SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Dave!

Yes, it's hilarious, a civil war into which chemical weapons have been introduced, and there's apparently no prospect of intervention (unless the US decide to go for it), HAHAHAHAHAHA

Military intervention from Western powers may or may not be a good idea, but whatever your persuasion it's a sh*tty situation, and could easily get a lot sh*ttier if Asaad knows he can use chemical weapons on his own people with impunity.

MonaPizza

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thank God NATO are in Afghanistan, how would the west survive without securing all that lovely dust and sand.

Ah yes.....the wisdom of a chessmaster.
Ever occur to you that it's wise to take up positions of strategic importance on the board or do you just send pawn after pawn, bishop after knight, queen after rook straight up the middle towards the king only to be slaughtered one by one?

RobertKK

Gringo180 wrote: »

There brainwashed with all the propaganda there fed from fox news and the bbc. Idiots.

Fox news and on the Five on Wednesday, the Obama supporter was all for striking Syria.
The Republican supporters were against it, saying they would be fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda and look how that turned out in Benghazi. Plus no one knows for sure who carried out the attack.
I expected they would be all for it but it was just the Obama supporter who was, on Fox news.

theGEM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They won't care.

The US painted a line in the ground and it has been crossed. Even if they don't want to get involved they have to now or the Godfather loses face among his lieutenants and his rivals and enemies will be emboldened.

B
Yes Obama's red line has been crossed:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/20/article-2063706-0EDE282A00000578-562_634x412.jpg

Where's that peace prize...

MonaPizza

jank wrote: »

As I said, a conspiracy theory... There is a forum here for you you know.

Judging by that non-answer of yours I'll take it you've now resorted to throwing out meaningless jibes rather than qualify the statements you've made.

RobertKK

Dave! wrote: »

Yes, it's hilarious, a civil war into which chemical weapons have been introduced, and there's apparently no prospect of intervention (unless the US decide to go for it), HAHAHAHAHAHA

Military intervention from Western powers may or may not be a good idea, but whatever your persuasion it's a sh*tty situation, and could easily get a lot sh*ttier if Asaad knows he can use chemical weapons on his own people with impunity.

But Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a threat to all of us, that was a lie.
Assad used chemical weapons, makes no sense. Only highly likely, not 100% sure, but sure lets bomb Syria anyway.
This is what Cameron and Co made as their argument.

seanie_c

Dave! wrote: »

Yes, it's hilarious, a civil war into which chemical weapons have been introduced, and there's apparently no prospect of intervention (unless the US decide to go for it), HAHAHAHAHAHA

Military intervention from Western powers may or may not be a good idea, but whatever your persuasion it's a sh*tty situation, and could easily get a lot sh*ttier if Asaad knows he can use chemical weapons on his own people with impunity.

The Islamic mercenaries operating there get paid $150 a month.

It might interest you to know Saudi Arabia or the House of Saud control these mercenaries and even offered Putin protection during the Sochi Olympics...I'll quote Bandar Bush for you.

”...I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

So you're one of these people that believe it's an internal conflict purely between the local people?

The joke is on you.

MonaPizza

Liamario wrote: »

I would have said that they should be left to their own devices until the gas attack and seeing the bodies of small children lined up and lifeless.

They went too far and now there needs to be some form of intervention. The attitude that it's none of our business only goes so far. This is a very small planet and at some point, we have to take responsibility for the welfare of others where that can't take responsibility themselves.

Who went too far? Who are "they" exactly? Because if you are referring to Assad's forces deploying chemical weapons then I'd like you to present the evidence that nobody else thus far has done.

dav32cs

Didn't see this thread before now - will just repost from another thread a few mins ago which gives my overall opinion on the recent events..quote is obviously from other thread too!!

maquiladora wrote: »

Doctors Without Borders who are dealing with the victims on the ground there confirmed hundreds of cases of neurological symptoms, so clearly some type of chemical weapon or gas was used. I haven't seen anyone officially claiming it was Sarin in particular.

Doctors Without Borders are not directly dealing with people on the ground. They supply the medicine for their designated hospitals(mostly in rebel areas) but have no active workers in these sites due to the ongoing threat. This means that all information they have put out is from an unknown third party on the ground whom they are dealing with.

