The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[The Architect (Ancient)]

In fact read my past posts to others on this matter throughout this thread. I have good reason to be sceptical about the allegations against him. Furthermore, look at Bashar's personality close up, including by looking at his speeches, this is not some irrational mass murderer. You can tell on a person's face very well if you look carefully.

While he may not have been responsible for the latest attack, few would doubt that he gaols political dissidents, tortures his prisoners, impose unduly restrictive and harsh laws, etc., etc. I don't think he is irrational, in that all the murders and genocide he commits are committed to a purpose, towards keeping him in power, I do not doubt that he is, in fact, dictatorial, and that he has committed war crimes in this latest conflict, and that he is a vile person.

In addition, as I also pointed out in past posts, the majority of the Syrian security forces, have taken tonnes of precautions in warning civilians to get out in advance before the military would commence a counter-offencive to liberate insurgent controlled areas.

If he does do these things, it is to his credit, but I have my doubt as to if he actually does, or if he does so simply as calculation, just as I do not doubt that he does commit war crimes against his enemies.

Another point worthy to note is that this insurgency is the second time it has occurred, by the same sectarian-maniacs as the ones whom killed hundreds of Alawites & other minorities in the 1980s one to kickstart|initialise their "Islamic Uprising" utilising some of the most barbaric Khawarji behaviour one could ever see.

Yes, but the rebels are not necessarily Islamists, thus, the fault of the extremists can be pinned onto the entirety of the rebels. Additionally, the Alawites are a minority the rules of the Sunni Majority, which does cause resentment, and whose resentment can be justified as being a politically disadvantaged majority.

Besides the insurgencies, this is the third time our governments tried to destabilise Syria. The first being in 1949 to attempt to install some twat similar to Pinochet in numerous ways, in which said 1949 coup effectively ended Syria's attempts at forming its identity as a post-colonial democracy.

How about you respond to my post where 70% of Syrians support him regardless? And I find it hard to believe he committed or is committing genocide.

Assad's government is hardly a democracy.

In both insurgencies, furthermore, I have long concluded that there is a fifth column, a shadow faction inside the government that collaborates with those insurgents to commit abuses. My case about Rifaat Al-Assad as well as Mustafa Tlass, the real perpetrators of the Hama massacre which occurred much after the army had finally clamped down on the sectarian-genocidal maniac 1980s Ikhwan insurgency, is reasonable due to how Ikhwan/FSA pardoned them then even gave them positions within their ranks. Then you have to remember, any alleged abuses under Bashar were not even his doing to commence with. It is the work of 12 different security officials part of this shadowy nexus that I have more than enough reason to believe exists.

I have my doubt as to your particular theory, just as I am weary of most conspiracy theories (not to demean your position, as I use conspiracy theories to mean any theories about alledged cooperations between individuals to achieve an end), and I don't doubt that human right abuses started before Assad, Assad still perpetrated them. Thus, the only reason I can think of for supporting Assad, is that the rebel groups are diverse, which may lead to in-fighting which will cause greater harm to the civilians, and that supposing that a democracy were to occur, comme Egypt, and they were to elect someone, then the 'pro-democracy' faction may remove him from power, like the Egyptian president, simply because it is not them who are voted, leading to more chaos.

How about you respond to my post?

[The Godly Nations]

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

Oh the ignorance of this statement is absolutely explosive. And so far I'm not very impressed with TGN and his posts as of this moment. Lets take note of the Syrian rebel who ate a Syrian soldiers heart, which I don't think Assads men have done, and lets also take the al qaeda affiliated groups and just forget about them right? I think Assad is far better, and currently according to WESTERN GROUPS, that's right! No Syrian government making it up or making false polls, 70% of Syrians approve of the government.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/

Boom. Sourced.

As have been pointed out, they do not necessarily approve of the government, but prefer the government, and for good reason, the rebels, diverse as they are, will eventually fight with each other after removing Assad, leading to more chaos and fighting, a la Libya. That does not mean that they all like the government, but that they rather support it, because it is likely to offer more security than the rebels.

[The Godly Nations]

While he may not have been responsible for the latest attack, few would doubt that he gaols political dissidents, tortures his prisoners, impose unduly restrictive and harsh laws, etc., etc. I don't think he is irrational, in that all the murders and genocide he commits are committed to a purpose, towards keeping him in power, I do not doubt that he is, in fact, dictatorial, and that he has committed war crimes in this latest conflict, and that he is a vile person.



If he does do these things, it is to his credit, but I have my doubt as to if he actually does, or if he does so simply as calculation, just as I do not doubt that he does commit war crimes against his enemies.




Yes, but the rebels are not necessarily Islamists, thus, the fault of the extremists can be pinned onto the entirety of the rebels. Additionally, the Alawites are a minority the rules of the Sunni Majority, which does cause resentment, and whose resentment can be justified as being a politically disadvantaged majority.



How about you respond to my post where 70% of Syrians support him regardless? And I find it hard to believe he committed or is committing genocide.

Assad's government is hardly a democracy.




