The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Danhanjeedh]

source?

EDIT: And what i get is that you say that the US has done a good job in Iraq for example and that this is good for Iraq?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/freedom-fighters-cannibals-the-truth-about-syrias-rebels-8662618.html

And no, the US invasion of Iraq as a muck up and they shouldn't have gone in. I'm an interventionist, but a pragmatic one. Iraq shouldn't have been invaded.

then you should reconsider this statement: People have to stop thinking it should be liberal democracies or nothing else. Democracy should come first, then down the line if the country wants to, become secular.

And thank you for the source;)

EDIT: Never mind the first sentance, i read it wrong.

[Maurepas]

the united states needs to attack syria they are a threat and we need to help the rebels win the fight

Exactly, if we don't bomb Syria now, they'll be sending wave after wave of Syrian troops to land on our shores in their massive navy!

[Danhanjeedh]

the united states needs to attack syria they are a threat and we need to help the rebels win the fight

Exactly, if we don't bomb Syria now, they'll be sending wave after wave of Syrian troops to land on our shores in their massive navy!

I honestly would love to see such picture.

[Leningrad Union]

Take out Khaled al-Assad, I mean Bashaar al-Assad. I have been playing way too much COD 4.

[Trelso]

The last BBC reported estimates of forces I saw stated FSA to have around 100,000 fighters, and Al-Nusra (that is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front right?) having... I think it was 46,000. Less than the FSA for certain. That said, Al-Nusra's are probably even more estimated than the FSA's, and this was a couple of months back and the FSA has been struggling to achieve much strategically for most of the year, so I suspect their numbers have been thinned by casualties and desertions, whilst my understanding is that Al-Nusra support is on the increase.

No, Al-Nusra is a different group.

You're thinking of the Syrian Islamic Front.

My apologies, I get the various factions muddled up... a lot. (probably because there are a lot of them) I just remember that the FSA are the largest percentage of the forces fighting Assad

[Napkiraly]

No, Al-Nusra is a different group.

You're thinking of the Syrian Islamic Front.

My apologies, I get the various factions muddled up... a lot. (probably because there are a lot of them) I just remember that the FSA are the largest percentage of the forces fighting Assad

They are. Then it's the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front which are more of the Islamist Lite brand. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front which are Salafist arseholes which has between 13000-25000, Al Nusra which are terrorist arseholes have 6000, and then there are the various smaller groups and independent brigades.

[Arcturus Novus]

Take out Khaled al-Assad, I mean Bashaar al-Assad. I have been playing way too much COD 4.

I thought the name al-Assad sounded familiar outside of politics.

[Sibirsky]

I understand that it is in the middle. There are opposing lobbyists, and many other factors. That being said, Iran is a target. And that mutual defense pact with Syria, makes it that much more likely to draw them into the war.


Fascinating. Being a warmonger is a ticket to reelection these days. Who would vote for such a person?

Again, the news article [I believe it was Risottia who posted it] stated that, if anything, the America was going to fire cruise missiles for three days from its four destroyers in the Mediterranean [with some possible British support from a sub there]. That's it. No boots, no aircraft. Nothing.

That's what they say. And that won't be effective. This limited options either will not work, and will be a waste, or will evolve to more direct involvement.

[Costa Alegria]

@ Souriya Al-Assad: No offence, but you seem to be saying a lot of stuff and claiming evidence, but not posting too much of it.

I wouldn't ask him for evidence. He sends you a whole bunch of Postbin links to Global Research and PressTV articles and then gets all shitty when you aren't converted into a conspiracy theorist like he is.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've been saying for months and months that we should intervene before this shit happened.
The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
We should intervene along the turkish and lebanese borders and establish safe zones.

[Severania]

I consider myself a war hawk on most issues, but the US and the West should just stay out.

[Sibirsky]

I've been saying for months and months that we should intervene before this shit happened.
The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
We should intervene along the turkish and lebanese borders and establish safe zones.

What do we gain for intervening? Why should we help our enemies?

[Warda]

I've been saying for months and months that we should intervene before this shit happened.
The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
We should intervene along the turkish and lebanese borders and establish safe zones.

I don't care if the government did use them. There's no way I'm supporting a revolution run by religious extremist. If anything I'd be ok with the UN helping the government.

[Costa Alegria]

I don't care if the government did use them. There's no way I'm supporting a revolution run by religious extremist. If anything I'd be ok with the UN helping the government.