'Médecins Sans Frontières can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.
(Because they are not on the ground )

maquiladora wrote: »

Assad's forces are known to have chemical weapons, they are known to have probably used them already in the conflict on a smaller scale.

'Probably' according to the western media.

'No evidence' pointing towards any government involvement but some evidence pointing towards Rebel involvement according to UN inspector Carla Del Ponte.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
(Picked a media source that is usually overly critical of the Assad government to show case - Del Pontes findings so far have been widely ignored in Western media)

The line that is being force fed down peoples throats now is that it is crazy to think that the rebels would have any access to chemical type weapons. This is despite the fact(to give even a few small examples) :
-Turkey have arrested Al Nusra members in possession of Sarin gas
-Iraq have raided at least two chemical weapons factories of Al Q in Iraq
-An American report as far back as circa 2002 stated that Al Q have gained the ability to mix and manufacture crude chemical weapons (Sarin,Mustard,XV) in homemade rockets.
- Syrian govt footage of a rebel storage facility - lots of bags with 'Made in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia' on them.

maquiladora wrote: »

Assad's forces heavily shelled the site of the chemical attack in the days after it happened - why on earth would they do that unless they were trying to destroy as much evidence as possible at the site?

So all of a sudden fighting in an area of an alleged chemical weapons attack is going to degrade or destroy all traces?? So why are the UN Inspectors over there investigating and attack that happened months ago so?If genuine, chemical traces will stay in the ground and cannot be destroyed that easily. Also, if it was sarin, the Syrian soldiers fighting in close proximity would have been affected and also any wind could have brought this into city centre Damascus. Because of all this, the most likely scenario is that a riot control agent of some sort has been used in a high concentration dose.This can result in similar respiratory symptoms as there would be in a CW attack.

It was said the Syrian government had refused access to this new site. This was untrue as they had stated they could not guarantee the safety of the inspectors as it was a Rebel controlled area. Then it was said they had delayed giving permission, again false as the UN requested this on a Saturday and it was granted on a Sunday. This was surprising but had to be done to appease the Western demands - by granting this access the offensive had to cease and this would allow the rebels to get a breather and regroup. This offensive was organised to try and rout foreign backed militants who had just arrived in the country with the plan of a major attack onto Damascus. By agreeing to this cessation it would have lost any gains the original offensive would have gained.

maquiladora wrote: »

Not the actions of an innocent party, a party that has been killing 10,000's over the past 2 years by conventional means like firing heavy artillery and Scud missiles into cities without any regard for civilian life.

It is estimated the roughly 40k of the casualties have been from the Syrian govt side.American policies like drone strikes which regularly kill innocent civilians are deemed to be appropriate actions but a government fighting an externally fueled war against itself targeting militants in built up area is a war crime?

I have no doubt there have been numerous civilian casualties caused by the Syrian army by accident and also the possibility of small scale deliberate acts by individuals but this is no way near the scale of any of the western backed rebels actions.

If in fact it is proven that in any way a chemical like attack was fully co-ordinated by the Syrian govt then those responsible should be punished to the highest level. I can't see this scenario ever happening though as I doubt Al Assad could be that stupid...just like the whole line that CW were a 'red line' and what happens 3 days after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrive in the country??You couldn't make it up...

If you find it necessary, it is quite easy to find video and photo evidence of all the crimes of the Rebel side yet there is hardly any documented evidence of Syrian army crimes, apart from the 'probable' and 'suspected' notions from the media. Last week Al Nusra executed 3 truck drivers because they didn't pass the 'How Sunni are you' exam to the required standards. 100+ soldiers executed in Khan Al Assan after they surrendered. Multiple videos of beheadings and executions of civilians and soldiers for a variety of reason. Documented evidence of child soldiers being trained.

It's funny to look at all the experts in the US weighing up all the military and non-military options and they always exclude probably the quickest route to end the suffering for the ordinary Syrian - publicly acknowledge the majority extremist element of the 'rebels' and their crimes and come together to a collective decision to withdraw all funding and support(this will take a miracle from Saudi Arabia and Qatar especially given the formers knock out track record of exporting salafist and takfiri idealogies around the globe...).This would probably result in the ending of the conflict in a matter of months and the ending of the worst suffering for civilians. Afterward when stability has been restored, all governments should engage with the Syrians and hold an open and fair election to decide what future the SYRIAN people wish to decide for THEMSELVES rather than what the west thinks is best for them.