I have my doubt as to your particular theory, just as I am weary of most conspiracy theories (not to demean your position, as I use conspiracy theories to mean any theories about alledged cooperations between individuals to achieve an end), and I don't doubt that human right abuses started before Assad, Assad still perpetrated them. Thus, the only reason I can think of for supporting Assad, is that the rebel groups are diverse, which may lead to in-fighting which will cause greater harm to the civilians, and that supposing that a democracy were to occur, comme Egypt, and they were to elect someone, then the 'pro-democracy' faction may remove him from power, like the Egyptian president, simply because it is not them who are voted, leading to more chaos.

How about you respond to my post?

Are you that attention starved?

[Shofercia]

First, you chose to address Sibator's grammar first, and their argument second. The emphasis clearly indicates that you considered Sibator's grammatical deficiencies more important than their perceived factual/logical errors. Also, correcting someone's spelling/grammar/etc is a clear statement of "mine is better than yours". To make such a statement, only to fall into a common grammatical error within it, is rather ironic in my opinion.

Sibator's posts were attacks on the poster, not attacks on the argument. As such, it's not surprising that they're responded to after the grammatical mistakes. If Sibator had actual arguments, you'd be right, but it was primarily attacks, most of which were rather poorly written. In that case, I'd consider grammatical mistakes to be more important than personal attacks.

[The Godly Nations]

Of course, the word hypocrisy is wrongly used here- a hypocrite is not one who recommends a certain standard to another person whilst failing to live up to it, such as a smoker telling children that they should never smoke, but one who is insincere about it. I do not believe that I have given any indication of being insincere about it.

But, pray, what is your position on Syria?

First, The Godly Nations chose to address Sibator's grammar first, and their argument second. The emphasis clearly indicates that TGN considered Sibator's grammatical deficiencies more important than their perceived factual/logical errors. Also, correcting someone's spelling/grammar/etc is a clear statement of "mine is better than yours". To make such a statement, only to fall into a common grammatical error within it, is rather ironic in my opinion.

I only address it first, because I don't know your position on Syria, and therefore cannot address it to any degree. Secondly, concerning Sibator, I have already demonstrated his logical and factual errors, in conjunction with his grammatical error. Is it demonstrating my superiority, of course it is, and am I being an arse about it, of course I am. That is because I have only contempt for him, and thus, wish to express my contempt by vaulting my superiority in the English language, which also help to undercut his jingoistic 'Murica, Love it or Leave it' argument against Shofercia, whom he asks, in so many words, 'If you hate America so much, why are you here?'

Second, my position on Syria is as it was: so long as there isn't enough money to maintain essential public services within the United States - so long as schools are being closed, fire stations and hospitals shut down, essential infrastructure maintenance not done and emergency services cut back in the name of "not enough in the kitty" - there certainly isn't enough to go spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on munitions to bomb other countries based on claims of doubtful veracity.

However, as other pointed out, we are not going through a long and expensive war against Syria, as we are not committing ground troops, but, instead, are going for what is called a 'strike' against Syria, which consist, I believe, of several missiles targeting several sites, much like Libya. I have argued, further back, that I cannot see the difference between this, and war, but I trust their judgment that this is not technically a war in Political Science Jargon. But, given this, I doubt that this would be terribly expensive.

If America wants to act "world policeman", let it first clean up its own act. Virtually every Amendment in the Bill of Rights - barring only the Second, which has a dedicated group of fetishists otherwise known as the Republican Party to protect it - is routinely ignored, negated or simply not carried through. When America's not throwing millions of its own people in prison because they're too poor to afford decent lawyers, when Gitmo is closed, when prosecutions ending in actual trials and convictions are held over matters such as Bagram torture center....then maybe America can talk about the "laws of war" and "rule of law" and the like.In the meantime, America is neither more nor less than a world-class hypocrite, insisting upon the "right" to punish nations that in its sole judgement have violated international laws without any kind of international consensus behind it whilst undertaking to this day continuing violations of the Geneva Conventions, of basic human rights laws and of its own Constitution. Since Americans so love the Bible, here's a quote I consider pertinent:

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I'm no conspiracy theorist - I don't think that this has anything to do with Syria's putative energy resources. I think that this display of testosterone is more likely to have its origins in the Republican efforts to portray President Obama as "un-American" - basically, he's so afraid of appearing to be insufficiently zealous in prosecuting "America rocks!" policies that he's gone hyper-aggressive.

It is entirely reasonable to act as a moral authority on the international stage, and reform our system at home to be less unjust, one can both mind our business at home and help other nations abroad with their problems, stop our abuses and stop their abuses at the same time, etc., etc. Just because we are not saints, does not mean that when we cannot tell other nation that they are in dire need of reform or else support a rebellion against a tyrant, in other words, act as the world's moralist, in that, even if we are hypocrites, we are still affecting positive change. And that, in the end, is better than acting immoral and affecting no positive change to the region, but keeping a consitency and honest of character, even if that character is wholly amoral and dissolute.

