Could Assad Win?

[Al-Quarra]

Could Assad win? Yes he can since the Syrian military is pretty equipped and well trained compared to the rebels. Also, Assad is getting direct aid from Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Russia and indirect aid from Venezuela so I think he has a fair chance.

Wait, North Korea's involved? And isn't Iraq supposed to be pro-Insurgency?

I don't believe N-K being involved, and no Iraq doesn't support the rebels, Iraq has a very good relation with Iran and Syria;)

[Al-Quarra]

I remember reading an article a few months ago that said that North Korea was donating weapons to the Assad government to help them. Iraq has been helping by opening up their airspace to Iranian military transport planes carrying Iranian troops and weapons to Syria.

I don't think it's Iranian troops per say. From what I've read, it's basicly weapons being flown in, pro-Assad milita being flown out, trained by Iranian troops and flown back in.

This^ There is no prove about Iranian soldiers in Syria.

[Al-Quarra]

And Al-Qaeda is assisting the rebels.

They're both shit. Saying one is shit does not mean you're saying you like the other side.

And that's a bad thing? Two religiously motivated jihadist groups killing one another? I see that as good. Means less religious shitheads populating the planet.

I don't think it's Iranian troops per say. From what I've read, it's basicly weapons being flown in, pro-Assad milita being flown out, trained by Iranian troops and flown back in.

They confirmed it. Then they denied it. So who knows?

Syria under Assad is no Jihadist group...

They denied it multiple times, and if there are any troops it will only be for some training, they won't do the fighting.

[Al-Quarra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XNE02kHvn_E#!

This just made my day.

Hahah awsome!

[Al-Quarra]

I hope not. The world needs conservative Islam, and that's what the rebels will bring in.

The rebels will only bring extremists... nothing else, a second Saudi-Arabia or a new Somalia.

[Al-Quarra]

1. Thing is, a human life is a human life, doesn't matter where it comes from. Thing is that Bush and/or Obama have killed much more innocent people then Assad did.

2. Hmm, ever watched the news outside of the US? I'll name some things: Guantanamo bay (obviously), the use of the "aiding the enemy" law, drone strikes, tortures all over the world...

Okay.
Can you explain how you figure that Obama has killed more innocent people than Assad has? Last I checked, one of the prime missions - though I'm not going to say it's always followed, as I often hear of it - of drone striking is to kill enemy forces without killing innocents.

Assad just bombs the living shit out of everything, regardless of the collateral.

Saying that civilians deaths shouldn't happen, and any war that has them is a war that shouldn't be fought is naive. All wars have collateral. It's an unfortunate attachment. Doesn't mean we get to wave our dicks around and bomb everything we can.

Ah, yes, Guantanamo. The typical argument used in anti-US arguments. Yes, well, it's true. Guantanamo exists. Obama has wanted to close it before, but hasn't. Oh well. It sucks.

I don't Guantanamo has ever had more people in its cells than Assad has killed in his war, so let's drop that out.

What's wrong with Article 104? The fact that giving information/harboring/generally helping the enemy can cause you to receive the death penalty?

You might as well be an enemy. I don't see what's different between killing a supposed friendly who was helping the enemy and killing the enemy directly. If anything, the former has a court marshal and injection, which sounds like a far less painful death.

Yes, the drone strikes. As I mentioned above, they have collateral damage. Using that against me isn't a valid argument, because fuck, when have you heard of a war that didn't kill civilians?

Where are wars fought?
Countries.

What do countries have?
Populations.

Is the entire population in the military?
Nope.

Are the remaining non-military people in the middle of the way?
Absolutely.

That's the mentality you need to have.
This is, of course, excluding the fact that Assad's own strikes also cause collateral damage.

As for the torture, I'm not sure to what you're referring.

Also, quick note, I read European news as well.

And I think you might want to read this, since you seem to be implying that the US has civil rights violations and Assad follows all the rules

According to the UN, Syrian armed and security forces have been responsible for: unlawful killing, including of children (mostly boys), medical personnel and hospital patients ("In some particularly grave instances, entire families were executed in their homes"); torture, including of children (mostly boys, sometimes to death) and hospital patients, and including sexual and psychological torture; arbitrary arrest "on a massive scale"; deployment of tanks and helicopter gunships in densely populated areas; heavy and indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas; collective punishment; enforced disappearances; widescale and systematic destruction and looting of property; the systematic denial, in some areas, of food and water; and the prevention of medical treatment, including to children.

I'm not going to deny, right below that shows civil rights violations of the rebels, but I haven't indicated that they're not both breaking the law. I'm just refuting what you seem to be implying, that is, that Assad follows international law.

