Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

The only solution is to conduct peaceful dialogue. Yes ... people have been shot, kidnapped and tortured, which can only indicate that this peaceful approach have had a significant effect on the regime. The biggest mistake the opposition ever made was when they took arms.

ah so peaceful dialogue didn't work. Not for 40 years.

And when people peacefully protested, they were imprisoned and shot by snipers

So in effect, there were no options - but to accept Assad's rule.

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

So in effect, there were no options - but to accept Assad's rule.

I don't know how you came up with such statement from my post!

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

Are you really that naive?

Seriously?

The US/West recognising that Syria falls under a Russian spehere of influence

It's not the Cold War anymore, the "West" isn't trying to support an uprising to **** over the Russians.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

I don't know how you came up with such statement from my post!

Peaceful dialogue works if both sides are listening

You said said one side imprisons, tortures and kills the other side.

How is that peaceful? how is dialogue possible then?

Doesn't the fact that this has been giong on for 40 years not raise the possibility that Assad intends to stay in power indefinitely?

hmmmm

Suff

Jonny7 wrote: »

Peaceful dialogue works if both sides are listening

You said said one side imprisons, tortures and kills the other side.

How is that peaceful? how is dialogue possible then?

Doesn't the fact that this has been giong on for 40 years not raise the possibility that Assad intends to stay in power indefinitely?

hmmmm

Look where it got us when both sides refused to listen!

During the last 40 years, nothing came remotely close to what we're experiencing today in Syria.

Many Syrians will agree that the regime is bad, horrible, murderous and corrupt, but let's not make ASSAD a bigger villain.

We just love a baddie ... why not make him the new Hitler!

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

It became a civil war. It didn't start as one.

Most nations supported the position of the protesters, Assad's rule as illegitimate and strongly condemned the regimes violent crackdown

Russia is supporting Assad for it's own reasons, one of which is the fulfillment of big arms contracts it made in 2010. Netanyahu called up Putin to protest the sale of the s300's to Syria, Putin offered to sell the missiles to Israel.

Western countries in general, e.g. UK, are actively trying to stop their citizens joining the war in Syria and returning home radicalised.

These brigades and groups have been arriving of their own volution, heavily armed and equipped, as well as men (and women) from all over the world making their way to Syria and aligning themselves with the rebels for a myriad of causes. This has complicated the conflict hugely.

There's no sphere of influence, it's not the Cold War anymore. The Russians want Assad replaced, he is just a good customer.

That's what this thread is all about

For me this thread is not all about Americans though they are involved.Dealing with the here and now Syria is now a civil war regardless of whether it began as one this is the reality of the situation today. The Israelis have threatened to blow up the S300 systems should they land on Syrian soil. Your comment about Russia wanting Assad replaced are you being serious or is that a typo?..

FTA69

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's no sphere of influence, it's not the Cold War anymore. The Russians want Assad replaced, he is just a good customer.

Utterly ridiculous. It's gas the way you deride myself and others as "tinfoil hat" types for pointing out that geopolitical strategy is at play in the Middle East and then simultaneously came out with the above.

What happened a few years back when Georgia tried to join NATO?

Norwesterner

A glimpse of post -Assad Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22861571

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I fully agree, Syria now is infinitely worse than Syria 3 years ago. The leadership is seeing to that.

In any civil war there are two sides to the story Syria is no different. This documentary is not something you will see on any of our news channels filmed by a Russian tv crew English subtitles from the perspective of the Syrian army. We arent getting the complete narrative as to what is going on over there. The Syrian army are responsible for bad things Im sure they are but so are the jihadis/rebels who arent exactly making things better themselves. This idea that Assad is the only one responsible for the shocking things happening over there is just bullsh1t really.

This documentary is graphic in the extreme.****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y06zzMn5Fao

Jonny7

FTA69 wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous. It's gas the way you deride myself and others as "tinfoil hat" types for pointing out that geopolitical strategy is at play in the Middle East and then simultaneously came out with the above.

What happened a few years back when Georgia tried to join NATO?

I'm not deriding anyone, only specific comments.

The rest of the world is condemning Assad for his actions not because Russia supports him.

I am aware of the geopolitics, the regional politics and the real politik, but this isn't about Russia, any more than it's about China vetoing UN resolutions. So cut the Cold War "sphere of influence" crap please.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

This idea that Assad is the only one responsible for the shocking things happening over there is just bullsh1t really.