Unfortunately, this is the idea I can see the least chance of happening because of a couples of reasons ( Americas proxy war with Iran here, the independence of the Syrian and Iranian central banks,Irans plans to try and deal oil sales in Non USD currency, the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline which Qatar want to have as theirs instead...to name a few) but none of these are for democracy or for the good of civilians but rather for individual countries own best interests .

jank

MonaPizza wrote: »

Judging by that non-answer of yours I'll take it you've now resorted to throwing out meaningless jibes rather than qualify the statements you've made.

I am still waiting for you to post any source or data that supports your own conspiracy theory.

old_aussie

Just wondering what Assad hoped to achieve by using chemicals so close to Damascus and in an area that his troops already controlled.

What would assad gain/benefit by using chemicals on his local supporters in an area where they would feel safe.(being so close to Damascus)

Wouldn't the use of chemicals (by assad) be more effective in an area that was under FSA/enemy control?

assad had nothing to gain, he knew what the US/UN had already said about the response to the use of chemical weapons.

Why would he want to cause more enemy combatants (US and allies) to bomb and invade syria?

Doesn't make sense!

MonaPizza

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Wonder how Obama will react to this.

U.S were always going to lead the way anyway so I wonder will they go ahead regardless.

Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the limits of US military power. We are now witnessing the decline of American coercion. The world is laughing at the US and has been for years. Everytime they open their mouths the planet gags at their bullsh1t and hypocrisy and double standards. During the Snowden affair you had American loudmouths screaming how the Russians should "respect the rule of law" and extradite him. Completely lost on these buffoons was the fact that there is no extradition treaty between Russia and the US. Not only that but as they demanded this they are harbouring Posada Carilles who is wanted in Venezuela for the bombing of a Cuban airliner.
They lecture about chemical weapons and yet they dump napalm and agent orange on Vietnam, phosphourous gas and depleted uranium on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Every time they open their mouths the whole world collectively rolls their eyes and does the "wanker" sign.

MonaPizza

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They won't care.

The US painted a line in the ground and it has been crossed. Even if they don't want to get involved they have to now or the Godfather loses face among his lieutenants and his rivals and enemies will be emboldened.

The Americans have painted themselves into a corner yet again thanks to their sheer cluelessness and ineptitude. If Assad defeats the rebels, Syria will emerge stronger in the region and by default so will Iran. If Assad falls and these rebels take control you will basically have a basket case of a state run by al-Qaeda cannibals right on Turkey's doorstep.

MonaPizza

Gringo180 wrote: »

Why cant they just go in under the UN flag and take all the chemical weapons off the Assad regime? Have the U.S not learned from past mistakes, that war just does not work. Look at the state Iraq is in for goodness sake.

So now you're advocating that the United Nations get into the invasion business?

Celly Smunt

This is the time for Obama to grow some balls and take a big step back.The Brits thankfully as of tonight are out,that shouldn't give the U.S the carte blanche to go in with two feet without the need consolidation.

Wait for the UN report,examine the situation FOR A WHILE and then make the decision.

Karl Stein

theGEM wrote: »

B

Are you... are you grading my posts?

Celly Smunt

MonaPizza wrote: »

The Americans have painted themselves into a corner yet again thanks to their sheer cluelessness and ineptitude. If Assad defeats the rebels, Syria will emerge stronger in the region and by default so will Iran. If Assad falls and these rebels take control you will basically have a basket case of a state run by al-Qaeda cannibals right on Turkey's doorstep.

This is true,it's sad to see so many people,especially over this way feeling that if the rebels get in power there'll be a progressive democratic state emerging afterwards when that simply isn't the case.The rebels are internally divided as it stands already between the radical sects and those who actually want a progressive change.

Celly Smunt

mango salsa wrote: »

Cameron could overrule Parliament and use a Royal Prerogative to take Military Action - he said he won't do that though

Pretty much,no assault just defence.

i'd imagine they'll have a few subs and aircraft around cypriot islands and malta.That doesn't mean they can't be coaxed into a fight however.

MonaPizza

jank wrote: »

I am still waiting for you to post any source or data that supports your own conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy theory are you on about?

