which tens of thousands more will die and neither side can win.

Make up your mind, child. One minute you are saying the FSA controls most of the country and is about to topple Assad, next minute you are saying they don't have enough tanks or supplies to do so, presumably in an attempt to make them stand out as the underdogs (they are btw) and enforce your opinions.

Leaving aside the love some posters have for Assad

Quote a single post which demonstrates this point of view. No actually, get me posts from two different posters (because you said "posters" after all) which illustrates this. I'll regard silence from you as you spoofing again.

plasmaguy is absolutely poisoning the thread with his rants.

Some people here who don't agree with him are too. I mean, come on, "Gaddafi lived in a tent?" Please.

Every single Assad tank, all 4000 of them was supplied by the Russians

Like the Russians knew when they formed arms contracts with Assad that he was going to massacre his own civilians. I mean, they're not psychic. The Russians are hardly to blame here. If the Russians didn't supply Assad with tanks or helicopters, Assad would have made his own (like Saddam) or bought them off somebody else.

They won't change, the US, Russia and China will all just jostle, posture, trade and do business as always. Armageddon isn't on the horizon don't worry.

As long as there are powerful weapons and powerful people to use them, armageddon is always on the horizon.

And what if the West were directly supporting Assad for purely geopolitical reasons? Russia and China really are getting off too lightly in this discussion, which is leading me to question people's motives and agenda.

I actually agree that Russia and China's motives are being too overlooked here in the discussion. I mean, like the NATO countries are the only party with an agenda here!! Its obvious though that they (Russia and China) have a clear geopolitical interest in having a friendly government in Syria. While their motives may not be altruistic, I certainly feel that they are approaching the situation with a portion of the caution necessary for a soft resolution to this conflict.

In reality, there is no feasible peaceful resolution to this conflict at the moment. I don't support Assad staying in but I don't support a Dyson state (that is, a state with a massive power vacuum) in Syria either.

Don't know if any posters noticed this either, but a NATO operation would be stymied by the fact that the Syrian military isn't exactly a pushover.

plasmaguy · 23-07-2012 1:38am

Jonny7 wrote: »

There was a relatively successful intervention in Yugoslavia, a situation which had deteriorated into ethnic cleansing. Somalia was a badly planned botch job, the US completely underestimated the local warlords, and basically had to pull out.

Rwanda was a terrible tragedy in which the world should have stepped in.

The UN and the Arab League have shown they do have some back-bone when it comes to recent conflicts, Ivory Coast was very successful, however Libya just came too close to the wire. Syria is infinitely more complex on almost every level, militarily, political, geographically, etc.

NATO are more of a "tool" in these situations and does not really function as the decision making body.

Jonny, I don't think you fully understand the history of the Bosnia conflict, but let me enlighten you.

The UN were in Bosnia doing pretty much the same as they are doing in Syria, observing, yet being utterly hopeless as usual in preventing the fighting. It was NATO who got involved in the early stages to carry out strikes against Serb and Bosnian Serb forces.

Following the Srebrenica massacre the UN then requested more muscle from big brother in NATO. This after the UN basically ran away from Srebrenica after helping Mladic and his men round up the Muslims and put them on the buses.

It was NATO's bombing post Srebenica which finally helped end the Bosnian conflict and lead to the Dayton peace accord.

NATO ended the conflict, not the UN, it's a vital and critical issue. If it was left to the UN alone as it appears to be left to the UN to solve Syria, the Bosnian war would still be ongoing. I don't think many people particularly the anti NATO brigade care that much about these distinctions though, they assume the UN are always the good guys who end conflicts and NATO the bad guys.

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

NATO and the UN are totally different entities.

I have said all along that NATO are indeed the enforcers, as the UN by themselves could not enforce peace in Syria, Libya or Bosnia, or at least until the major protagonists have been bombed to smithereens first by NATO.

The UN don't have the kind of military assets that NATO has such as cruise missiles, anti radar weaponary, stealth bombers and so on and so forth.

As for Eggy Baby, it's hard to take him seriously when he says things like the Russians couldn't predict what Assad might do when they armed him, this despite the fact that the Assad family, father and son have a history of bloody repression stretching back decades and equally the fact that the Russians haven't seriously condemned him during this particular crackdown.