Syrian rebels =/= religious extremists. Yes, there are religious extremist factions but they are not part of the FSA.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/expert ... /?ref=auto

1954: The bombings successfully caused a panic among the Guatemalan military officers leading to the establishment of a military Junta. Kinda the goal of the CIA
Laos and Cambodia: Give you that one.
Vietnam: Give you that one in regards to trying to force the North Vietnamese to end it early. However, in the South, the US was winning militarily.
1982: Fire support for Marines acting as peacekeepers as they were being shot at? Yeah, they were there as peacekeepers and the goal wasn't to smash the opposition. If you're talking about the 1984 shellings, those were also not intended to overthrow or destroy one group, they were retaliation strikes to damage capabilities after the Barracks bombings.
1986: That was air raid to kill Gadaffi and limit the ability of the Libyan regime to support certain groups in retaliation to a Libyan attack on a disco hall. Overall it was a mixed bag. They failed to kill Gaddafi and there was an uptick in support for groups like the PIRA but there was a growth in Islamist movements that opposed in Gaddafi and he had to purge elements of his military. Not only that but his retaliation with Lockerbie kinda screwed over Libya with UN sanctions. Overalll, meh.
1998 Afghanistan and Sudan: Give you that one
1998: A bombing campaign against Iraq for failing to comply with UN demands. A lot of Iraqi military equipment and infrastructure. Plus the goal was to degrade Iraq's military capabilities, not eliminate them nor was it to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I'd say it was a success.
Pakistan: Overall results disputed, but AQ has been limited in its movements and safety. Taliban somewhat so.
Somalia: Targeted killings. Most of the fighting against al Shabaab is being done by other countries and they are currently winning.

And then you know, there is always Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya 2011

The overall record has been mixed. Of course meaning it's failed satire since the record is not a complete disaster.

This would have worked with others, not with me. One does not simply white wash the truth about each of these. Id est the real, dark truth.

[Len Hyet]

1954: The bombings successfully caused a panic among the Guatemalan military officers leading to the establishment of a military Junta. Kinda the goal of the CIA
Laos and Cambodia: Give you that one.
Vietnam: Give you that one in regards to trying to force the North Vietnamese to end it early. However, in the South, the US was winning militarily.
1982: Fire support for Marines acting as peacekeepers as they were being shot at? Yeah, they were there as peacekeepers and the goal wasn't to smash the opposition. If you're talking about the 1984 shellings, those were also not intended to overthrow or destroy one group, they were retaliation strikes to damage capabilities after the Barracks bombings.
1986: That was air raid to kill Gadaffi and limit the ability of the Libyan regime to support certain groups in retaliation to a Libyan attack on a disco hall. Overall it was a mixed bag. They failed to kill Gaddafi and there was an uptick in support for groups like the PIRA but there was a growth in Islamist movements that opposed in Gaddafi and he had to purge elements of his military. Not only that but his retaliation with Lockerbie kinda screwed over Libya with UN sanctions. Overalll, meh.
1998 Afghanistan and Sudan: Give you that one
1998: A bombing campaign against Iraq for failing to comply with UN demands. A lot of Iraqi military equipment and infrastructure. Plus the goal was to degrade Iraq's military capabilities, not eliminate them nor was it to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I'd say it was a success.
Pakistan: Overall results disputed, but AQ has been limited in its movements and safety. Taliban somewhat so.
Somalia: Targeted killings. Most of the fighting against al Shabaab is being done by other countries and they are currently winning.

And then you know, there is always Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya 2011

The overall record has been mixed. Of course meaning it's failed satire since the record is not a complete disaster.

This would have worked with others, not with me. One does not simply white wash the truth about each of these. Id est the real, dark truth.

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Na NA NA NA NA I can't hear you!"

[Souriya Al-Assad]

I don't care if the government did use them. There's no way I'm supporting a revolution run by religious extremist. If anything I'd be ok with the UN helping the government.

Syrian rebels =/= religious extremists. Yes, there are religious extremist factions but they are not part of the FSA.

The FSA have Cleary stated numerous times in the past they are strongly affiliated with these groups. Look back at their older statements. Furthermore look at their weapons, most of which is Western, Gulf, Israeli, South Korean, Taiwanese, or Turkish in origin.

The weapons depots the Syrian resistance have captured from FSA etcetera hands are the same as well. Yes, as soon as the rest of my browser finally listens to me the links will flow in.

[Costa Alegria]

Syrian rebels =/= religious extremists. Yes, there are religious extremist factions but they are not part of the FSA.

The FSA have Cleary stated numerous times in the past they are strongly affiliated with these groups. Look back at their older statements. Furthermore look at their weapons, most of which is Western, Gulf, Israeli, South Korean, Taiwanese, or Turkish in origin.

The weapons depots the Syrian resistance have captured from FSA etcetera hands are the same as well. Yes, as soon as the rest of my browser finally listens to me the links will flow in.