Cork boy 55

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Are you... are you grading my posts?

D-

jank

MonaPizza wrote: »

What conspiracy theory are you on about?

The west wants to destroy the Middle East.

sin_city

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I am sick of the whole middle east

Here, here. I'm sure the people from the Middle east wish they didn't have oil.

They've been at the mercy of the British and American Empires with their BS line of bringing democracy to the region when really they just remove anyone that won't do to their liking.

Wesley Clark the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000 stated in a video made years ago that Western power were going to invade 7 countries.

Why isn't this in the news?

Don't fall for the line of cr.ap that you've getting that this is about bring democracy to the region.

Here's a video of the rebels everyone:

sin_city

MonaPizza wrote: »

What conspiracy theory are you on about?

Read and watch the videos in my above post.

The powers in the west conspired to take over 7 countries in the middle east region. They're surrounding Iran.

Don't you know about the CIA coup in the 1950s?

The gulf of Tonkin incident that got the US into the Vietnam war.

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

You can ignore history but to be arrogant when debating an argument only to use ignorance as your back up is not on mate

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Read and watch the videos in my above post.

The powers in the west conspired to take over 7 countries in the middle east region. They're surrounding Iran.

Pulled out of Iraq, pulling out of Afghanistan, bad relations with Pakistan

Operation "surround Iran" not going too well. I guess they want Syria as some sort of consolation prize.

Karl Stein

The **** in the fawning corporate media are furious with democracy in Britain.

Jonny7

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The **** in the fawning corporate media are furious with democracy in Britain.

Which media outlets, can you link?

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which media outlets, can you link?

Was just watching a bit of Sky News:

berating UK politicians for voting the wrong way
carrying out character assassination on Cameron
giving interventionist Paddy Ashdown a pulpit to berate the no vote
switching to US networks that were claiming 'British snub President Obama'

couldn't take any more then.

I think it was right to call back parliament to debate this very serious issue. Then democracy was shown at it's best when the will of the people won.

I don't get the smear campaign against Cameron since. It's now a damned if he did, damned if he didn't situation.

Fratton Fred

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Was just watching a bit of Sky News:.

That's your first mistake right there.

myshirt

They had all the missiles lined up and ready to go. What are they going to do with them now?

You wouldn't want to be a badger this week. It's not looking good.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's your first mistake right there.

Yeah, you're right. I was watching it to get the weather and got drawn in.

force eleven

Dear old Paddy Ashdown nearly crying this morning has made my day.

Fratton Fred

myshirt wrote: »

They had all the missiles lined up and ready to go. What are they going to do with them now?

You wouldn't want to be a badger this week. It's not looking good.

I wouldn't want to be a badger any week to be honest.

old_aussie

View Poll Results: What level of support should be given to the rebels in Syria None, they should be left to the own devices. 106

Winning by a long shot.

Hoop66

So Cameron recalled parliament to have what he thought was going to be his big statesman moment; only to have his arse handed to him, with a good bit of help from his own side?

Splendid.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pulled out of Iraq, pulling out of Afghanistan, bad relations with Pakistan

Operation "surround Iran" not going too well. I guess they want Syria as some sort of consolation prize.

You're right...America has no influence in Afghanistan or Iraq now that they have both turned to democracy....lol

Read a history book please....do yourself that at least.....learn about what happened in Iran with BP in the 1950s.

Syria has a defence agreement with Iran. The BS about Iran developing a nuke wasn't working so they are trying to antagonise Iran by getting to Syria.

You did't listen to what General Clark said after 2001 did you?....No, I didn't think so.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Syria has a defence agreement with Iran. The BS about Iran developing a nuke wasn't working so they are trying to antagonise Iran by getting to Syria.

*pokes Syria with a stick

"Whatcha gonna do Iran, huh, whatcha gonna do about it"

Awesome plan

donegal_road

@Jonny7, could you explain your post #184 again to me please, what you were talking about went totally over my head.. it was in response to the video clip I posted, of General Clark.. cheers

Here is a screenshot of the post.

RobertKK

Watched John Kerry there, thinking he was Colin Powell before the Iraq invasion.
I swear he nearly said the US was God as he kept saying "we know", they know everything apparently.

