The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

We're gonna see soon wether the US strike Syria to protect people or just to bomb stuff (included innocent people).

http://breakingnews.sy/en/article/24578.html

That is so fucked

That is perverse and incredibly fucked up. Any regime that endorses this certainly deserves to be annihilated.

[Luveria]

Not true. Unless you want to provide a source "all" civilians killed by drone strikes were listed as terrorists.

Alright, then i changed it from now on to "alot of the civillians"

Wrong again. The vast majority are classified as civilian deaths.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/leaked_report_shows_high_civilian_death_toll_from_cia_drone_strikes/

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes
The report describes 147 civilian deaths, much higher than the U.S. administration has admitted to

The reports aren't for public viewing, but they sure as shit aren't classifying the civilians deaths as terrorist deaths, like you claim they are. The US instead has been claiming there were very little civilian deaths. That's quite a difference from saying "all civilians deaths were classified as terrorist deaths".

Sources are lovely!

Technically, that's what Assad calls the innocents stuck in rebel-held areas.

bs.
Proof?

Oh sure. Don't shout "BS!" immediately, lest it backfire like it did just now. Very clever, especially when you've been spouting false claims about the US classifying all civilian deaths of drone strikes as terrorists, then downgrading your false claim to implying "oh fine, not all are classified as terrorists, but most are", and no source for such claims either, while I have ones to prove you wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/grisly-killings-in-syrian-towns-dim-hopes-for-peace-talks.html?_r=0

Multiple video images that residents said they had recorded in Bayda and Ras al-Nabeh — of small children lying where they died, some embracing one another or their parents — were so searing that even some government supporters rejected Syrian television’s official version of events, that the army had “crushed a number of terrorists.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... sacre-site

The government has blamed "terrorists" in both cases. In the case of Al-Qubeir, the official SANA press agency said nine women and children had been killed. But unlike Houla, where the observers were able to get access fairly quickly, there has been no independent verification in Al-Qubeir.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... sacre.html

A government statement published on the state-run news agency SANA said "an armed terrorist group committed an appalling crime" in Mazraat al-Qubair, killing nine women and children. It said residents appealed for protection from Hama authorities, who went to the farm and stormed a hideout of the group and clashed with them.

See, your buddy Assad's state propaganda consistently refers to rebels and innocents in rebel areas as "terrorists".

The problem with you lying is when I can easily provide sources.

[Yue-Laou]

That is so fucked

That is perverse and incredibly fucked up. Any regime that endorses this certainly deserves to be annihilated.

It's more than just endorsing it, they've been using children as human shields on tanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405800

[Kelmet]

That is perverse and incredibly fucked up. Any regime that endorses this certainly deserves to be annihilated.

It's more than just endorsing it, they've been using children as human shields on tanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405800

Fuck that.........

[Tribes Republic]

this interesting video http://youtu.be/_QdcrMhxQyc

[The Kingdom of Nea Hellas]

It's more than just endorsing it, they've been using children as human shields on tanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405800

Fuck that.........

It takes two to tango

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533
http://rt.com/news/rebels-attack-religious-sites-580/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/201312322462753542.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/beheadings-by-syrian-rebels-add-to-atrocities-un-says.html

[Kelmet]

Fuck that.........

It takes two to tango

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533
http://rt.com/news/rebels-attack-religious-sites-580/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/201312322462753542.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/beheadings-by-syrian-rebels-add-to-atrocities-un-says.html

Ok we get it, Both sides are fucked

[Danhanjeedh]

Alright, then i changed it from now on to "alot of the civillians"

Wrong again. The vast majority are classified as civilian deaths.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/leaked_report_shows_high_civilian_death_toll_from_cia_drone_strikes/

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes
The report describes 147 civilian deaths, much higher than the U.S. administration has admitted to

The reports aren't for public viewing, but they sure as shit aren't classifying the civilians deaths as terrorist deaths, like you claim they are. The US instead has been claiming there were very little civilian deaths. That's quite a difference from saying "all civilians deaths were classified as terrorist deaths".

Sources are lovely!

bs.
Proof?

Oh sure. Don't shout "BS!" immediately, lest it backfire like it did just now. Very clever, especially when you've been spouting false claims about the US classifying all civilian deaths of drone strikes as terrorists, then downgrading your false claim to implying "oh fine, not all are classified as terrorists, but most are", and no source for such claims either, while I have ones to prove you wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/grisly-killings-in-syrian-towns-dim-hopes-for-peace-talks.html?_r=0

Multiple video images that residents said they had recorded in Bayda and Ras al-Nabeh — of small children lying where they died, some embracing one another or their parents — were so searing that even some government supporters rejected Syrian television’s official version of events, that the army had “crushed a number of terrorists.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... sacre-site

The government has blamed "terrorists" in both cases. In the case of Al-Qubeir, the official SANA press agency said nine women and children had been killed. But unlike Houla, where the observers were able to get access fairly quickly, there has been no independent verification in Al-Qubeir.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... sacre.html

A government statement published on the state-run news agency SANA said "an armed terrorist group committed an appalling crime" in Mazraat al-Qubair, killing nine women and children. It said residents appealed for protection from Hama authorities, who went to the farm and stormed a hideout of the group and clashed with them.