Remember also that the rebels used chemical weapons against children.

You better have really good sauce for this.

Syrian State Media is not good sauce.

Its already old news that those dronestrikes have killed more civillians then actual targets, this isn't becouse of the drones but becouse of the bad intelligence of the US military. However Obama is still the one to blame.
If you would watch the news you would know that before every airstrike on a village or city there are helicopters flying over that spread flyers wich state to the people that they need to get out becouse an airstrike is coming, so Syria is doing everything to keep civillian casulties low. (none is impossible)
So actually the US is more responsible for the lives of the innocents it kills then Assad is.

Problem with that law is that under Obama it gets used on false claims.

Tortures, if you really followed european news you would know. Cia chef and two soldiers have gotten 12 years in jail in Italy for torturing an Egyptian Imam, 10 other US soldiers can never return to any EU country or they will get 12 years in jail right away. Not to mention all those tortures and innocent killings in both Iraq and Afghanistan... Compared with the US Assad is like an angel;)

I never said that Assad isn't violating anything.

I don't need a source for that, the rebels have used chemical weapons wich is proven, and under those attacks where children involved.

"Syrian State Media is not good sauce." Wikipedia is?

The problem with that law

[Agritum]

Dear fuck, don't multipost.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

You can just post all of this in one post. Or two.

Assad can win. Why? He has supports. Not just from Hezbollah, but also from Tartus (Russian naval base, I think?), Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran. And weapons from Russia. Like SCUD. And chemical weapons they have stockpiled.

The FSA? They get a minor foreign aid (maybe?), mix of infantries (means not all of them are military-trained), and military vehicles but no air force.

[Mkuki]

Of course it's possible Assad could win. He's receiving a lot of help from a lot of powerful and not-so-powerful countries. The rebels, on the other hand, are still receiving a lot of restrained help from powers not too excited to get involved in a very confusing civil war.

The only thing I'm sure about with the Syrian Civil War is that the United States should stay out of it. In my opinion, if we start supporting one side or the other it'll come back years later and bite us in the butt. Maybe in the guise of an Afghanistan, an Iraq, a Soviet Union, etc.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Of course it's possible Assad could win. He's receiving a lot of help from a lot of powerful and not-so-powerful countries. The rebels, on the other hand, are still receiving a lot of restrained help from powers not too excited to get involved in a very confusing civil war.

The only thing I'm sure about with the Syrian Civil War is that the United States should stay out of it. In my opinion, if we start supporting one side or the other it'll come back years later and bite us in the butt a la Afghanistan, Iraq, the Soviet Union, etc.

At least Assad is stronger than Qaddafi.

[Gauthier]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

[Mkuki]

Of course it's possible Assad could win. He's receiving a lot of help from a lot of powerful and not-so-powerful countries. The rebels, on the other hand, are still receiving a lot of restrained help from powers not too excited to get involved in a very confusing civil war.

The only thing I'm sure about with the Syrian Civil War is that the United States should stay out of it. In my opinion, if we start supporting one side or the other it'll come back years later and bite us in the butt a la Afghanistan, Iraq, the Soviet Union, etc.

At least Assad is stronger than Qaddafi.

Two different scenarios. The Libyan rebels got actual, tangible support from powerful countries. The Syrian rebels aren't. Plus, as far as I know, though I could be totally wrong, Qaddafi didn't get much international support.

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

I'd, personally, prefer neither in charge.

[Machtergreifung]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

If it is necessary, then yes.

Two different scenarios. The Libyan rebels got actual, tangible support from powerful countries. The Syrian rebels aren't. Plus, as far as I know, though I could be totally wrong, Qaddafi didn't get much international support.

Wasn't Libya got supports, if I am not mistaken, Russia and China, but not in military or economy aid?

[Mkuki]

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

If it is necessary, then yes.

Two different scenarios. The Libyan rebels got actual, tangible support from powerful countries. The Syrian rebels aren't. Plus, as far as I know, though I could be totally wrong, Qaddafi didn't get much international support.

Wasn't Libya got supports, if I am not mistaken, Russia and China, but not in military or economy aid?

Even if he did it certainly isn't the same as the aid that Assad is getting or the aid that the Libyan rebels got.

[Niriburu]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

Funfact: Syria's allied with Iran so they are already on Israels border.

Also, if Assad wins he will be stronger, more evil and brutal than ever before.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

He must, or Al-Qaeda can roaming around without warnings.

[Mkuki]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

But al-Qaeda hates Iran. AQ is Sunni. Iran is Shi'a.

[Gauthier]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

Like would happen if Hezbollah-supported Assad wins?

[Altito Asmoro]

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

Like would happen if Hezbollah-supported Assad wins?