As for Syria, he wouldn't be concern unless there is something in stake for him, and Syria strategic importence is enough to ensure that an America friendly government is installed there.

But, despite these arguments, I am, broadly, in agreement with your position, which is why the arguments I have provided are very weak, as a result of my being uncommitted to them.

[New Chalcedon]

First, The Godly Nations chose to address Sibator's grammar first, and their argument second. The emphasis clearly indicates that TGN considered Sibator's grammatical deficiencies more important than their perceived factual/logical errors. Also, correcting someone's spelling/grammar/etc is a clear statement of "mine is better than yours". To make such a statement, only to fall into a common grammatical error within it, is rather ironic in my opinion.

I only address it first, because I don't know your position on Syria, and therefore cannot address it to any degree.

I was rather referring to the order in which you chose to address Sibator's remarks.

Secondly, concerning Sibator, I have already demonstrated his logical and factual errors, in conjunction with his grammatical error. Is it demonstrating my superiority, of course it is, and am I being an arse about it, of course I am. That is because I have only contempt for him, and thus, wish to express my contempt by vaulting my superiority in the English language, which also help to undercut his jingoistic 'Murica, Love it or Leave it' argument against Shofercia, whom he asks, in so many words, 'If you hate America so much, why are you here?'

I am not denying that you addressed Sibator's argument. I merely note the order in which you did so and what it reveals of your priorities.

Second, my position on Syria is as it was: so long as there isn't enough money to maintain essential public services within the United States - so long as schools are being closed, fire stations and hospitals shut down, essential infrastructure maintenance not done and emergency services cut back in the name of "not enough in the kitty" - there certainly isn't enough to go spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on munitions to bomb other countries based on claims of doubtful veracity.

However, as other pointed out, we are not going through a long and expensive war against Syria, as we are not committing ground troops, but, instead, are going for what is called a 'strike' against Syria, which consist, I believe, of several missiles targeting several sites, much like Libya. I have argued, further back, that I cannot see the difference between this, and war, but I trust their judgment that this is not technically a war in Political Science Jargon. But, given this, I doubt that this would be terribly expensive.

First, you're blindly trusting authority - which is seldom a good idea. Pray tell me, what's the idea behind systematically bombarding the territory of another sovereign state and a "war" against it? Because launching missiles is an act of war.

Second, the price of a single Tomahawk cruise missile is US$570,000. That's one missile. How many must be launched before the price tag gets into eight figures? By my count, about 18 missiles. The cost of an outright boots-on-the-ground invasion (which I understand is not being proposed by anyone) would run to the billions of dollars.

War - however "limited" - isn't cheap.

*snips quote pyramid*

It is entirely reasonable to act as a moral authority on the international stage, and reform our system at home to be less unjust, one can both mind our business at home and help other nations abroad with their problems, stop our abuses and stop their abuses at the same time, etc., etc.

Except that America's doing no such thing. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have even token interest in reforming America's corrupt, broken and abusive governmental structures. And unless they're willing to actually try, then they don't get points.

Just because we are not saints, does not mean that when we cannot tell other nation that they are in dire need of reform or else support a rebellion against a tyrant, in other words, act as the world's moralist, in that, even if we are hypocrites, we are still affecting positive change. And that, in the end, is better than acting immoral and affecting no positive change to the region, but keeping a consitency and honest of character, even if that character is wholly amoral and dissolute.

As opposed to the morality of launching missiles which will inevitably cause collateral damage? Interesting.

As for Syria, he wouldn't be concern unless there is something in stake for him, and Syria strategic importence is enough to ensure that an America friendly government is installed there.

There has never been a US-friendly government in Damascus (Syria was a key USSR ally during the Cold War, and the Assad regime - Assad Sr., that is - remained hostile to the US even after the collapse of the Soviet Union), and I haven't noticed the end of the world happening as a result.

Therefore, logic argues that unless some radical new development has greatly heightened Syria's strategic importance, America can find a way to struggle along without a client regime in Damascus.

But, despite these arguments, I am, broadly, in agreement with your position, which is why the arguments I have provided are very weak, as a result of my being uncommitted to them.

Then why bother providing them? If you don't agree with an argument, don't advance it. Acknowledge it, yes - but don't make like you believe in it.

[The Godly Nations]

There has never been a US-friendly government in Damascus (Syria was a key USSR ally during the Cold War, and the Assad regime - Assad Sr., that is - remained hostile to the US even after the collapse of the Soviet Union), and I haven't noticed the end of the world happening as a result.

Therefore, logic argues that unless some radical new development has greatly heightened Syria's strategic importance, America can find a way to struggle along without a client regime in Damascus.

First, I only address his grammar first because it is at the head of his post, and therefore, the first item to be criticised.

Second, while it is true that there has never been a US-friendly government there, it does not mean that installing one would not strenghten our hand in that region, or else weaken both Russia's and Iran's hand. In leaving it alone, we would be missing out on an oppertunity to get ourselves yet another client regime, one bordering Israel, which may be exploited for various purposes (one preson suggested an oil pipe line), and strike at both the Russians and the Iranians. While it is not the best location in the region, it does, however, still have it values.