Eggy Baby! · 23-07-2012 12:19pm

As for Eggy Baby, it's hard to take him seriously when he says things like the Russians couldn't predict what Assad might do when they armed him, this despite the fact that the Assad family, father and son have a history of bloody repression stretching back decades and equally the fact that the Russians haven't seriously condemned him during this particular crackdown.

And...he doesn't answer my question therefore he has no evidence :P

I feel kind of priviledged to be the subject of the usual plasmaguy attack.

Russian arms deals predate serious crackdowns on protestors in Syria. If I'm honest, I doubt the Russians really cared what he did as long as Assad kept Syria sweet during the Cold War.

Eggy Baby! · 23-07-2012 9:10pm

Was reading the comments section of a Syria-centred Telegraph article today and found a good quote:

According to the people who unanimously support the rebellion/NATO:

The rebel revolution is entirely natural, innocent, peaceful and highly moral. There is no reason why opposition figures should not be united … everyone in opposition shares the same noble values and the same aspirations for future Syria. If they fail to unite, it is because they might lack experience or because the evil regime has been trying for decades to weaken the opposition, not because some of them have conflicting priorities or values, and not because many of them arecompeting for personal gains or power.

The probability of success (toppling the regime) is always high, no matter what the day’s news brings.

Destroying Syria’s economy is a legitimate strategy to topple the regime.Boycotting schools is also legitimate (“no studying and no teaching until the regime falls”)

Foreign (military) help is necessary for humanitarian reasons. “The Syrian People” want nothing more than massive NATO military intervention.

The Arabs, Turkey, the United States and Europe only want to help the Syrian people be free from a savage regime that does not live up to the level of civilization of the other leaders and their dedication to human rights.

Regime supporters are mostly minorities and/or self-centered Aleppo and Damascus businessmen. In fact, there are NO regime supporters; the hundreds of thousands seen in numerous pro-regime demonstrations are all there because they were intimidated by the regime.

Sectarian and civilian violence is almost always planned by the regime. All the casualties since the crisis began were murdered by the regime. When pro regime civilians are murdered, blame the regime anyway.

The time it will take to topple the regime is very short … Starting from the early days in March 2011 the regime was always about to fall.

plasmaguy · 24-07-2012 10:22pm

It's looking like the battle for Aleppo will be the key battle of this conflict. Assad's regime will be broken there or else emerge triumphant and able to hold on to power indefinitely.

Against the 4th Armoured Division, helicopters, etc, the rebels don't really have much hope of taking Damascus. All they can hope for is gradually increase their grip on the country and maybe in six months time try to take Damascus again.

But if they lose Aleppo easily it will be a big loss to the FSA and show they can't really hold any of the major cities. I suppose for them however, if Assad does to Aleppo what he did to Homs it will be a small victory for the FSA as he will be denied control of the industrial and financial heartland of the country.

The FSA strategy will probably be a slow attritional degrading of Assad's military and hope for some more defections.

loldog · 27-07-2012 2:41am

Some more evidence on massacres, since there is some skepticism that the Assad regime is capable of doing such things.

1. Der Spiegel goes to a lot of trouble to investigate the Houla Massacre.

2. More details on the Tremseh Massacre

3. The regime's Head of Investigation of the Qubair Massacre defects and says it was done by pro-Assad militias.

In these cases, there is strong evidence that the atrocities were done by pro-Assad shabiha with the assistance of the regular army.

That's not to say the many and varied factions within the opposition are free of blame for some horrible things too, and the prospect of revenge on the Alawite minority in a post-regime era is quite disturbing.

.

Jonny7 · 27-07-2012 8:44am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Jonny, I don't think you fully understand the history of the Bosnia conflict, but let me enlighten you.

The UN were in Bosnia doing pretty much the same as they are doing in Syria, observing, yet being utterly hopeless as usual in preventing the fighting. It was NATO who got involved in the early stages to carry out strikes against Serb and Bosnian Serb forces.

Following the Srebrenica massacre the UN then requested more muscle from big brother in NATO. This after the UN basically ran away from Srebrenica after helping Mladic and his men round up the Muslims and put them on the buses.

It was NATO's bombing post Srebenica which finally helped end the Bosnian conflict and lead to the Dayton peace accord.