Then the insecurities among the people won't happen.

[Bales Rant]

But within 'the Sunnis' you also have liberal Sunnis - secularists, feminists, those who preach tolerance and the need for human rights, democrats etc. They would be targeted as well. As would Sufis.

But Al-Qaeda doesn't care about these people...

Of course it does. How can it not? It is, among other things, a Salafi-Jihadi group. It is opposed to such liberal movements within Islam because they 'ignore divine guidance' and they want to root out any 'Western influence or ideas'. Some of these concepts - democracy, nationalism, secularism, human rights - played a role behind the initial uprising in Syria, an uprising Al-Qaeda is trying to hijack.

It is worth remembering that Al-Qaeda and co. entered the civil war at a time when the FSA was at its strongest as opposed to its weakest and the government was, if not on the ropes, then looking surprisingly vulnerable.

So, if they came to dominate a post-Assad Syria, would they not drain the swamp of the ideas and movements which led to such an upheaval - an upheaval that began primarily in the Sunni community?

[Machtergreifung]

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

Like would happen if Hezbollah-supported Assad wins?

Better the devil you know, right? It says something that even the "Drive the Isreali's back into the sea!" crowd aren't even supporting the rebels.

Under Assad, it didn't matter much to the state if you were a Coptic Christian, Muslim, or whatever. Do you think that's going to be the case if the rebels take over? It's no wonder that the Syrian Christian community is feeling very, very vunerable right now.

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

Funfact: Syria's allied with Iran so they are already on Israels border.

Also, if Assad wins he will be stronger, more evil and brutal than ever before.

If Assad win's, he'll have a country that's been wrecked by civil war and an army that's exhuasted. He'll be treading very carefully for the next decade or two.

[Bales Rant]

Like would happen if Hezbollah-supported Assad wins?

Better the devil you know, right? It says something that even the "Drive the Isreali's back into the sea!" crowd aren't even supporting the rebels.

Under Assad, it didn't matter much to the state if you were a Coptic Christian, Muslim, or whatever. Do you think that's going to be the case if the rebels take over? It's no wonder that the Syrian Christian community is feeling very, very vunerable right now.

Funfact: Syria's allied with Iran so they are already on Israels border.

Also, if Assad wins he will be stronger, more evil and brutal than ever before.

If Assad win's, he'll have a country that's been wrecked by civil war and an army that's exhuasted. He'll be treading very carefully for the next decade or two.

Just regarding the part I've bolded: Nic van Dam's analysis of the Ba'th regime under Hafez still arguably holds true for Bashar's: the pursuance of an ideology which seeks the disappearance of sectarian loyalties (among others) has meant, ironically, that he has had to revert to such loyalties in order to maintain the power necessary to realise that ideology. Unless he is willing to reject authoritarianism and a selective patronage network, that ideology cannot and will not be realised. For instance, can a Christian become President in today's Syria?

[Xanixi]

Okay.
Can you explain how you figure that Obama has killed more innocent people than Assad has? Last I checked, one of the prime missions - though I'm not going to say it's always followed, as I often hear of it - of drone striking is to kill enemy forces without killing innocents.

Assad just bombs the living shit out of everything, regardless of the collateral.

Saying that civilians deaths shouldn't happen, and any war that has them is a war that shouldn't be fought is naive. All wars have collateral. It's an unfortunate attachment. Doesn't mean we get to wave our dicks around and bomb everything we can.

Ah, yes, Guantanamo. The typical argument used in anti-US arguments. Yes, well, it's true. Guantanamo exists. Obama has wanted to close it before, but hasn't. Oh well. It sucks.

I don't Guantanamo has ever had more people in its cells than Assad has killed in his war, so let's drop that out.

What's wrong with Article 104? The fact that giving information/harboring/generally helping the enemy can cause you to receive the death penalty?

You might as well be an enemy. I don't see what's different between killing a supposed friendly who was helping the enemy and killing the enemy directly. If anything, the former has a court marshal and injection, which sounds like a far less painful death.

Yes, the drone strikes. As I mentioned above, they have collateral damage. Using that against me isn't a valid argument, because fuck, when have you heard of a war that didn't kill civilians?

Where are wars fought?
Countries.

What do countries have?
Populations.

Is the entire population in the military?
Nope.

Are the remaining non-military people in the middle of the way?
Absolutely.

That's the mentality you need to have.
This is, of course, excluding the fact that Assad's own strikes also cause collateral damage.

As for the torture, I'm not sure to what you're referring.

Also, quick note, I read European news as well.