[Divair]

Already been here for a month.

Awesome, where in and how do you like it. Also, so as not to derail the thread, what do you think about their position on this issue?

Surrey. It's alright. I'm glad we voted to stay out.

[Shofercia]

Secondly, concerning Sibator, I have already demonstrated his logical and factual errors, in conjunction with his grammatical error. Is it demonstrating my superiority, of course it is, and am I being an arse about it, of course I am. That is because I have only contempt for him, and thus, wish to express my contempt by vaulting my superiority in the English language, which also help to undercut his jingoistic 'Murica, Love it or Leave it' argument against Shofercia, whom he asks, in so many words, 'If you hate America so much, why are you here?'

I am not denying that you addressed Sibator's argument. I merely note the order in which you did so and what it reveals of your priorities.

No, it doesn't. If someone was to argue "teh moon is made of cheese" and I would've said "don't you mean the moon?" would that say anything about my debating priorities? After all, I am addressing a typo first. Sibator had no decent argument. That entire post, and the numerous posts that followed it in this thread, were so poorly written, that one must wonder whether reading said posts was an insult to one's brain cells. You cannot judge someone's priorities based on how they respond to posts of extremely poor quality. Do you think that I'm going to put the same effort into posts when I respond to QAC vs when I respond to ASB? Such a verdict is unfair to the poster. It's expecting the poster to treat all arguments equally, something that will drive people insane on NSG, when they have to respond to such "stellar" arguments as "are all religious people mentally ill?"

You guys are having a great debate otherwise. But when it comes to discussing how GN addressed the Great Thread Derailer, you guys seem to go off track, and it's beginning to look like a "did not" "did too" kind of debate. I'm only saying this because I know that you're much better posters than that!

[Imperializt Russia]

You've done nothing but attack anything but his argument the entire time. I am starting to wonder if you are being serious. Stop insulting people and making false assumptions about them. This thread is supposed to be about what is going on in Syria, not Shof's opinion on the US vs his opinion on Russia.

I will admit it is threadjacking, but all they have done is try and point fallacies at me without any form of substance.

Maybe you shouldn't have wandered into a thread with nothing to contribute.

[Imperializt Russia]

Looks like our government will be getting involved after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24124896

He's explicitly leaving British forces out of it, there's levels of involvement going on here.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/
Thousands of people out of millions doesn't mean everyone hates him. That's a fallacy.

Notably the article points out that after the two years their has been a resent upsurge in support based on the changing demographic of the resistance fighters. That doesn't mean they like the regime that means they prefer the devil they know.

While the large number of protestors does not indicate that everyone hates Assad it does indicate that their is a large enough number to take to the streets witch in turn indicates that their is an even larger group who supports that view but is not a vocal. That is rather basic political science stuff.

I believe one of the factors behind the support shift was that they demanded that elections eventually be held, and Assad agreed.
Whether he holds to his own word, if he wins the war, is another matter entirely.

[Charax]

Considering the Assad regime was broadly secular, and if it fails it looks to be replaced by Libyan-esque radical Islamists, I don't think you have any hope of establishing a Christian regime in Syria.
Not without literally nuking the entire subcontinent and starting over.

Which, knowing you, you'd probably support.

We have to prepare the Middle East for the second coming of Christ... through whatever means necessary.

Islam must not be allowed to prevail there...

America, as the world's most powerful Christian nation, should do whatever it takes to make this a smooth transition while in the profit benefiting itself.

The world NEEDS USA's leadership and USA should do whatever it can to advance itself and the Lord's Kingdom. Syria is a great place to start...

They don't see the Light... but we can show them.

Yeah, this may be the worst thing I've ever read.

Roll on Red China as the next 'murica. At least they're not forcing their god down my neck.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Syria. Drop a bomb on Assad's head and be done with it.

[Disserbia]

Awesome, where in and how do you like it. Also, so as not to derail the thread, what do you think about their position on this issue?

Surrey. It's alright. I'm glad we voted to stay out.

I am pleasantly surprised to hear you say that, div. Better than Israel?

[Divair]

Surrey. It's alright. I'm glad we voted to stay out.

I am pleasantly surprised to hear you say that, div. Better than Israel?

By a huge degree.

[The Godly Nations]

I don't think it can be truly objective but maybe basic statements can be made, but it is still highly insulting to the victims either way. Anyway what I meant was that I don't think anyone can accurately or objectively make the claim that Assad is worse than the rebels. It's very hard to tell what is what in a warzone until the dust settles.

It is not highly insulting to the victims to say that one genocide can be objectively qualified as worse than another- one genocide may be of a greater magnitude and with a greater degree of cruelty than another, for example, no one, I don't think, would argue that the holocaust is the same as simply gathering the men of a village and shooting them in the back of the head, because the cruelty of the holocaust is objectively greater than that village massacre. If both are bad, one is objectively worse than the other in almost every way. The claim that Assad is any worse than the rebels is a difficult claim to make, but if there is enough information of the deeds of both side, we can compare them, and we can decide, objectively, if one is better or worse than the other.