See, your buddy Assad's state propaganda consistently refers to rebels and innocents in rebel areas as "terrorists".

The problem with you lying is when I can easily provide sources.

They killed civillians and named them terrorists, end of story.

About the second part:
First of all the story is very unclear and mostly unconfirmed, and second of all (looking at source 2 & 3) its the rebels wich they are referring to. So, if its for you so easy to get a source then get me a clear and confirmed source wich directly states that the Syrian gouverment calls civillians "terrorists" , otherwise it may as well be total bs.

[Danhanjeedh]

That is perverse and incredibly fucked up. Any regime that endorses this certainly deserves to be annihilated.

It's more than just endorsing it, they've been using children as human shields on tanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405800

That's just sick. I hope that the gouverment will punish the inovled soldiers for such actions.

[Danhanjeedh]

It takes two to tango

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533
http://rt.com/news/rebels-attack-religious-sites-580/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/201312322462753542.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/beheadings-by-syrian-rebels-add-to-atrocities-un-says.html

Ok we get it, Both sides are fucked

Nah, rebels are still worse...(when it comes to confirmed warcrimes and crimes against humanity)

[Luveria]

Wrong again. The vast majority are classified as civilian deaths.



The reports aren't for public viewing, but they sure as shit aren't classifying the civilians deaths as terrorist deaths, like you claim they are. The US instead has been claiming there were very little civilian deaths. That's quite a difference from saying "all civilians deaths were classified as terrorist deaths".

Sources are lovely!


Oh sure. Don't shout "BS!" immediately, lest it backfire like it did just now. Very clever, especially when you've been spouting false claims about the US classifying all civilian deaths of drone strikes as terrorists, then downgrading your false claim to implying "oh fine, not all are classified as terrorists, but most are", and no source for such claims either, while I have ones to prove you wrong.







See, your buddy Assad's state propaganda consistently refers to rebels and innocents in rebel areas as "terrorists".

The problem with you lying is when I can easily provide sources.

They killed civillians and named them terrorists, end of story.

Lololol no! It's the end of the story when you provide a source! Unless this means "I don't wanna talk about it anymore wahhhh."

About the second part:
First of all the story is very unclear and mostly unconfirmed

Lololololol again. "Very unclear and mostly unconfirmed" is your way of saying "well, shit.... it proves me wrong so I'm going to imply the sources aren't credible."

and second of all (looking at source 2 & 3)

The first fucking source.

(Image)

Multiple video images that residents said they had recorded in Bayda and Ras al-Nabeh — of small children lying where they died, some embracing one another or their parents — were so searing that even some government supporters rejected Syrian television’s official version of events, that the army had “crushed a number of terrorists.”

its the rebels wich they are referring to.

In sources 2 and 3 no shit.

Did you read my post?

See, your buddy Assad's state propaganda consistently refers to rebels and innocents in rebel areas as "terrorists".

Notice how I said REBELS too? Rebels being consistently referred to as terrorists instead of being recognized as rebels? Did you miss that fucking part, and how sources two and three were about that?

So, if its for you so easy to get a source then get me a clear and confirmed source wich directly states that the Syrian gouverment calls civillians "terrorists" , otherwise it may as well be total bs.

First fucking source.

Ok we get it, Both sides are fucked

Nah, rebels are still worse...(when it comes to confirmed warcrimes and crimes against humanity)

Uhuh, that must be why the civil war started when Assad ordered lethal force to be used against unarmed protesters.

[Castille de Italia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world ... syria.html

Looks like the rebels are angry that Obama delays the intervention.

[Danhanjeedh]

this interesting video http://youtu.be/_QdcrMhxQyc

Indeed, very intresting.

[Luveria]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html

Looks like the rebels are angry that Obama delays the intervention.

I don't blame them. It's been what, two years?

Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

I don't disagree.

[Castille de Italia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html

Looks like the rebels are angry that Obama delays the intervention.

I don't blame them. It's been what, two years?

Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

I don't disagree.

Looks like we can agree here...

[Luveria]

I don't blame them. It's been what, two years?



I don't disagree.

Looks like we can agree here...

I like how Obama was off rushing for an invasion, but suddenly he decides he needs a little more time to decide. What a way to get everyone worked up over nothing.

[The Republic of Lanos]

That reminds me. Obama's draft legislation on attacking Syria is broader than the 9/11 Use of Force Resolution and...the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

I'm not bullshitting.

[Luveria]

That reminds me. Obama's draft legislation on attacking Syria is broader than the 9/11 Use of Force Resolution and...the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

I'm not bullshitting.

He's really Bush II on steroids. He gets away with it due to being a lot more charismatic and somewhat socially progressive.

Technically, there's no proposed duration either for those proposed new powers, meaning it's a permanent temporary measure.

Tellingly, University of Texas Law School Professor Robert Chesney said in an interview, Obama’s proposed authorization did not include a sunset date. Chesney suggested that “if the administration is serious about wanting to act in such a truly narrow, time-limited way,” then a sunset measure could be useful.