And I think you might want to read this, since you seem to be implying that the US has civil rights violations and Assad follows all the rules



I'm not going to deny, right below that shows civil rights violations of the rebels, but I haven't indicated that they're not both breaking the law. I'm just refuting what you seem to be implying, that is, that Assad follows international law.



You better have really good sauce for this.

Syrian State Media is not good sauce.

Its already old news that those dronestrikes have killed more civillians then actual targets, this isn't becouse of the drones but becouse of the bad intelligence of the US military. However Obama is still the one to blame.
If you would watch the news you would know that before every airstrike on a village or city there are helicopters flying over that spread flyers wich state to the people that they need to get out becouse an airstrike is coming, so Syria is doing everything to keep civillian casulties low. (none is impossible)
So actually the US is more responsible for the lives of the innocents it kills then Assad is.

Problem with that law is that under Obama it gets used on false claims.

Tortures, if you really followed european news you would know. Cia chef and two soldiers have gotten 12 years in jail in Italy for torturing an Egyptian Imam, 10 other US soldiers can never return to any EU country or they will get 12 years in jail right away. Not to mention all those tortures and innocent killings in both Iraq and Afghanistan... Compared with the US Assad is like an angel;)

I never said that Assad isn't violating anything.

I don't need a source for that, the rebels have used chemical weapons wich is proven, and under those attacks where children involved.

"Syrian State Media is not good sauce." Wikipedia is?

The problem with that law

It's not faulty intelligence. The US military is absolutely, 100% aware that there are civilians there and that there are targets there. We shoot anyways because we can't let them get away. It's an unfortunate decision, and not one that is simply made with no feelings, as it commonly is. The guy who presses the button to fire the missile might be disconnected from appropriate feelings attached to killing humans, but when the President gives his okay, he isn't disconnected.

But when you do entire bombing runs that only kill civilians and fail to hit any FSA targets, you're not doing too well.

The US also launches its own pamphlets. It alerts the population of a city, for example, that US military personnel are launching an operation there within the hour and they need to evacuate immediately. Leave all their things and go with their lives, rather than stay and die. But when you're doing drone strikes, you can't afford that. If you're doing ground operations, then it's cool, because if you're assaulting a city, they hold it anyways. They're not just going to leave, so the pamphlet doesn't matter. When you're doing an airstrike, they can move around to avoid it. No wonder Assad's airstrikes don't seem to hit actual targets; by the time they get there, they've already moved.

When you need to give up hitting a target to avoid killing civilians, you're fighting a war wrong.

And how is the US more responsible for its collateral damage than Assad?

It gets false claims?
Sauces?

Ah, yes, the station chief. I remember that article. Of course, I remember the trial sentencing him to seven years, but well, doesn't matter. I also seem to remember the Italian military intelligence agency's chief getting ten years, and one of his station chiefs getting nine. Yeah, not a very pretty scene, I must say. I hope they at least got something out of it; I'm not a fan of torture, but if the CIA deems it a necessity to stop a terrorist attack, or get the location of some leader, I sign it off as a necessity.

If the man was innocent, I'd drop that in the pile of human mistakes.

As for the soldiers who can't enter the EU, I have absolutely no recollection. Can you give me an article?

[Edit: Sorry, missed the last part. I know of certain cases in which it was believed (primarily special operations forces) tortured civilians in Afghanistan using specially trained Afghanis. I'm sure there was some form of torture involved to the Republican Guard as well.

Again, if we got information out of them, I have no quarrel. If not, then it was a mistake and we should be more careful. Doesn't make Assad better.]

Right. So Assad is violating human rights. And these violations - bombing civilian areas entirely [saw a video earlier today from Syria; a aircraft bombed a city district and killed just over a dozen people, half of which were women and kids, and wounded dozens more, no FSA casualties] - are forgotten by you because the US fucking tortures people.

Seems legit.

No, you do need a source for that. I have no clue what the hell you're talking about. I've even tried to do your work for you, and don't find jack on Google.

Find plenty for the regime using chemical weapons, though. You're sure you're not getting your shit in a mix?

Yes, Wikipedia is a better sauce than the Syrian State Media.

One is an online website whose sole dedication is writing accurate and unbiased articles about different aspects of the world's history and information about what's going on. It even has guidelines as to how to make sure that articles aren't biased, and biased portions are eliminated.

The other is a state media broadcaster that is obviously going to favor the state.

[DogDoo 7]

If Assad wins and initiates a bloody purge, I wonder how many here would celebrate?

Might be marginally better than the Islamists winning and AQ convincing them to start pesecuting the minorities and taking a aggressive stance on Isreal. Do we really need another Iran sitting on Isreals border?

1) Iran doesn't border Israel
2) ASSAD is the one allied with Iran. Not the FSA/Al-Nusra.