[The Godly Nations]

Concerning the Chemical Weapons Attack, what does the report actually say?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24120749

The US, the UK, and France all tell us that the technical details prove that it was Assad, and Russia is saying that the report it bias, so I really don't know what to think.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

In fact read my past posts to others on this matter throughout this thread. I have good reason to be sceptical about the allegations against him. Furthermore, look at Bashar's personality close up, including by looking at his speeches, this is not some irrational mass murderer. You can tell on a person's face very well if you look carefully.

While he may not have been responsible for the latest attack, few would doubt that he gaols political dissidents, tortures his prisoners, impose unduly restrictive and harsh laws, etc., etc. I don't think he is irrational, in that all the murders and genocide he commits are committed to a purpose, towards keeping him in power, I do not doubt that he is, in fact, dictatorial, and that he has committed war crimes in this latest conflict, and that he is a vile person.

In addition, as I also pointed out in past posts, the majority of the Syrian security forces, have taken tonnes of precautions in warning civilians to get out in advance before the military would commence a counter-offencive to liberate insurgent controlled areas.

If he does do these things, it is to his credit, but I have my doubt as to if he actually does, or if he does so simply as calculation, just as I do not doubt that he does commit war crimes against his enemies.

Another point worthy to note is that this insurgency is the second time it has occurred, by the same sectarian-maniacs as the ones whom killed hundreds of Alawites & other minorities in the 1980s one to kickstart|initialise their "Islamic Uprising" utilising some of the most barbaric Khawarji behaviour one could ever see.

Yes, but the rebels are not necessarily Islamists, thus, the fault of the extremists can be pinned onto the entirety of the rebels. Additionally, the Alawites are a minority the rules of the Sunni Majority, which does cause resentment, and whose resentment can be justified as being a politically disadvantaged majority.

Besides the insurgencies, this is the third time our governments tried to destabilise Syria. The first being in 1949 to attempt to install some twat similar to Pinochet in numerous ways, in which said 1949 coup effectively ended Syria's attempts at forming its identity as a post-colonial democracy.

Assad's government is hardly a democracy.

In both insurgencies, furthermore, I have long concluded that there is a fifth column, a shadow faction inside the government that collaborates with those insurgents to commit abuses. My case about Rifaat Al-Assad as well as Mustafa Tlass, the real perpetrators of the Hama massacre which occurred much after the army had finally clamped down on the sectarian-genocidal maniac 1980s Ikhwan insurgency, is reasonable due to how Ikhwan/FSA pardoned them then even gave them positions within their ranks. Then you have to remember, any alleged abuses under Bashar were not even his doing to commence with. It is the work of 12 different security officials part of this shadowy nexus that I have more than enough reason to believe exists.

I have my doubt as to your particular theory, just as I am weary of most conspiracy theories (not to demean your position, as I use conspiracy theories to mean any theories about alledged cooperations between individuals to achieve an end), and I don't doubt that human right abuses started before Assad, Assad still perpetrated them. Thus, the only reason I can think of for supporting Assad, is that the rebel groups are diverse, which may lead to in-fighting which will cause greater harm to the civilians, and that supposing that a democracy were to occur, comme Egypt, and they were to elect someone, then the 'pro-democracy' faction may remove him from power, like the Egyptian president, simply because it is not them who are voted, leading to more chaos.

1- Ah yes... I believe you really have the Assads horridly misinterpreted. Firstly, neither Bashar nor Hafez became "tyrants" for "power", their whole security apparatus was originally designed for the purpose of maintaining a strongly united non-sectarian, secular Syria that would outlast them both. Secondly, said security apparatus was taken out of context by the shadowy elements of Rifaat Al-Assad, Mustafa Tlass, as well as 12 other security officials that are suspicious enough to be potential collaborators with Ikhwan that want to discredit & frame the Syrian government in itself. Thirdly, I have been to Syria once, its actually the Arab nation where one can breathe the most (id est in terms of rights) second to Lebanon, thirded only by Algeria, whilst even better than that Iraqi "democracy". The real power-hungry, avaricious, greed-filled tyrants in the region are the Gulf Kings, the Jordanian King, the Moroccan regime, the Ikhwan & all its branches, Morsi, Sissi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Ghannouchi, as well as the NTC regime in power over Libya. Then, furthermore, Erdogan, Shah Pahlavi, the former Turkish junta, the Pakistani Saudi\Qatari-controlled politicians, Israel's Zionist government & its apartheid/cleansing policies on Palestinians, in addition to the Azeri leadership. | Returning to Comrade Bashar, do not forget that he explicitly stated his intention to step down after the war should it end in 2014, in favour of an electoral process (which I am sure he will win nonetheless because of the massive support base he has not only due to his successes in fighting the sectarian insurgents however also because of his former attempts at reforming the security apparatus, in addition to his future plans for reforms politically speaking). You also miss the point here, neither Bashar nor Hafez, nor the armed forces, nor the popular committees, nor the defence militias, nor any other force aligned with them, are fighting for "power". They are fighting against sectarianism, neo-imperialism, as well as are fighting to defend Syria, their motherland.