NATO ended the conflict, not the UN, it's a vital and critical issue. If it was left to the UN alone as it appears to be left to the UN to solve Syria, the Bosnian war would still be ongoing. I don't think many people particularly the anti NATO brigade care that much about these distinctions though, they assume the UN are always the good guys who end conflicts and NATO the bad guys.

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

NATO and the UN are totally different entities.

I have said all along that NATO are indeed the enforcers, as the UN by themselves could not enforce peace in Syria, Libya or Bosnia, or at least until the major protagonists have been bombed to smithereens first by NATO.

The UN don't have the kind of military assets that NATO has such as cruise missiles, anti radar weaponary, stealth bombers and so on and so forth.

As for Eggy Baby, it's hard to take him seriously when he says things like the Russians couldn't predict what Assad might do when they armed him, this despite the fact that the Assad family, father and son have a history of bloody repression stretching back decades and equally the fact that the Russians haven't seriously condemned him during this particular crackdown.

Thanks, I am familiar with the conflict, hence I used the word "relatively".

The best recent example of decisive action from the UN was the mission in Ivory Coast to "regime change" Gbagbo, basically preventing the country descending into another 15 years of civil war.

The Russians will protect their own interests, and will want to complete all the signed arms contracts, they also stand to lose their last foothold in the ME. They have a less demanding "free" press and other factors, so really, their support of Assad should not have any detrimental domestic effects.

Eggy Baby! · 27-07-2012 10:03pm

The Russians will protect their own interests, and will want to complete all the signed arms contracts, they also stand to lose their last foothold in the ME. They have a less demanding "free" press and other factors, so really, their support of Assad should not have any detrimental domestic effects.

While I agree that Russia has a less demanding press (and opposition) I have to say that for the most part history has shown us that when a democratic government supports an undemocratic one the citizens of the democracy usually don't seem to care. Particularly because the democratic government doesn't openly admit its support. I may be wrong, but there could be contradictions to this throughout history, but none that I can recall.

Here is a poll about what ordinary Russians believe:

(The first link is in Russian, but the link after is in English and describes the results. Plus it is an interesting article)

http://www.levada.ru/28-03-2012/rossiya-v-sisteme-mezhdunarodnykh-otnoshenii-gruziya-siriya-irak

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105281/in-russia-even-putins-critics-are-ok-his-syria-policy

A poll done this spring by the independent Levada Center found that the vast majority of Russians do not support more sanctions against Assad, and even fewer support armed intervention.

Just for comparison, here's a poll of US citizens.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/15/little-support-for-u-s-intervention-in-syrian-conflict/3-15-12-fp-1/

Again a majority oppose intervention, or even arming the rebs. There doesn't seem to be an attitude for intervention these days.

I wonder why..

Jonny7 · 27-07-2012 11:06pm

The average Russian won't have much of a clue of what is going on in Syria, much less an opinion.

Again the resolutions are not about military intervention. As I mentioned the Russians, and especially Chinese are largely immune to domestic pressure over their stance on Syria.

Syrian armed forces are currently surrounding Aleppo, which is Syria's largest city. Dozens of senior military figures and commanders who have defected have all been echoing that despite its large size and power, the Syrian army is actually quite close to some sort of breaking point - severe fuel and petrol shortages, low morale, food shortages - propaganda is playing a part, Aleppo could be the turning point, either way its going to be grim as **** in that part of the world over the next few days and weeks.

Eggy Baby! · 28-07-2012 12:42pm

The average Russian won't have much of a clue of what is going on in Syria, much less an opinion.

The average Russian doesn't really regard the Syrian situation as being important.

Why wouldn't they have a clue of what is happening in Syria?

Again the resolutions are not about military intervention.

Even then, a majority in both countries (USA and Russia) seem to oppose "softer" methods such as arming the rebs.

As I mentioned the Russians, and especially Chinese are largely immune to domestic pressure over their stance on Syria.

Definitely the Chinese are, but the Russian largely are too because they aren't fully exposed to western media sources we find familiar.

If I'm honest, there's not much pressure over in the west too- its not like people are boycotting governments over on this end because of inaction over Syria (or support of rebels)

plasmaguy · 29-07-2012 1:53am

Conflict going on much as expected.

Rebels attack one area in force, the regime bombard that area and kill a lot of civilians and the rebels then retreat. Then they attack somewhere else. Army goes in flattens the place, kills a lot of civilians, rebels defeated and retreat.