What idea? atrocties are being reported on both sides, as have been linked in this thread.

HansHolzel

"Syria rebels 'kill Shia residents of eastern village'" - BBC News online headline this morning.

There are no good guys here.

0066ad

If all else fails lets say they used sarin gas as our back up plan.

I knew this would happen, the media is finally showing the truth of what is happening in Syria, ie "the mercenaries they employed" to topple Libya and cause havoc in the middle east getting their asses kicked and fighting an army who is fighting back.

They are now using the trump card they always had using chemical weapons is an act of war.

alphamule

Nino Brown wrote: »

Eh yes. The western media are conspiring to cover up the fact that the US government are conspiring to over throw the Syrian regime?. None of which can be proven, therefore it is a theory.

Have you been around the last decade??

Ardent

How unbelievably transparent and manufactured, this latest excuse from the US to become involved in another middle eastern country's affairs.

I feel sorry for the Syrian people not involved in this conflict.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not deriding anyone, only specific comments.

The rest of the world is condemning Assad for his actions not because Russia supports him.

I am aware of the geopolitics, the regional politics and the real politik, but this isn't about Russia, any more than it's about China vetoing UN resolutions. So cut the Cold War "sphere of influence" crap please.

Syria has clearly fallen under a Russian sphere of influence since the Assad family has been in power to think or state otherwise is incorrect.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

What idea? atrocties are being reported on both sides, as have been linked in this thread.

I know that, so it isnt just Assad who is responsible for "seeing to" the prolonging of the conflict or for making things worse in Syria.

cyberhog

Ardent wrote: »

How unbelievably transparent and manufactured, this latest excuse from the US to become involved in another middle eastern country's affairs.

I feel sorry for the Syrian people not involved in this conflict.

I agree, it is a terrible development for the people, but it seems Obama has ignored the UN warning on providing lethal assistance:

The commission's report to the UN human rights council on violations in Syria's conflict accused both sides of committing war crimes. In an apparent message to European countries considering arming Syrian rebels, the report warned that the transfer of arms would heighten the risk of violations, leading to more civilian deaths and injuries.

"War crimes and crimes against humanity have become a daily reality in Syria where the harrowing accounts of victims have seared themselves on our conscience," the report said. "There is a human cost to the increased availability of weapons," it added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/syria-un-investigators-chemical-weapons

and to think only this past month the US chided Russia on the transfer of arms:

“Providing additional weapons to Assad — including air defense systems — will only prolong the violence in Syria and incite regional destabilization,”

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2013/May/middleeast_May362.xml&section=middleeast

Now the US administration have decided to provide additional weapons to the rebels, they too are prolonging the violence and inciting regional destabilisation.

So now Russia has hit back at the US:

Responding to White House moves to broaden its military support for the forces lined up against Assad's regime, the Kremlin said it was not convinced by the pretext for doing so.

Yuri Ushakov, foreign policy adviser to Vladimir Putin, said US officials had briefed Russia on the allegations against Assad. "But I will say frankly that what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing," he said. "It would be hard even to call them facts."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/russia-us-syria-chemical-weapons

And the head of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee was even more explicit about it:

“The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s path,”

http://rt.com/politics/chemical-pushkov-false-weapons-686/

Ardent

cyberhog wrote:

Now the US administration have decided to provide additional weapons to the rebels, they too are prolonging the violence and inciting regional destabilisation.

But it isn't that their goal?

cyberhog wrote:

The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

That sums up this latest development perfectly.

cyberhog

The UN chief told reporters on Friday that sending additional weapons to Syria's rebels "would not be helpful"

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is opposing the U.S. decision to send arms to the Syrian rebels and says there can be no certainty of chemical weapons use in Syria without an on-the-ground investigation.

...Ban told reporters “the validity of any information on the alleged use of chemical weapons cannot be ensured without convincing evidence of the chain-of-custody.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/642933/un-chief-opposes-us-arming-syria-rebels/

Since the US haven't conducted an on-the-ground investigation they can't possibly know for certain that Syria has used chemical weapons on its own people.