But then I wondered if they really did know everything when he said 'the US cares about humanity'.

Judgement Day

Black day for the 'special' relationship. While I still can't make up my mind about what should be done, a schism between the US and its key European ally sends out all the wrong signals. The only thing the French have mastered since 1066 is the art of surrendering, so I hope that the US won't rely on them when it comes to action.

seanie_c

RobertKK wrote: »

Watched John Kerry there, thinking he was Colin Powell before the Iraq invasion.
I swear he nearly said the US was God as he kept saying "we know", they know everything apparently.

But then I wondered if they really did know everything when he said 'the US cares about humanity'.

John Boy is Israel's flunky, he's a bootlicker and good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Back in 1996, Benji and Richard Perle published a document called: A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm

In it, they proposed containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare...exactly what we see happening right now.

Any attack by America will be largely symbolic because it only benefits The House of Saud, Qatar and Israel.

Nodin

Judgement Day wrote: »

Black day for the 'special' relationship. While I still can't make up my mind about what should be done, a schism between the US and its key European ally sends out all the wrong signals. The only thing the French have mastered since 1066 is the art of surrendering, so I hope that the US won't rely on them when it comes to action.

....the usual clichéd bollocks about France has arrived, I see.

Karl Stein

Judgement Day wrote: »

Black day for the 'special' relationship.

I'm not British but if I was I'd be well pleased and describe it as a good day for British democracy and a refreshing break from the usual heeling to US wishes.

a schism between the US and its key European ally sends out all the wrong signals.

what wrong signals and to whom?

The only thing the French have mastered since 1066 is the art of surrendering,

One of the 5 most statistically full-of-shit national stereotypes.

Judgement Day

Nodin wrote: »

....the usual clichéd bollocks about France has arrived, I see.

Well since France is a friend of the current regime in Syria I await their contribution with interest.

donegal_road

Judgement Day wrote: »

Black day for the 'special' relationship. While I still can't make up my mind about what should be done, a schism between the US and its key European ally sends out all the wrong signals. The only thing the French have mastered since 1066 is the art of surrendering, so I hope that the US won't rely on them when it comes to action.

Looks like those 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' may be Yankee Doodles new best friend after all





.

Judgement Day

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I'm not British but if I was I'd be well pleased and describe it as a good day for British democracy and a refreshing break from the usual heeling to US wishes.

I agree it was a good day for democracy but not for the US/UK 'special' relationship.


what wrong signals and to whom?

Iran, Syria, China, Russia and any other rogue states that hate the West.


One of the 5 most statistically full-of-shit national stereotypes.

As for my quip about 1066, I only stuck it in to get the expected reaction from the usual quarters. However, in fairness, since 1939 France's military history is not exactly littered with famous victories.

Karl Stein

Judgement Day wrote: »

I agree it was a good day for democracy but not for the US/UK 'special' relationship.

There are no 'buts'. Britain is either a democracy or not - **** the special interests. Is there anyone left who thinks Tony Blair's war, which the majority of British people were against, was a good decision?

Iran, Syria, China, Russia and any other rogue states that hate the West.

I couldn't be bothered giving history lessons on who the rogue states have been recently and who's been wreaking havoc in the region since WWII - suffice to say it isn't Russia and China.

in fairness, since 1939 France's military history is not exactly littered with famous victories.

1939 is a convenient point in history to choose.

thisonetaken

Morally, attacking the syrian government is the right thing to do, but it costs too much. When the US liberated Iraq they should of taken Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of doing so. Instead like saps they picked up the tab themselves now they're broke and can't save any more countries from evil dictators.

Nodin

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well since France is a friend of the current regime in Syria I await their contribution with interest.

Funny sort of friend.....

France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

Judgement Day wrote:

As for my quip about 1066, I only stuck it in to get the expected reaction
from the usual quarters

Posting Flamebait? Dear o dear. I don't believe you though. I'd say you just threw it in as a bit of casual xenophobic "hurr hurr" crap without much thought at all.

Nodin

thisonetaken wrote: »

Morally, attacking the syrian government is the right thing to do, but it costs too much. When the US liberated Iraq they should of taken Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of doing so. Instead like saps they picked up the tab themselves now they're broke and can't save any more countries from evil dictators.

...makes so little sense....brain hurting now.....