This thing could go on for a year more at least and clearly at this stage neither side has what it takes to fully win completely. The army can defeat the rebels in battles but they cannot defeat them completely, much like the Americans couldn't defeat the Viet Cong completely. It's very difficult to defeat a rebel movement with tens of thousands of fighters and usually its civilians who suffer massively.

This will be a long bloody conflict where civilians suffer disproportionally and neither Assad or FSA win on the battlefield.

Ideally in this situation the moderates would step up and try to form some sort of peace. I don't think either Assad or leadership of the FSA should be in any future government of Syria, but while the FSA I'm sure would be ok with that, Assad has no interest in stepping down, ever.

If the Russians had sense they'd ask Assad to step down. This isn't a case of East vs West, it's a case of stopping a conflict and removing the prime cause of that conflict, Assad.

Jonny7 · 29-07-2012 11:08am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The average Russian doesn't really regard the Syrian situation as being important.

Why wouldn't they have a clue of what is happening in Syria?

Russian news hasn't changed much since the eighties. It's pretty woeful.

Even then, a majority in both countries (USA and Russia) seem to oppose "softer" methods such as arming the rebs.

Of course they do, they don't "know" about the situation. If 9 oclock news were allowed to show us a 14 yr old boy with his entire jaw missing from a sniper shot they would change their minds pretty quickly. We don't know jack because we aren't there to see the horrors.

Definitely the Chinese are, but the Russian largely are too because they aren't fully exposed to western media sources we find familiar.

If I'm honest, there's not much pressure over in the west too- its not like people are boycotting governments over on this end because of inaction over Syria (or support of rebels)

Because its not a football game like I said. It's basic humanity. We wouldn't stand for it in our own country, why should we stand for it in another? it's solidarity.

Eggy Baby! · 29-07-2012 9:01pm

The army can defeat the rebels in battles but they cannot defeat them completely, much like the Americans couldn't defeat the Viet Cong completely.

Sorry but you are wrong. The Americans effectively annihilated the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive.

Russian news hasn't changed much since the eighties. It's pretty woeful.

...aside from the fact that there are loads of independent outlets of course!

Of course they do, they don't "know" about the situation. If 9 oclock news were allowed to show us a 14 yr old boy with his entire jaw missing from a sniper shot they would change their minds pretty quickly. We don't know jack because we aren't there to see the horrors.

Agreed. Nobody really knows what's going on in Syria. Hell, even the Syrians seem confused. Some are zealously supporting Assad, others the rebels, some just want to survive.

Because its not a football game like I said. It's basic humanity. We wouldn't stand for it in our own country, why should we stand for it in another? it's solidarity.

Agreed, but although the situation in Syria is horrific, far worse things have gone, and are going, unreported. So why Syria then? Because Syria is important to powerful people. Therefore it is singled out- a focus is put on it for a reason.

And solidarity is the best way. Picking sides in Syria's hour of need is the last thing it wants.

lagente · 30-07-2012 5:31pm

Syrias outlook is ruinous from what I see, unlest something drastic changes in the policies of both sides. Alawites won't back down, especially with Russia and Iran backing them. The rebels are too sectarian and religious. They are also tainted by the fact that they have the fundamentalist Islamic states of Qatar and Saudi arming them. Expect suicide bombers and general mayhem, just like Iraq for the next 10 years at least.

Such a pity Ireland let so many Jihadists go to Syria, and more will go. Bloody joke we are, the things we let immigrants do. Wonder how many civilians those suicide bombers from Ireland killed in Iraq.
Ah, but shur who gives a damn.

plasmaguy · 30-07-2012 8:01pm

lagente wrote: »

Syrias outlook is ruinous from what I see, unlest something drastic changes in the policies of both sides. Alawites won't back down, especially with Russia and Iran backing them. The rebels are too sectarian and religious. They are also tainted by the fact that they have the fundamentalist Islamic states of Qatar and Saudi arming them. Expect suicide bombers and general mayhem, just like Iraq for the next 10 years at least.

Such a pity Ireland let so many Jihadists go to Syria, and more will go. Bloody joke we are, the things we let immigrants do. Wonder how many civilians those suicide bombers from Ireland killed in Iraq.
Ah, but shur who gives a damn.