The US itself acknowledged that additional weapons will only prolong the violence, so it just shows you how ruthless and devious Obama and his cohorts will be when they are determined to achieve regime change.

alphamule

Are these the same weapons of mass destruction.......

Cmon lads, I think we can now see who the real terrorists are.

Jonny7

0066ad wrote: »

If all else fails lets say they used sarin gas as our back up plan.

I knew this would happen, the media is finally showing the truth of what is happening in Syria, ie "the mercenaries they employed" to topple Libya and cause havoc in the middle east getting their asses kicked and fighting an army who is fighting back.

They are now using the trump card they always had using chemical weapons is an act of war.

The use of chemical weapons was reported back in May, early June, by both sides.

The "media" you are quoting is Russian state television - the country which is arming the pro-government forces

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

The use of chemical weapons was reported back in May, early June, by both sides.

is it acceptable for one side to use them, whereas if Assad has used them it's a "red line issue".
Are you convinced both sides have used chemical weapons? I get the impression if Russian intelligence was the first to claim chemical weapons had been used by the rebels, you'd be somewhat more cynical than you are of the American intelligence services stating Assad has used chemical weapons.
I just wonder why would Assad risk using such weapons when it provides the pretext for those who oppose him from outside to get directly involved. Surely if you're intent on surviving you won't engage in a course of action that will increase the possibility of that happening.

Tony EH

Ardent wrote: »

How unbelievably transparent and manufactured, this latest excuse from the US to become involved in another middle eastern country's affairs.

I feel sorry for the Syrian people not involved in this conflict.

It was only a matter of time before they fell back on the WMD lie to get involved. They suspected that people would just fall in line with their bogus 'Star Wars' "rebels" narrative. But, it didn't work, because to many people have been primed by the 9/11 rhetoric about "Islamofascists".

These are now the same "Islamofascists" that the US are going to send weapons to now. Jehadist groups that would happily see the US destroyed. Al Qaeda have become the good guys, because the US wants to have a presence in Syria and therefore a stronger miltary presence in the Middle East for future wars in the region.

The irony is too delicious to ignore.

It's almost like a repeat of the situation that happend in the 80's when America armed the Mujahideen, which in turn became Al Qaeda and we all know how that turned out at the beginning of this century.

If the same islamist groups in Lybia and the future Syria turn out to fund/support/carry out another large scale attack on the US in the future, America will have deserved EVERYTHING that it gets.

You reap what you sow.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

is it acceptable for one side to use them, whereas if Assad has used them it's a "red line issue".

There are more than two sides in this conflict, and it's not acceptable for any to use them, although what constitutes acceptability in a war this brutal probably escapes neat definitions.

The evidence for Assad's forces using chemical weapons, nerve agents like Sarin, over the last year seems to be stronger and comes from multiple sources - and it's recently been passed on to the Russians (who will no doubt deny credibility), alternatively the evidence for the rebels using chemical weapons is weaker. We'll see how true that is.

Fighters have been switching from the FSA to the brigades and groups like Al Nusra simply because they have better weaponry and are better equipped.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

The evidence for Assad's forces using chemical weapons, nerve agents like Sarin, over the last year seems to be stronger and comes from multiple sources - and it's recently been passed on to the Russians (who will no doubt deny credibility), alternatively the evidence for the rebels using chemical weapons is weaker. We'll see how true that is.

The evidence that both sides have used chemical weapons is rather filmsy. Why you are more inclined to believe Assad's forces have used chemical weapon given the main accuser( the US) has credibility issues on such matters, suggests you either are suffering from amnesia or LACK OBJECTIVITY. As you've admitted you're less likely to give credence to anything the Russians says on the matter. If you were truly even-handed you'd be equally cynical of any pronouncement from the Americans. They both could not give a fig leaf about the ordinary Syrian, yet you, despite early denials, seem to be an apologist for the Americas. Why, given their shameful foreign policy record, is a mystery.

Tony EH

There is NO solid evidence that anyone has used chemical weapons and anyone holding to such weak nonsense is doing so out of wishful thinking.

The idea that Assad would use such weaponry, when Obama has clearly said that it would be a "line" that shouldn't be crossed is absurd, especially when Assad's forces were in the ascendancy and he desparately wants America to mind its own business and keep out of a situation it has no legitimate reason for sticking its nose into.

