The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Yes Im Biop]

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West.

Russia Today had a guest which claimed the US would break apart in 2010. Not exactly the sort of media outlet that is entirely trustworthy.

Quite a few ...Credible News places have had Alex Jones? That whack job on before.

[Divair]

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West.

Russia Today had a guest which claimed the US would break apart in 2010. Not exactly the sort of media outlet that is entirely trustworthy.

They were owned (and are still financed) by the Russian government. Not entirely trustworthy is putting it simply.

[Popular Union of Tucson-Arizona]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

I smell some ethnocentric bias against everything non West.

Russia Today had a guest which claimed the US would break apart in 2010. Not exactly the sort of media outlet that is entirely trustworthy.

They do have such rare cases however most of the time I find them to be very decent as a news organisation.

[Yes Im Biop]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

...

... ...

... ... ...
I feel like a Picture would be an appropriate response

[New Chalcedon]

Ah, now - this is where things get complicated. Ghouta - the place hit by chemical weapons - was not definitely government-held, despite being an exurb of Damascus. Per Al Jazeera (the first source I found was the WSJ, but hey - it's the WSJ ), the government launched an artillery strike on Ghouta the day after the chemical attack(s), apparently intending to kick the rebels out.

Which means that it now makes sense for either party to have used them - the regime to force the rebels out of their only real zone close to the capital, and the rebels to bring down the wrath of the West against the regime.

Huh, I didn't know that the government didn't control it. I'll keep note of that for the future.

Regardless though, there's still no reason for Assad to use chemical arms when he is very clearly winning the war through conventional means

Is he? His regime controls many of the larger cities, but the countryside isn't friendly terrain for Assad loyalists. While Homs seems to be settling into Assad's control again, Aleppo seems to have all but fallen to the rebels, who finally took Menagh Air Base after a months-long siege (I must, as a side note, compliment the defenders for holding out so long) as well as taking Khanasir, which controls the road that was the government's last remaining supply route into Aleppo.

I don't think it's at all clear that he's winning the war conventionally. Mind you, I also don't think it's at all clear that he's losing it conventionally.

and knows the UN and NATO are constantly looking over his shoulder to see if he's crossed the "red line".

True - a rational Assad won't use chemical weapons under the present circumstances. But war has been known to do strange things to people, so I can't definitively rule it out either.

[Warda]

Russia Today had a guest which claimed the US would break apart in 2010. Not exactly the sort of media outlet that is entirely trustworthy.

They were owned (and are still financed) by the Russian government. Not entirely trustworthy is putting it simply.

I <3 Super Putin.

[New Chalcedon]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

...

... ...

... ... ...
I feel like a Picture would be an appropriate response

I can't think of one that wouldn't get me banned for flaming someone who'd say something so stupid.

[Divair]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

...

... ...

... ... ...
I feel like a Picture would be an appropriate response

[Farnhamia]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

How about we don't advocate the death of thousands?

[Yes Im Biop]

...

... ...

... ... ...
I feel like a Picture would be an appropriate response

I can't think of one that wouldn't get me banned for flaming someone who'd say something so stupid.

Thus my lack of a picture

[Neoconstantius]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

Riiiiiiight.

[Yes Im Biop]

...

... ...

... ... ...
I feel like a Picture would be an appropriate response

Thank you Divair

[Costa Alegria]

Quite a few ...Credible News places have had Alex Jones? That whack job on before.

They've interviewed a number of varied people. Marine le Pen for example. Infamous Eurosceptic and French conservative nationalist. Nigel Farage. Henry Kissinger. Steve Wozniak. Bashar al-Assad, Rafael Correa and Vladimir Putin have also been guests.

[Vetalia]

How about we don't advocate the death of thousands?

I think you're at least a couple orders of magnitude off considering the Russians would also the need test out their arsenal...to make sure it works.

[Costa Alegria]

They do have such rare cases however most of the time I find them to be very decent as a news organisation.

And why should we be surprised that you believe blatant propaganda?

[New Chalcedon]

My biggest gripe about transparently idiotic "suggestions", such as nuking Syria, is that any attempt at actual analysis (see here for one of my own attempts) gets lost in the shuffle.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

We have perfectly good nuclear weapons we have never used. Use them on Syria to make sure that they work.

How about we don't advocate the death of thousands?

Thank you.

[Danhanjeedh]

They do have such rare cases however most of the time I find them to be very decent as a news organisation.

And why should we be surprised that you believe blatant propaganda?

Again,

Like a not so famous man once said: Looking at any media is like looking at a chopped down tree, it won't say what actually happend.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

They do have such rare cases however most of the time I find them to be very decent as a news organisation.

And why should we be surprised that you believe blatant propaganda?

Why should I trust elites that have been hypocritical liars for decades, even supporting the vilest regimes imaginable themselves, including the Gulf Kings? I apologise, however I am throwing my support behind the resistance.

Edit: Explain to me how democratic it is to support mass murderers such as Chiang Kai Shek, Rhee Sygman, Ngo Dinh Diem, Soeharto, Pinochet, Batista, or any other?

[Imperializt Russia]

My biggest gripe about transparently idiotic "suggestions", such as nuking Syria, is that any attempt at actual analysis (see here for one of my own attempts) gets lost in the shuffle.

My own summation of the last eight pages just got buried too.

[New Chalcedon]

And why should we be surprised that you believe blatant propaganda?

Why should I trust elites that have been hypocritical liars for decades, even supporting the vilest regimes imaginable themselves, including the Gulf Kings? I apologise, however I am throwing my support behind the resistance.

....

You are aware that the FSA has been taking hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the USA, right? If you're as anti-American as you've claimed to be, then it must be quite the agonising decision for you to make....

[Costa Alegria]

Why should I trust elites that have been hypocritical liars for decades, even supporting the vilest regimes imaginable themselves, including the Gulf Kings? I apologise, however I am throwing my support behind the resistance.

I'm not saying you should support the bejeweled thugs that run the Gulf states or the "elites". Hell, I don't either. But RT is pretty much a state funded propaganda station that doesn't give a flying fuck about facts as long as what it is reporting makes the US (and "the West" in general) look bad.

What you're doing is trading one set of "elites" for another.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Why should I trust elites that have been hypocritical liars for decades, even supporting the vilest regimes imaginable themselves, including the Gulf Kings? I apologise, however I am throwing my support behind the resistance.

I'm not saying you should support the bejeweled thugs that run the Gulf states or the "elites". Hell, I don't either. But RT is pretty much a state funded propaganda station that doesn't give a flying fuck about facts as long as what it is reporting makes the US (and "the West" in general) look bad.

What you're doing is trading one set of "elites" for another.

RT does not want to demonise Westerners. It for the most part is trying to wake us up. In retrospect, I feel I should point out just how much demonisation we allowed to make the Russians have to go through on an incessant basis. Give Russians a break,we need to take a good look at ourselves.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Why should I trust elites that have been hypocritical liars for decades, even supporting the vilest regimes imaginable themselves, including the Gulf Kings? I apologise, however I am throwing my support behind the resistance.

....

You are aware that the FSA has been taking hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the USA, right? If you're as anti-American as you've claimed to be, then it must be quite the agonising decision for you to make....

By resistance I mean Bashar as well as his allies. I am never going to support the FSA. Nor am I anti American as far the people are concerned, nor am I anti European. I am anti neo imperialism. I am against the morbid mobsters that hijacked our nations for some time now to utilise them against innocents elsewhere.