Exactly the same was predicted to happen in Libya. We were told that Libya had more Al Quida per head in the world, which technically was true as many Al Quida fighters came from eastern Libya.

The same was said would happen in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood took over which they have.

So far neither Libya, Tunisia or Egypt have descended into bloody civil war or mass suicide attacks. And I don't see the same happening in Syria either.

The reason for the suicide attacks in Iraq by Al Quida was a lot to do with the belief they were fighting infidels or allies of infidels and there are/were a number of other factors too.

No two countries in the middle east are exactly the same, in fact the middle east is a massively diverse region far more so than Europe for example or north or south america.

I know those who desperately want the FSA to fail and Assad and his bloodythirsty militia to succeed will claim that mass suicide attacks will become common just as the same people who desperately wanted the revolutionaries in Libya to fail said there would be mass suicide attacks every day of the year in Libya. They were discredited on Libya and they are being discredited on Syria. In fact they have been discredited everywhere.

Lets just wait and see how Syria pans out rather than making silly rash predictions about daily suicide attacks once Assad is overthrown, predictions usually made by people who count RT, SANA, Press TV and infowars as their main source of news and information.

Your statement about jihadist suicide bombers from Ireland is frankly bizarre by the way. I trust you have a link to the story you are referring to?

cyberhog · 31-07-2012 4:37am

Austria's leading newspaper caught out using photoshop on images from Syria.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/07/newspaper-uses-photoshop-to-dramatise-violence-in-syria/

Eggy Baby! · 31-07-2012 1:45pm

Al Quida....Al Quida .......Al Quida

Its "Al-Qaeda" by the way, plasmaguy!

plasmaguy · 31-07-2012 7:09pm

Some Syrians have a wry sense of humour about the current conflict. There's plenty of photos of Homs out there showing various parts of Homs before and after Assad reforms.

Here's one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/syriafreedom/6936042606/

wingsof daun · 01-08-2012 3:00am

plasmaguy wrote: »

They were discredited on Libya and they are being discredited on Syria. In fact they have been discredited everywhere.

Today's bombs in Iraq cost 23 lives.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/iraq-attacks-kill-23-people/story-fn3dxix6-1226440049997

Yesterday's bombs cost over 100 lives and 300 injuries, so how are we discredited everywhere? "Bloodiest day of the year":
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/the-global-note-assad-fights-back-40-bombings-in-iraq-norway-the-boss/

How is Libya a better country today? The gun is the ruler, the militias are out of control and continue to rape and kill. The politicians have luxurious hotels and apartments in Rome, Paris, Berlin, Munich etc while thousands of displaced black Tawergans are living in "shanty" huts. There is no hope they will ever return to their homes, the town that once held 30 thousand souls is today empty and the name is even erased on signposts by the militias who vow they will never return to their rightful home.

cyberhog · 01-08-2012 4:36am

The Vatican news agency reports that elements of the US backed opposition have slaughtered defenseless Christian civilians.

Damascus (Agenzia Fides) - Radical Islamist groups in the ranks of the revolutionaries sow terror among civilians in Damascus. Those who pay the consequences are those considered "loyalists", loyal to the regime of Bashar al Assad. Among the victims, report Fides sources in Damascus, there are also Christians of the suburb of Bab Touma and Iraqi refugees who occupied the suburbs of Oujaira and Sada Zanaim.
The Islamist rebel group "Liwa al-Islam" ("The Brigade of Islam"), that recently claimed responsibility for the killing of top generals of government Assad, this morning killed an entire Christian family in Bab Touma. Among the local faithful, reports a source of Fides, there is dismay and outrage at the assault on defenseless civilians. The militants of "Liwa al-Islam" blocked the car of a Christian, Nabil Zoreb, a civil officer, they told him, his wife Violet and two sons, George and Jimmy to get out of the car, killing them all point blank. The militants of the group are very active especially in the region of Duma and other areas in the east of Damascus, where they have carried out other criminal acts.

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31978&lan=eng

What a terrible conundrum for anti-Assad Christian Westerners. Do they continue to stand firmly on the side of an opposition mixed with all sorts of Islamic fanatics or do they support Assad's efforts to wipe out those terrorists?

I'd bet the 180 thousand Christians living in Aleppo would love to know the answer to that!