Any rational, critical thinking person can only come to the conclusion that this "evidence" is so tenuious (to put it mildly) at best and outright falsification at its worst.

It's a joke.

But not a very funny one.

AlekSmart

Tony EH wrote: »

There is NO solid evidence that anyone has used chemical weapons and anyone holding to such weak nonsense is doing so out of wishful thinking.

I can only assume that there is still a rump of U.S. Presidential "advisers" left over from the original WMD presentation to the U.N.

I still cringe each time I view the clip of Colin Powell,addressing the U.N.,strenuously attempting to turn the base-metal 50 Gallon drums and assorted scrap metal into solid gold WMD's for his Chief.

It is apparent that even as he spoke,Powell,knew it was phooey and was obviously less than fully on-message even as he delivered the speech.

The only question this time around is who will Barrack O get to do the speechifying ?

Jimmy Garlic

This says it all really -

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are more than two sides in this conflict, and it's not acceptable for any to use them, although what constitutes acceptability in a war this brutal probably escapes neat definitions.

The evidence for Assad's forces using chemical weapons, nerve agents like Sarin, over the last year seems to be stronger and comes from multiple sources - and it's recently been passed on to the Russians (who will no doubt deny credibility), alternatively the evidence for the rebels using chemical weapons is weaker. We'll see how true that is.

Fighters have been switching from the FSA to the brigades and groups like Al Nusra simply because they have better weaponry and are better equipped.

The General Secretary of the United Nations, Ban ki Moon, claimed yesterday that there is NO evidence Syrian forces used chemicals.
If you have evidence please furnish us with the details, for I've yet to see any in the media.
Why would they use Sarin when they are gaining the upper hand using conventional military tactics and also winning the battle for hearts and minds within Syria?

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

The evidence that both sides have used chemical weapons is rather filmsy. Why you are more inclined to believe Assad's forces have used chemical weapon given the main accuser( the US) has credibility issues on such matters, suggests you either are suffering from amnesia or LACK OBJECTIVITY. As you've admitted you're less likely to give credence to anything the Russians says on the matter. If you were truly even-handed you'd be equally cynical of any pronouncement from the Americans. They both could not give a fig leaf about the ordinary Syrian, yet you, despite early denials, seem to be an apologist for the Americas. Why, given their shameful foreign policy record, is a mystery.

I suggest you read what I wrote

Also can you explain which parts of the claims are false..

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

There is NO solid evidence that anyone has used chemical weapons and anyone holding to such weak nonsense is doing so out of wishful thinking.

What is the evidence? how are you judging it?

Otherwise to imply the Bush administration lied therefore the Obama administration is lying on this particular issue - doesn't really make much sense.

I would also imagine the Obama administration is highly aware of the dangers of spinning a lie about weapons of mass destruction. The French and the British have their own evidence. None of which has been made fully public yet.

0066ad

Jonny7 wrote: »

What is the evidence? how are you judging it?

Otherwise to imply the Bush administration lied therefore the Obama administration is lying on this particular issue - doesn't really make much sense.

I would also imagine the Obama administration is highly aware of the dangers of spinning a lie about weapons of mass destruction. The French and the British have their own evidence. None of which has been made fully public yet.

So how do you know?

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

What is the evidence? how are you judging it?

The only things being tossed around are some film allegedly showing victims of a gas attack (which come be anything) and hearsay from Assad's enemies, some of which was proven as false last month due to inconsistency in the information, when some were saying that they smelt and saw sarin gas. Neither of which is possible.

There's been nothing else, which is why people are quite rightly suspicious of America's actions in this matter.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Otherwise to imply the Bush administration lied therefore the Obama administration is lying on this particular issue - doesn't really make much sense.

Oh please.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would also imagine the Obama administration is highly aware of the dangers of spinning a lie about weapons of mass destruction. The French and the British have their own evidence. None of which has been made fully public yet.

This isn't an administration policy, it's an American policy. Regardless of who was in power (it they're really only two sides of the same coin), the same angle would be getting pushed.

It benefits America to get rid of Assad and be in on the ground when the new boys take over. It allows America yet another presence in the region for the future.

There's no altruism going on here. This is strategic.

America has no business getting involved in another country's affairs. This is a civil war and they're using the situation to push their own agenda for the region as a whole.