2 - He actually does make sure of that, because Russian Today, Press Television as well as Abkhazian News Network Agency journalists alongside the Syrian army have reported as well as noticed how places such as al-Qusayr were fully evacuated of civilians before the army moved in to launch a liberation counter-offencive against the insurgents.

3 - No, Janes' just made a recent report that over half of ALL Qutbist insurgents, are simply Qutbist insurgents, if you understand my point. Its commencing to arouse more mass media attention across the world now. I hope people wake up from their naivety about this war. | Oh, disadvantaged? This is amusing to hear, because most of the Syrian armed forces, government positions as well as higher ranks in all State elements are composed of predominantly Sunni personnel. The Syrian State was structured in equivalent proportion to the different populations of sects, religions as well as ethnicities present in their nation. Furthermore, Hafez back then made lots of concessions to the Sunnis before he died, whilst passed on to Bashar certain plans for reforms amongst other things.

4 - Refer to point 1. Syria is actually ten billion times more democratic than the Gulf monarchs, whilst is actually even better than the Iraqi "democracy" or the Turkish one. Furthermore, this point of view of mine comes from personal experience in Syria, as well as what people I knew from the region told me.

5 - By Assad, you must not mean Bashar, nor Hafez. The abuses were staged, as I said, by Rifaat & Mustafa without full approval from either Bashar nor Hafez, whilst said abuses were continued by the 12 security officials I am speaking of, after Hafez's death. In addition, my theory makes sense if you look at the loyalties of elements within some Arab militaries carefully, if you also analyse how easy it was for our Western governments to utilise a branch to stage the 1949 coup in Syria, whilst how said branch might very much be the one that is collaborating with the Ikhwan/Al-Qaeda Qutbist insurgents from the inside in both insurgencies. Indeed, let me also add that this theory of mine was not mine in origin, it was a conclusion from a conversation on social media I had with two Syrians that were in Aleppo at the time several months ago. They also pointed out something suspicious that rightfully ties into this, a government unit passed by insurgents, neither side shot at each other, they regrouped then proceeded elsewhere. In another incident they told me about, a warplane deliberately avoided striking insurgents, instead bombing a convoy of army personnel. This is weird sauce, this is something we need to take in mind whence speaking about Syria.

6 - Now for Egypt. Here is my take on this. The Egyptian problem is much more complex than you would know. Firstly, Ikhwan used to be very close friends with the SCAF under Tantawi. Secondly, the reason why Ikhwan succeeded in getting elected as well as approved is because of this nexus. I read about these things from Egyptian media. Thirdly, taking the above in mind, as well a how both the SCAF as well as Ikhwan received donations as well as support from our Western governments, from Israel, in addition to Turkey as well as the Gulf on different occassions interchangeably, we should be asking ourselves even more questions. Including how, Morsi besieged Gaza, Sissi augmented the siege on Gaza whilst was alleged to have been requesting Israeli permission for the coup to be unleashed. Then the so-called Saudi-Qatari "rift" over Egypt is even more amusingly enigmatic, most likely to make this whole farce more genuine. What was the end result of these manoeuvres? The realisation of pulling good olde Mubarak out of prison in clean casual shoes & clothing to be brought back to power most likely. Morsi was said to have been locked in the same prison as Mubarak. What this chaos most likely was, is a Machiavellian game designed to distract everyone from seeing this final theatrical move play out. Mubarak is out of prison now, in which direction Egypt is going to go now, has yet to be seen.

Concerning the Chemical Weapons Attack, what does the report actually say?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24120749

The US, the UK, and France all tell us that the technical details prove that it was Assad, and Russia is saying that the report it bias, so I really don't know what to think.

No, because the insurgents have missiles as well as rockets themselves, including some most likely smuggled out of Libya during the Benghazi affair.

Here are some things to look at:

1
2
3

More evidence coming out that the insurgents have the ammunition necessary to execute this strike. Combined with the admissions & interviews Mint pointed out to last time, the attack was once more another insurgent false flag, this time designed to force the government to hand over its chemical weapons in my opinion, so that Netanyahoo's trigger exalted fingers could then press the button of war, joined by the rest of the mob.

[Vulpae]

We have to prepare the Middle East for the second coming of Christ... through whatever means necessary.

Islam must not be allowed to prevail there...

America, as the world's most powerful Christian nation, should do whatever it takes to make this a smooth transition while in the profit benefiting itself.

The world NEEDS USA's leadership and USA should do whatever it can to advance itself and the Lord's Kingdom. Syria is a great place to start...

They don't see the Light... but we can show them.

Yeah, this may be the worst thing I've ever read.

Roll on Red China as the next 'murica. At least they're not forcing their god down my neck.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Syria. Drop a bomb on Assad's head and be done with it.