In Aleppo, out of a total population of over two million people, there are about 180 thousand faithful Christians, divided into different denominations and rites, including Catholics, Orthodox, Armenians.

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31988&lan=eng

Clearly the situation does not look good for Syria's Christians but you have to admire their courage. Even though they are up against some very dangerous jihadis they are not about to go silently into the night.

ALEPPO, Syria and BEIRUT, Lebanon — As evidence mounts that foreign Islamists are fighting alongside Syria’s increasingly radicalized rebels, Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere are taking up arms, often supplied by the regime.

“We saw what happened to the Christians in Iraq,” Abu George, a Christian resident of Aleppo’s Aziza district told GlobalPost. “What is going on in Aleppo is not a popular revolution for democracy and freedom. The fighters of the so-called Free Syrian Army are radical Sunnis who want to establish an Islamic state.”

... Christians like Abu George fear retribution, already occuring in some parts of the country, from the Sunni-led rebels they refused to back.

In Qseir, a town of some 60,000 people southwest of Homs, which has been under siege by regime forces for at least seven months, mosques recently rang out with the call for all Christians, who numbered around 10,000, to leave.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120731/aleppo-christians-islamists-jihadis-al-qaeda-iraq-sectarian-conflict

I wish Syria's Christians luck against the terrorist scum.

Suff · 02-08-2012 4:06pm

Link: A Syrian Political Analyst on the Syrian revolution. A bit slow in delivery but the points he's making are solid.

Suff · 02-08-2012 4:57pm

Irish Fighters in Syria - Story

*Edit: they're Libyans with Irish passports, they can **** off to Libya - leave Syria alone!!!

From the article:

One, a thoughtful, bespectacled 22-year-old whose father is a surgeon in Ireland, admits his parents were concerned when he announced he wanted to go fight in Syria. “They respect and trust Sheikh Mehdi so when they learned I was coming to join him here, they felt a little better,” he says. “But, yes, they are still worried for my safety out here.”

He frames his reasons for coming to Syria in philosophical terms. “I see my life as being about three things: searching for the truth; defending the weak against injustice and the oppressors; and helping to build peace in the world. The battle here in Syria combines all three.”

What sort of people would allow their son to join a militia?, and on top trusting a fundamentalist with the welfare of their son!
As for building peace in the world, according to these people it starts with a gun!

I've had it with these Bastards f**king up my country.

plasmaguy · 03-08-2012 1:59am

Suff wrote: »

Irish Fighters in Syria - Story

*Edit: they're Libyans with Irish passports, they can **** off to Libya - leave Syria alone!!!

From the article:

One, a thoughtful, bespectacled 22-year-old whose father is a surgeon in Ireland, admits his parents were concerned when he announced he wanted to go fight in Syria. “They respect and trust Sheikh Mehdi so when they learned I was coming to join him here, they felt a little better,” he says. “But, yes, they are still worried for my safety out here.”

He frames his reasons for coming to Syria in philosophical terms. “I see my life as being about three things: searching for the truth; defending the weak against injustice and the oppressors; and helping to build peace in the world. The battle here in Syria combines all three.”

What sort of people would allow their son to join a militia?, and on top trusting a fundamentalist with the welfare of their son!
As for building peace in the world, according to these people it starts with a gun!

I've had it with these Bastards f**king up my country.

They have nowhere near f**ked it up as much as Assad who has destroyed entire cities and wiped out entire families such as in the Houla massacre. What these Libyans will do is negligible, a drop in the ocean compared to Assad, surely even you admit that.

They may kill a few shabiha fighters, which is a good thing, but apart from that, I don't see them doing a fraction of the damage the tyrant (so beloved of posters like cyberhog) will do.

lagente · 03-08-2012 12:27pm

Suff wrote: »

Irish Fighters in Syria - Story

Thanks Suff for the very quickly detected, and most relevant article.

It is proof that there is too much religion connecting the Irish fighters there with the resistance. 'Ummah Brigade' speaks volumes. I suppose it's similar to people joining Franco in the Spanish Civil War to 'protect' Catholicism, side with it, etc. This kind of sectarianism (religious etc) is probably one of the things that was stopping democracy the most in Syria. And I'd say this has been the case for the last decade at least, eg Iraq Sectarian war on Syrian border, etc. The Irish fighters should have at least given themselves a proper name.