The bottom line is that it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for Assad to use chemical weaponry, of any sort, on anyone. They're winning for christ's sake and want nothing else more than to keep the US out of their affairs. Crossing "the line" would bugger the whole situation up.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

The only things being tossed around are some film allegedly showing victims of a gas attack (which come be anything) and hearsay from Assad's enemies, some of which was proven as false last month due to inconsistency in the information, when some were saying that they smelt and saw sarin gas. Neither of which is possible.

I'm not familiar with the above.

Samples have been taken by the French, tested at the lab and been shown to contain the Sarin nerve agent. They've handed this over to the UN as well as Britain and the US, who claim they also have their own evidence. They have planned to make all this public later.

Some media agencies, like France 2 and Reuters I believe have their own evidence

This isn't an administration policy, it's an American policy. Regardless of who was in power (it they're really only two sides of the same coin), the same angle would be getting pushed.

It is administration policy - previous administrations supported/tacitly supported Gadaffi, Mubarrak and other leaders in the region. In fact, due to the Arab spring, there has been a marked departure from normal US foreign policy in the region as a whole.

It benefits America to get rid of Assad and be in on the ground when the new boys take over. It allows America yet another presence in the region for the future.

I would argue it benefits the Syrian people a hell of a lot more to get rid of Assad.

There's no altruism going on here. This is strategic.

It's not purely altruistic, it's also not purely strategic. I don't see the same level of criticism of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, Qatar, the UN, the Arab league and European countries, which raises my suspicions.

America has no business getting involved in another country's affairs. This is a civil war and they're using the situation to push their own agenda for the region as a whole.

The US, along with most other world nations, supported the uprising in Syria and condemned Assad for his actions in violently putting down the uprising.

The conflict has changed, I don't think enough for those stances to be reversed.

Internationally Assad is very isolated, with only really Russia, Lebanon and Iran supporting his regime currently.

The bottom line is that it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for Assad to use chemical weaponry, of any sort, on anyone. They're winning for christ's sake and want nothing else more than to keep the US out of their affairs. Crossing "the line" would bugger the whole situation up.

Neither side is really "winning". Pro-government forces got a boost recently with the arrival of several thousand Hezbollah fighters, and they retook some crucial areas.

I agree, it makes zero sense for Assad to use any chemical weapons, but we don't know the precise nature of what happened, or who specifically ordered the attacks and under what circumstances.

Norwesterner

Russia, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Venezuala, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, India and China (and several more smaller states) are either supportive of Syria or at least have refused to support regime change or foreign interference.
Those Nations must represent half the World's population.
He is far from isolated internationally.


But forget all that, the only people who should decide the future of Syria are the syrian people.
There are elections in 2014, the FSA could call a ceasefire, stand in elections against Assad and win if they are so popular.
We could send in International observors to ensure it's a fair election.
So how would that run with the Jihadis?

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

The evidence for Assad's forces using chemical weapons, nerve agents like Sarin, over the last year seems to be stronger and comes from multiple sources

The US/UK/France haven't furnished any evidence that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people and yet there are still people amoung us who take their word as the god's honest truth. It's staggering that people are so gullible.


Guardian: The red lines over Syria have not been crossed

On examining the US assessment of Syria's alleged chemical weapons use, Vladimir Putin's top foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said: "What was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing. It would be hard to even call them facts."

Unwelcome as it may be to the French and British governments, who have been leading the push for this finding, he is right. The White House statement says that laboratory analyses of samples "reveal exposure to sarin" (which the NY Times reports amounts to two individuals, who have been shown to have traces of the agent sarin in their bodies), but then goes on to add the qualifier that "each positive result indicates that an individual was exposed to sarin, but it does not tell us how or where the individuals were exposed, or who was responsible for the dissemination". Hardly a proverbial smoking gun. It is quite possibly, as Anthony Cordesman has noted, a "political ploy". The finding rests, we are told, on "analysis" and "reporting", but perhaps more candidly we should call it "supposition".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/16/red-lines-syria-have-not-been-crossed

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the above.

Samples have been taken by the French, tested at the lab and been shown to contain the Sarin nerve agent. They've handed this over to the UN as well as Britain and the US, who claim they also have their own evidence. They have planned to make all this public later.

Alledgedly. But why wait til the US has taken action to reveal the findings? Would it be that that "evidence" would be unconvincing. So, they'll wait until action is taken and there's no going back.