Make sure it's from a reputable site this time. No PressTV, no Global Research and no Syrian state TV either.

[Risottia]

I'm actually not convinced that Syria instigated the attacks. They gain absolutely nothing from doing it. Those who gain from it are Syria's opponents by drawing suspicion towards Syria as the culprit.

Unless the Syrian high command is really that stupid or their hubris is that great.

I still don't understand the motive either, but who else has the capability to inflict so many casualties?

Anyone with access to 100-years-old technology. Or access to relatively small caches of poison gases in a war-torn region that has seen use of poison gases in the last 40 years. Or access to money enough to buy that. Hell, I'm not even a chemistry major and I have access to knowledge, technology and material enough to produce cyanide gas enough to kill some tens of people. At home.

That's why I say we should be BLOODY sure of who did it before even THINKING of taking any action. And why just dropping some bombs hoping to kill Assad or his generals won't solve anything and just add more civilian casualties.

The only thing that can contain violence and civilian casualties now is the same thing that would have had the same effect 2 years ago. A full-scale invasion by the UN - with international troops forcing into submission anyone who has a weapon, Assad loyalist or insurgent or terrorist or bandit or whomever.

It's either that or let Syria sort it out by itself.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Exactly, if we don't bomb Syria now, they'll be sending wave after wave of Syrian troops to land on our shores in their massive navy!

I honestly would love to see such picture.

I just imagine Borat driving up in a dented fishing boat with a toy gun.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

I still don't understand the motive either, but who else has the capability to inflict so many casualties?

Anyone with access to 100-years-old technology. Or access to relatively small caches of poison gases in a war-torn region that has seen use of poison gases in the last 40 years. Or access to money enough to buy that. Hell, I'm not even a chemistry major and I have access to knowledge, technology and material enough to produce cyanide gas enough to kill some tens of people. At home.

That's why I say we should be BLOODY sure of who did it before even THINKING of taking any action. And why just dropping some bombs hoping to kill Assad or his generals won't solve anything and just add more civilian casualties.

The only thing that can contain violence and civilian casualties now is the same thing that would have had the same effect 2 years ago. A full-scale invasion by the UN - with international troops forcing into submission anyone who has a weapon, Assad loyalist or insurgent or terrorist or bandit or whomever.

It's either that or let Syria sort it out by itself.

The United Nations is a sham. It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members. However there are some minor dissident elements within it that diverge away from the established narrative to speak the truth. Such is the case with the UN officials that RT interviewed if I recalled correctly that said enough evidence goes to proving the so called rebels did the strike too.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

@ Souriya Al-Assad: No offence, but you seem to be saying a lot of stuff and claiming evidence, but not posting too much of it.

I wouldn't ask him for evidence. He sends you a whole bunch of Postbin links to Global Research and PressTV articles and then gets all shitty when you aren't converted into a conspiracy theorist like he is.

I think his name should make it quite obvious his level of objectivity.

[Risottia]

The United Nations is a sham.

It's still the best attempt at worldwide international legality we have. Gotta work with what we got.

It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members.

Er, that's because NATO countries make up the largest share of the world's GDP, also.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

The United Nations is a sham.

It's still the best attempt at worldwide international legality we have. Gotta work with what we got.

It's elite command are subsidised by NATO as well as affiliates by the largest in proportion to all other members.

Er, that's because NATO countries make up the largest share of the world's GDP, also.

Sincerely however I think countries with the right mind on their shoulders should move to shelve the defunct UN with an official United Axis of Resistance Nations as substitute.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Anyone with access to 100-years-old technology.

Sarin gas is not a 100 year old technology.

Or access to relatively small caches of poison gases in a war-torn region that has seen use of poison gases in the last 40 years. Or access to money enough to buy that. Hell, I'm not even a chemistry major and I have access to knowledge, technology and material enough to produce cyanide gas enough to kill some tens of people. At home.

Everyone's a self-proclaimed chemist these days. I'm Walter White, nice to meet you.

That's why I say we should be BLOODY sure of who did it before even THINKING of taking any action. And why just dropping some bombs hoping to kill Assad or his generals won't solve anything and just add more civilian casualties.

The only thing that can contain violence and civilian casualties now is the same thing that would have had the same effect 2 years ago. A full-scale invasion by the UN - with international troops forcing into submission anyone who has a weapon, Assad loyalist or insurgent or terrorist or bandit or whomever.

It's either that or let Syria sort it out by itself.

If you demand CSI levels of evidence then you're effectively giving people a blank cheque to do as they please. It's impossible to be 100% sure on anything in a warzone like Syria.

As for letting Syria "sort itself out" I'd be fine with that but Obama has already made chemical weapons his red line, if he backtracks now then nobody will take his word. On anything.