Yeah... that's the Dominionist position on forgien policy in a nutshell, you can see why they never get higher than town office.
There are a lot more political factions in the US than Democrats and Republicans, those are sort of the big umbrella groups.
China's probaly not going to get religious, their hypocritical fundementalists are going to be communist, probably hero worshiping Mao like some Republicans hero worship "Supa-Regan" I can't wait to see the totally inaccurate depictions and stupid forgien policy to start coming from China... somthing like "Mao says: work harder for the glory of your wealthy leaders."

Edit: I probably should've said "depict themselves as communists" because we all know they won't, just as the Reganites are about as close to real capatalists as my shoe leather is to leather armor...

[The Godly Nations]

1- Ah yes... I believe you really have the Assads horridly misinterpreted. Firstly, neither Bashar nor Hafez became "tyrants" for "power", their whole security apparatus was originally designed for the purpose of maintaining a strongly united non-sectarian, secular Syria that would outlast them both. Secondly, said security apparatus was taken out of context by the shadowy elements of Rifaat Al-Assad, Mustafa Tlass, as well as 12 other security officials that are suspicious enough to be potential collaborators with Ikhwan that want to discredit & frame the Syrian government in itself. Thirdly, I have been to Syria once, its actually the Arab nation where one can breathe the most (id est in terms of rights) second to Lebanon, thirded only by Algeria, whilst even better than that Iraqi "democracy". The real power-hungry, avaricious, greed-filled tyrants in the region are the Gulf Kings, the Jordanian King, the Moroccan regime, the Ikhwan & all its branches, Morsi, Sissi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Ghannouchi, as well as the NTC regime in power over Libya. Then, furthermore, Erdogan, Shah Pahlavi, the former Turkish junta, the Pakistani Saudi\Qatari-controlled politicians, Israel's Zionist government & its apartheid/cleansing policies on Palestinians, in addition to the Azeri leadership. | Returning to Comrade Bashar, do not forget that he explicitly stated his intention to step down after the war should it end in 2014, in favour of an electoral process (which I am sure he will win nonetheless because of the massive support base he has not only due to his successes in fighting the sectarian insurgents however also because of his former attempts at reforming the security apparatus, in addition to his future plans for reforms politically speaking). You also miss the point here, neither Bashar nor Hafez, nor the armed forces, nor the popular committees, nor the defence militias, nor any other force aligned with them, are fighting for "power". They are fighting against sectarianism, neo-imperialism, as well as are fighting to defend Syria, their motherland.

Assad, no doubt, is a man fighting to keep his power, where the rebels and teh insurgents are fighting to wrest power from him. Assad's various human right abuses, shutting down of subversive newspapers, spying on their own citizens, torture, etc. are all well recorded and have been recorded by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch. Most of your argument here stems from Speculation, that is, that there exist a cabal within the Syrian Government, which you have reason to believe exist, but no definitive proof, which is composed of these individuals. Assad, no doubt, is a criminal, a despot, a tyrant, and a dictator, and his defense is not so much against the evil Sectarians, whom you claim are all Islamists who plan to install a Sunni Islamist state, no doubt some of the rebels are, and against imperialism, but, more or less, to maintain his power against the opposition. If he promises this or that, such as stepping down and calling for an election, it is only a gesture to placate his people and draw fighters away from the Revolutionaries, and which I highly doubt he will do should we win this civil war. Assad's fight is one to maintain his power, and the rebels are each out to dispose of him, and replace the vacuum of his regime with their own despots and tyrants.

2 - He actually does make sure of that, because Russian Today, Press Television as well as Abkhazian News Network Agency journalists alongside the Syrian army have reported as well as noticed how places such as al-Qusayr were fully evacuated of civilians before the army moved in to launch a liberation counter-offencive against the insurgents.

And, which is not confirmed by any other journalists, nor confirmed by the UN, etc.

3 - No, Janes' just made a recent report that over half of ALL Qutbist insurgents, are simply Qutbist insurgents, if you understand my point. Its commencing to arouse more mass media attention across the world now. I hope people wake up from their naivety about this war. | Oh, disadvantaged? This is amusing to hear, because most of the Syrian armed forces, government positions as well as higher ranks in all State elements are composed of predominantly Sunni personnel. The Syrian State was structured in equivalent proportion to the different populations of sects, religions as well as ethnicities present in their nation. Furthermore, Hafez back then made lots of concessions to the Sunnis before he died, whilst passed on to Bashar certain plans for reforms amongst other things.

However many concessions made, it is still undeniable that Alawites are disproportionately represented in the Syrian government, as well as favoured by the regime.

4 - Refer to point 1. Syria is actually ten billion times more democratic than the Gulf monarchs, whilst is actually even better than the Iraqi "democracy" or the Turkish one. Furthermore, this point of view of mine comes from personal experience in Syria, as well as what people I knew from the region told me.

If you make such comparison, then, yes, their regime is better...than the most despotic regimes on this planet. As for Turkey, I have my doubts that Syria, run by the al-Assad clan, is better than an actual democracy. Your personal experience is not, in any way, concrete and varifiable facts, nor are the reports by aquaintences in that region.