If there was ANYTHING solid, it would have been made available.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some media agencies, like France 2 and Reuters I believe have their own evidence

And you would count them as a reliable source of information?

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is administration policy - previous administrations supported/tacitly supported Gadaffi, Mubarrak and other leaders in the region. In fact, due to the Arab spring, there has been a marked departure from normal US foreign policy in the region as a whole.

It's national policy. Propping up and supporting dictators in regions you have interest in gives you a reason to be in that region. It's a strategy that's been used for centuries.

You don't think the so called "Arab Spring" has been supported, covertly, from the beginning?

You're very naive.

There is no departure from US national policy here, there have been many scenarios accounted for in the region since the 70's and support of home grown revolt has scenarios of either support, disinterest or active resistance. That's what military planners do. Nothing the US engages in, in a miltary capacity hasn't at least been through a preliminary scenario build, especially in the region under discussion.

It doesn't matter which side of the coin is in power, Democrat or Republican. These military scenarios have been in play for decades.

You don't think the Bush administration woke up one morning and suddenly started planning the war in Iraq, do you?

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would argue it benefits the Syrian people a hell of a lot more to get rid of Assad.

Not if they end up under the thumb of some ramshakle jihadist collective. Did the Afghans benefit from the Taliban?

There are groups flying the flag of Al Qaeda (and others on the US terrorist list) fighting against the state. You think thier just going to walk away quietly after all is said and done.

You may want to buy all you hear about Assad from his enemies, but I would advise you to take their council with a large pinch of salt.

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not purely altruistic, it's also not purely strategic. I don't see the same level of criticism of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, Qatar, the UN, the Arab league and European countries, which raises my suspicions.

The US, along with most other world nations, supported the uprising in Syria and condemned Assad for his actions in violently putting down the uprising.

The conflict has changed, I don't think enough for those stances to be reversed.

Internationally Assad is very isolated, with only really Russia, Lebanon and Iran supporting his regime currently.

It's completely strategic. There's long term plans for the region that have been in play in one form or another since the 70's.

You also wrong about the level of support that the so-called "Arab Spring" had/has recieved from various nations. There may have been a level of lip service given at the beginning, but it was extremely cautious and only the US and Britain were saying they were thinking of arming anyone (while in fact it's entirely probable that the US has been sending arms into the country for over a year)...and when it turned out that the "rebels" were made up of some very dubious groups and outright terrorist organisations, a lot of the support dwindled. It's now down mainly to America, Britain and France, who have always had national interests in the area.

But don't you think it ironic (to say the least), that the west (ie America and Britain) constantly bleat about the danger of Islamic fundamentalist groups they are fighting against in other parts of the world and yet here they are going to actively aid like minded groups.

Isn't there any part of you that stops the rhetoric for a minute and actually thinks about that situation?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Neither side is really "winning". Pro-government forces got a boost recently with the arrival of several thousand Hezbollah fighters, and they retook some crucial areas.

That's incorrect. The state forces may have suffered some setbacks, but they are still very much in the black. It's a crucial point that at this juncture that support from the US has reared its ugly head as Assad is winning the game. The US is eager to see destabilisation in Syria and it gives them an excuse to be involved somehow.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I agree, it makes zero sense for Assad to use any chemical weapons, but we don't know the precise nature of what happened, or who specifically ordered the attacks and under what circumstances.

We don't know that anything happened. We don't know if there was an attack, by anybody. But logic would dictate that the chances that Assad would use chemical weaponry, of any sort, would be extremly low, if not non-existant.

Then there is no excuse, or reason for America to be sticking her nose in. It's NONE of her business and that is the salient point here.

WakeUp

Norwesterner wrote: »

Russia, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Venezuala, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, India and China (and several more smaller states) are either supportive of Syria or at least have refused to support regime change or foreign interference.
Those Nations must represent half the World's population.
He is far from isolated internationally.

A map of the breakdown for and against Assad at the UN.






The Indpendent is claiming that Iran is about to send 4000 revolutionary guards into Syria. The Iranians have military advisors and I would hazard a guess some special forces aswell already on the ground though if they openly declare troops are going in then hold on tight. The Israeli press have picked up on it but I cant find anything from the Iranian side is a case of wait and see I hope it turns out to be wrong and off the mark.