Again they are appealing to emotions by ignoring the practical issues and how sectarian the situation is, and things like their religious naming of their group, as they talk to the press about it. They talk about justice, freedom etc and these things are important, but surely being practical is more important. Eg, looking to the results of actions, wars, motives etc.

Suff · 03-08-2012 1:02pm

Link:
Another article on how the two main Arab news stations; Al Jazeera (Qatar) and Al Arabiya (Saudi) satellite channels have been distorting the situation in Syria for the purpose of toppling the regime/ assisting the opposition.

I would like to note that these two channels provide around 75% of the world's news on Syria, and operates under their regime's political agenda - Saudi and Qatar.
Both channels haven't reported on the demonstrations taking place in northern Saudi against the ruling family or the ongoing demonstrations and protests in Bahrain. Yet, they preach on about freedom of speech.

Edit: Most reliable news channel at the moment is Al Mayadeen - started by Ghassan Ben Jido, a former Al Jazeera reporter who quit as a result of al jazeera's lies on Syria - source sadly its not available in english.

Mervyn Crawford · 04-08-2012 12:45pm

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/syri-a04.shtml

Just as in Vietnam the imperialist forces destroyed villages to ‘save’ them, so now Imperialism in it’s precipitous decline is destroying countries in rapid succession to save them.
The only card left in the Imperialist deck is the relentless promotion of savage sectarianism, tribalism and any form of backwardness they can summon up.
A modern country is being ‘bombed back to the stone age’ and the so-called political leaders of the working class around the world don’t raise as much as a whimper in alarm. Indeed they promote the base lies of Washington.
The future that the capiatlist ruling class offers mankind is what is now happening in Syria.
To suggest that Washington, London, Paris and Berlin are the defenders and promoters of freedom and democracy is ludicrous.

WakeUp · 04-08-2012 9:10pm

cyberhog wrote: »

The Vatican news agency reports that elements of the US backed opposition have slaughtered defenseless Christian civilians.

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31978&lan=eng

What a terrible conundrum for anti-Assad Christian Westerners. Do they continue to stand firmly on the side of an opposition mixed with all sorts of Islamic fanatics or do they support Assad's efforts to wipe out those terrorists?

I'd bet the 180 thousand Christians living in Aleppo would love to know the answer to that!

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31988&lan=eng

Clearly the situation does not look good for Syria's Christians but you have to admire their courage. Even though they are up against some very dangerous jihadis they are not about to go silently into the night.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120731/aleppo-christians-islamists-jihadis-al-qaeda-iraq-sectarian-conflict

I wish Syria's Christians luck against the terrorist scum.

Good post. The "rebels" are beginning to fragment into Islamic militias how do the posters here supporting them feel about them attacking and murdering christians I wonder? How do Americans who are supporting the "rebels" , a christian country, feel about the same thing? How can the west support Islamic terrorists butchering christians unless it is for their own geopolitical reasons which it clearly is nothing to do with caring for a nation or people.

Syria is a proxy war between the West and Russia/Iran and their allies I think that can be stated now with almost certainty.

Pravda the former mouthpiece of the former Soviet Union have reported that Russia has redeployed nuclear weapons to Cuba. They are the only "news" agency running this report have searched high and low and cant find any other sources for the story, though have yet to see a Russian government statement denying the allegation. Pravda is not the once mighty propaganda paper it once was in its heyday. In a media controlled/black out country it was the one paper people and foreign diplomats poured over to get information as to what might be happening in Russia. This is a quote from the article if the story is accurate then its seriously disturbing. In normal circumstances I wouldn't post an article with only one source to back it up but I find Russian government silence on such an important allegation to be a bit strange.

The journalist Lyuba Lulko claims the following...

"After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama (G20 June), Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press. " (am wondering if he only said the following to Russian press)

Putin allegedly said...

"In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/

If anyone can help clarify the above would be much appreciated. The Russians and the West are playing a dangerous game in Syria and its the Syrian people as always bearing the brunt of it. At this stage I dont know what is going to happen there or what can be done to stop the bloodshed. Assad is no angel but neither are the so called "rebels". They both have their backers and are both being played accordingly.

troposphere · 04-08-2012 10:12pm

The Russians denied that they were going to set up a base in Cuba a few days ago. Raul Castro seems to be hoping that if Obama wins 2nd term there will be better relations with the US and the Vietnamese are happy to be friendly to the US & Russia.

lagente · 05-08-2012 12:27pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Your statement about jihadist suicide bombers from Ireland is frankly bizarre by the way. I trust you have a link to the story you are referring to?