5 - By Assad, you must not mean Bashar, nor Hafez. The abuses were staged, as I said, by Rifaat & Mustafa without full approval from either Bashar nor Hafez, whilst said abuses were continued by the 12 security officials I am speaking of, after Hafez's death. In addition, my theory makes sense if you look at the loyalties of elements within some Arab militaries carefully, if you also analyse how easy it was for our Western governments to utilise a branch to stage the 1949 coup in Syria, whilst how said branch might very much be the one that is collaborating with the Ikhwan/Al-Qaeda Qutbist insurgents from the inside in both insurgencies. Indeed, let me also add that this theory of mine was not mine in origin, it was a conclusion from a conversation on social media I had with two Syrians that were in Aleppo at the time several months ago. They also pointed out something suspicious that rightfully ties into this, a government unit passed by insurgents, neither side shot at each other, they regrouped then proceeded elsewhere. In another incident they told me about, a warplane deliberately avoided striking insurgents, instead bombing a convoy of army personnel. This is weird sauce, this is something we need to take in mind whence speaking about Syria.

The twelve generals cabal seems to be mostly conjecture, and you admitted as such, outright saying that 'I have good reason to believe that they exist', which isn't as definitive as actual evidence. Assad, for his part, has been documented by several groups already for his human rights abuses, not his father's, but his.

6 - Now for Egypt. Here is my take on this. The Egyptian problem is much more complex than you would know. Firstly, Ikhwan used to be very close friends with the SCAF under Tantawi. Secondly, the reason why Ikhwan succeeded in getting elected as well as approved is because of this nexus. I read about these things from Egyptian media. Thirdly, taking the above in mind, as well a how both the SCAF as well as Ikhwan received donations as well as support from our Western governments, from Israel, in addition to Turkey as well as the Gulf on different occassions interchangeably, we should be asking ourselves even more questions. Including how, Morsi besieged Gaza, Sissi augmented the siege on Gaza whilst was alleged to have been requesting Israeli permission for the coup to be unleashed. Then the so-called Saudi-Qatari "rift" over Egypt is even more amusingly enigmatic, most likely to make this whole farce more genuine. What was the end result of these manoeuvres? The realisation of pulling good olde Mubarak out of prison in clean casual shoes & clothing to be brought back to power most likely. Morsi was said to have been locked in the same prison as Mubarak. What this chaos most likely was, is a Machiavellian game designed to distract everyone from seeing this final theatrical move play out. Mubarak is out of prison now, in which direction Egypt is going to go now, has yet to be seen.

This whole theory sounds convoluted, and, because it is unsourced, I have my doubts about it. The overthrow of Morsi, no matter unsuccessful and oppressive he may be, was undemocratic in almost all respect, and, had they wanted to replace him, they should have gone through the proper, democratic channels. I doubt that the United States and Israel are funding the Moslem Brotherhood, given their stated objectives are quite contrary to the United States' and Israel's objectives, a Brotherhood, moreever, that, if I recall correctly, provided support for Al-Qaeda.

No, because the insurgents have missiles as well as rockets themselves, including some most likely smuggled out of Libya during the Benghazi affair.

Here are some things to look at:

1
2
3

More evidence coming out that the insurgents have the ammunition necessary to execute this strike. Combined with the admissions & interviews Mint pointed out to last time, the attack was once more another insurgent false flag, this time designed to force the government to hand over its chemical weapons in my opinion, so that Netanyahoo's trigger exalted fingers could then press the button of war, joined by the rest of the mob.

That isn't evidence in any way. All I am asking it whether anyone here know what the UN report actually said.

[Spirit of Hope]

All I am asking it whether anyone here know what the UN report actually said.

CNN had it posted for a little while, I gave it a read through. Mostly its technical, but they found evidence of sarin, a chemical weapon Al-Assad was known to have. They recovered pieces of some rockets, enough to identify the make/model. Last they were able to get some rough trajectory data based on the rocket crash sites.

The US, Australia and a couple of other countries have then pointed out that the trajectory of the attack pointed towards the regime, and that the rockets models were of a model that Al-Assad was known to have, and their was no evidence that the rebels had it.

Russia, and I think China, dispute this claiming the rebels had access to those rockets and to sarin.

So overall a tiny little bit of evidence that it was regime forces but not much.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Another article on the matter, from Lebanon

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/9848 ... -sarin-gas

[Shofercia]

All I am asking it whether anyone here know what the UN report actually said.

Here you go: http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/s ... gation.pdf

All 41 pages of UN going "we followed protocol, we found something, don't know who did it..." most boring read ever, even by UN's standards. I almost fell asleep. Enjoy

[Spirit of Hope]

Here is the actual UN report (plus some other interesting documents).

[Shofercia]

Here is the actual UN report (plus some other interesting documents).

Ninja'd

[Spirit of Hope]

Here is the actual UN report (plus some other interesting documents).

Ninja'd

Yes but mine includes a bunch of US and UK documents to, so there!