[Shofercia]

It takes two to tango

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533
http://rt.com/news/rebels-attack-religious-sites-580/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/201312322462753542.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/beheadings-by-syrian-rebels-add-to-atrocities-un-says.html

Ok we get it, Both sides are fucked

You get it, but does Congress?

*start trailer music*

Find out, on September 9th, in a thrilling trailer: will America go to war, over the thin red line, without knowing who crossed it? Will Congress attach pork barrel spending to the Tonkin Persian Gulf Resolutions? Will Obama be able to impress the Republicans? How will the lobbyists do?

All this and more, on the new exciting reality show, which always premieres on C-SPAN! Or, as one observer eloquently phrased it: "To bomb, or not to bomb, that is the question, is it not?"

This will be a debate that you wouldn't want to miss!

*end trailer music*

Coming soon, to a C-SPAN channel near you!

[The Republic of Lanos]

That reminds me. Obama's draft legislation on attacking Syria is broader than the 9/11 Use of Force Resolution and...the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

I'm not bullshitting.

He's really Bush II on steroids. He gets away with it due to being a lot more charismatic and somewhat socially progressive.

Technically, there's no proposed duration either for those proposed new powers, meaning it's a permanent temporary measure.

Tellingly, University of Texas Law School Professor Robert Chesney said in an interview, Obama’s proposed authorization did not include a sunset date. Chesney suggested that “if the administration is serious about wanting to act in such a truly narrow, time-limited way,” then a sunset measure could be useful.

And no one in the big three media leagues wants to question him (unless it's really bad) and Fox gets demonized somewhat-rightly for what they do.

And who wants to go into VietSyria?

[Castille de Italia]

Looks like we can agree here...

I like how Obama was off rushing for an invasion, but suddenly he decides he needs a little more time to decide. What a way to get everyone worked up over nothing.

I honestly don't see how any of the progressive countries don't want to intervene, when there are some very serious civil and human right breaches going on, but instead sit there and criticize.

Whether or not we don't know Assad's regime used chemical weapons because Saudi-backed terrorist organizations claim responsibility, the best we can do is assume. If Assad didn't really authorize the use, then we still toppled another dictatorship and instated another democracy, which will hopefully provide more stability in the region.

[Shofercia]

I like how Obama was off rushing for an invasion, but suddenly he decides he needs a little more time to decide. What a way to get everyone worked up over nothing.

I honestly don't see how any of the progressive countries don't want to intervene, when there are some very serious civil and human right breaches going on, but instead sit there and criticize.

Whether or not we don't know Assad's regime used chemical weapons because Saudi-backed terrorist organizations claim responsibility, the best we can do is assume. If Assad didn't really authorize the use, then we still toppled another dictatorship and instated another democracy, which will hopefully provide more stability in the region.

Sorry, but can you give me an example of an installed, human rights respecting and stabilizing democracy, after the Vietnam War?

[Benuty]

I honestly don't see how any of the progressive countries don't want to intervene, when there are some very serious civil and human right breaches going on, but instead sit there and criticize.

Whether or not we don't know Assad's regime used chemical weapons because Saudi-backed terrorist organizations claim responsibility, the best we can do is assume. If Assad didn't really authorize the use, then we still toppled another dictatorship and instated another democracy, which will hopefully provide more stability in the region.

Sorry, but can you give me an example of an installed, human rights respecting and stabilizing democracy, after the Vietnam War?

Panama.

[Luveria]

He's really Bush II on steroids. He gets away with it due to being a lot more charismatic and somewhat socially progressive.

Technically, there's no proposed duration either for those proposed new powers, meaning it's a permanent temporary measure.

And no one in the big three media leagues wants to question him (unless it's really bad) and Fox gets demonized somewhat-rightly for what they do.

And who wants to go into VietSyria?

Obama seems to be trying to out-jingo the GOP. He's doing well at that.

I like how Obama was off rushing for an invasion, but suddenly he decides he needs a little more time to decide. What a way to get everyone worked up over nothing.

I honestly don't see how any of the progressive countries don't want to intervene, when there are some very serious civil and human right breaches going on, but instead sit there and criticize.

Whether or not we don't know Assad's regime used chemical weapons because Saudi-backed terrorist organizations claim responsibility, the best we can do is assume. If Assad didn't really authorize the use, then we still toppled another dictatorship and instated another democracy, which will hopefully provide more stability in the region.

The problem with that is, there should be solid reasons for intervention. Not "installing democracy", because that can be twisted to go quite a way if that's all it takes for an invasion.

[Castille de Italia]

I honestly don't see how any of the progressive countries don't want to intervene, when there are some very serious civil and human right breaches going on, but instead sit there and criticize.

Whether or not we don't know Assad's regime used chemical weapons because Saudi-backed terrorist organizations claim responsibility, the best we can do is assume. If Assad didn't really authorize the use, then we still toppled another dictatorship and instated another democracy, which will hopefully provide more stability in the region.

Sorry, but can you give me an example of an installed, human rights respecting and stabilizing democracy, after the Vietnam War?

Like I said buddy, hopefully. While these don't always work, we can always hope. We still have cases like South Korea and Panama.