Quite bizarre, the whole thing really.

Primetime at the end of 2006, showing Sunni community had at least 11 known Irish suicide bombers in Iraq and dead by end of 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wiGHbk6jIs

Some suicide bombers have killed huge numbers in Iraq. It is possible that some of them might have been ones that detonated trucks in market squares, killing over a hundred, etc.

plasmaguy · 07-08-2012 8:25pm

Another unfortunate record yesterday in the Syrian conflict, 270 people killed in one day, making it the bloodiest day in the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120807

It only seems to get bloodier. Seems to be only a matter of time before 300 deaths in a day mark is met.

Neither side really has what it takes to deliver the knockout blow and most of the deaths are civilians caught in the crossfire.

Assad is going nowhere soon and Iran have also said today he is going nowhere. Russia also back him to the hilt.

Which ultimately means there will be no diplomatic solution to this conflict in the medium term. I suppose in the end due to fatigue in the rest of the world it will become another one of those forgotten conflicts which no-one could be bothered with.

SamHarris · 09-08-2012 2:09pm

Looking through the thread it is incredibly telling to look at the history of those determined to present the conflict as some sort of terrorist insurgency against an essentaily legitamite regime (that is terrified for some unexplained reason to put said legitamicy to the test democraticaly).

Each, without fail, are CTers that see American/Western false flags and nefarious plans everywhere, up to and including the attacks of 9/11. Why anyone even expects a reasoned evaluation of a given event or conflict, particularly in this region, from ideologues of this sort is beyond me.

A little thought experiment would not go astray at this point - if Assad had the history which he does, and responded in the same way to the protest movement and rebel forces as he is at present, but was a Western backed man - would you now be reaching the same conclusions about his opponents? I have no doubt at all that if this was the situation, with the US providing heavy weapons support etc, various posters would be taking very different views of events there.

If you disagree, then lay out exactly what you believe is taking place and who is responsible and why in a logical fashion, preferably with credible scources.

plasmaguy · 09-08-2012 6:52pm

There is certainly no evidence the CIA, etc have provided weapons to the FSA, they may have providence intelligence such as location of Assad forces, but that's about all.

If the CIA did arm the FSA this would have been over months ago and Assad suffering the same fate as Gadaffi, caught hiding in a sewer somewhere. The FSA have no stinger missiles, manpads, or anti aircraft missiles nor much in the way of sophisticated anti tank weapons such as milan weapons which the Libyan rebels had.

I think the Americans and CIA are quite happy to take a back seat on this one. The last thing they seem to want to do is flood Syria with sophisticated anti aircraft and anti tank weapons. Unfortunately this means the rebels won't really be able to defeat Assad in the medium term if at all and a long drawn out bloody conflict is assured. Its just a case of real politik from all concerned with the Syrian people caught in the middle.

Iranians trying to be honest brokers with their conference today. When they stop backing Assad to the hilt, maybe people will take them seriously in that role. They have no interest in seeing Assad fall so negotiations and conferences involving them is a waste of time.

Eggy Baby! · 09-08-2012 11:13pm

Each, without fail, are CTers that see American/Western false flags and nefarious plans everywhere, up to and including the attacks of 9/11. Why anyone even expects a reasoned evaluation of a given event or conflict, particularly in this region, from ideologues of this sort is beyond me.

and why in a logical fashion, preferably with credible scources.

How about you provide credible sources for the former post?

WakeUp · 10-08-2012 2:01am

Well some American politicians seem to believe the US are deeply involved in direct and indirect military involvement in Syria. But they would be "CT'rs" too right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OygSqr5Zf2c

Hillary Clinton - "Russia and China will pay a price" ( for blocking our plans )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ltPixsIGQ

And the reason the US wont invade on its own and why Hillary is getting her knickers in a twist is because the Russians are having none of it..

though if people wanna believe whats happening in Syria is hero population of non islamic terrorists in the main rising up and defeating the evil overlord Assad, then what can you do. Whatever the situation in Syria black and white it certainly is not.