Tony EH

There is a huge difference between a desire to see a political transition in Syria and sending arms to groups that you are actively fighting in other countries.

Of course most people would wish to see a government put in place that have the Syrian people's interests at the centre of their political mechanisations, but can that really be said for this ragtag group of Islamic Jihadist collectives fighting in Syria now?

I think not.

biko

The funny thing about the Free Syrian Army (pretty much anyone anti-Bassar) is that many are moving from FSA to Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaida) that would implement Islamic law.

So we are looking at another Arab/Islamist Spring movement where the Muslim Brotherhood eventually will take control.

AlekSmart

Jonny7: I would argue it benefits the Syrian people a hell of a lot more to get rid of Assad.

A perfectly sound arguement.

However it does rather focus on that definition of what constitutes "The Syrian People".

I am curious as to the situation prevailing in "Greater Syria",ie: the countryside,town and cities apart from those we see featured on News Reports or on U-Tube clips.

Is the day-to-day administration still functional,are wages being paid,taxes being levied and is the fabric of "normal" daily life still extant in non beligerant parts of the Country ?

It is,after all ,a large country with a relatively low population density,so what are the non-combatants doing in terms of getting on with their lives ?

Civil Wars can often be difficult to interpret from the outside,and even more so when the religious/ethnic differences are factored in,and I'm mindful of how,even at it's height,our own Rebellion/Civil War often remained parochial in extent,with significant areas not engaging in too much rebelling unless poked hard by visiting combatants.

TheSB

biko wrote: »

The funny thing about the Free Syrian Army (pretty much anyone anti-Bassar) is that many are moving from FSA to Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaida) that would implement Islamic law.

So we are looking at another Arab/Islamist Spring movement where the Muslim Brotherhood eventually will take control.

Yeah it's crazy, the US military have been blown to bits by Sunni terrorists in Afghanistan and previously Iraq and now they are planning to arm and train the same group in Syria to overthrow a secular government.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a desire to see a political transition in Syria and sending arms to groups that you are actively fighting in other countries.

Fond of generalisations are we?

That's some way to label all FSA fighters as Jihadists without a shred of justification.
Its known a small minority are Al-Nusra, you've just transformed that small minority into 100% of all fighters, unreal stuff and scaremongering.

Tony EH

Ignoring your silly hyperbole, the fact remains that there are groups operating in Syria, who are fighting Assad's government forces that are comprised of Jihadist and terrorist organisations that are on the US terrorist list...

...and the US are sending arms to them.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Ignoring your silly hyperbole, the fact remains that there are groups operating in Syria, who are fighting Assad's government forces that are comprised of Jihadist and terrorist organisations that are on the US terrorist list...

...and the US are sending arms to them.

Which groups are the US sending arms to that are on their terror list?

Please state the fact as you call it.

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

Fond of generalisations are we?

That's some way to label all FSA fighters as Jihadists without a shred of justification.
Its known a small minority are Al-Nusra, you've just transformed that small minority into 100% of all fighters, unreal stuff and scaremongering.

FSA Commanders have described Al Nusra as "their elite Commando force".
They share weapons, intel and bases.
The "leader" of the FSA wrote a letter of protest to the U.S when they outlawed Al Nusra.
It's like saying you support the RIRA but not the CIRA.

gurramok

Norwesterner wrote: »

FSA Commanders have described Al Nusra as "their elite Commando force".
They share weapons, intel and bases.
The "leader" of the FSA wrote a letter of protest to the U.S when they outlawed Al Nusra.
It's like saying you support the RIRA but not the CIRA.

Source? (other than Russia Today, Tehran Times or Hezbollah)

esteve

gurramok wrote: »

Source? (other than Russia Today, Tehran Times or Hezbollah)

I really dislike this style of debating, demanding sources, and then within that only specific sources that they will accept. Its actually general knowledge that they are working together, it shouldn´t have to be refernced if we are to have a real debate about what is going on in Syria, but to keep you happy, i hope this source will suffice

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-terror-group-explainer

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

Source? (other than Russia Today, Tehran Times or Hezbollah)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Relationship_with_National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_opposition_forces
Above the link is also the quote from the FSA Commander describing Al Nusra as "the Revolution's elite Commando troops."and the reference to joint military operations.