Newcastle-Online

General => Chat => Topic started by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 27 May 2012, 01:08:24 AM

Title: Syria, Iraq & Islamic State related atrocities all here - Coming to Iran soon!
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 27 May 2012, 01:08:24 AM
http://youtu.be/gosLh8HvCEU (http://youtu.be/gosLh8HvCEU)

f***ing hell. :neutral:

Spoiler
[close]
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Sunday 27 May 2012, 01:15:00 AM
painful, angry, p*ssed off and as usual when the big boys want a fight it's the innocent that take the brunt.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Interpolic on Sunday 27 May 2012, 01:18:54 AM
Holy f***ing s*** man, deeply upsetting.  That's tragic.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Sunday 27 May 2012, 01:38:35 AM
I'm guessing that's the footage of the kids, right?

I wish this would just end now - but it won't of course - it's a total tragedy what's happening over there, it upsets me seeing it on the news.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Crumpy Gunt on Sunday 27 May 2012, 02:08:29 AM
Apalling what is happening there. As upsetting as it is to see the kids it has to be shown to put huge pressure and hopefully change the mindset of the countries that are effectively protecting the Syrian regime. Russia and China (iirc) vetoing direct UN action.
Something has to be done immediately.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Doctor Zaius on Sunday 27 May 2012, 02:18:28 AM
Disturbing footage like.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: maybe_next_year on Sunday 27 May 2012, 02:36:16 AM
well that was tough to watch.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shaun on Sunday 27 May 2012, 02:43:40 AM
It's non of our business.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: jdckelly on Sunday 27 May 2012, 02:56:01 AM
bloody hell that was a tough watch
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: garth on Sunday 27 May 2012, 06:34:17 AM
I couldn't even finish watching it, to bloody disturbing.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Sunday 27 May 2012, 07:26:32 AM
Was wondering about the lack of a thread about it here, absolutely horrific stuff happening there daily and the overall death toll is over 11,000 people, they have no mercy for anyone and at times target specifically children to torture and kill them in order for their parents or older siblings to stop protesting, its a disgrace that after what happend with Libya there seems to be little indication that anyone will step up to stop Al Assad and his regime from continuing the Bloodshed.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Sunday 27 May 2012, 07:38:38 AM
2012 man, 20andfucking12 and s*** like this is still going on :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: elbee909 on Sunday 27 May 2012, 08:28:28 AM
It's non of our business.

Just let it continue then? I couldn't.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Sunday 27 May 2012, 08:39:46 AM
It's non of our business.

In a way your right but after jumping on the first chance to go into Iraq and Libya for the oil's sake the least that can be done is to for once actually fight for a real cause other than money.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Sunday 27 May 2012, 09:06:43 AM
It's non of our business.

Just let it continue then? I couldn't.

aren't you?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mick on Sunday 27 May 2012, 10:57:02 AM
It's sickening what's going on in Syria and it's just as sickening that the outside world does nothing about it.  The international Community are almost as bad as the Syrian regime as we are just sitting on our hands and allowing it to happen.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 27 May 2012, 10:59:58 AM
It's sickening what's going on in Syria and it's just as sickening that the outside world does nothing about it.  The international Community are almost as bad as the Syrian regime as we are just sitting on our hands and allowing it to happen.

Yeah, action was deemed necessary when they discovered Al-Assad wife's shopping habit...... but not for the killings.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mick on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:06:43 AM


Yeah, action was deemed necessary when they discovered Al-Assad wife's shopping habit...... but not for the killings.

:lol:

I hadn't thought of that, shopping is a no-no, killing is OK.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Stu on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:12:45 AM
"International Community" :yao:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mick on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:31:59 AM
"International Community" :yao:

Just for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Crumpy Gunt on Sunday 27 May 2012, 06:37:07 PM
UN Security Council meeting at 7-30pm as a response to the 90 killed. Lets see if they have the balls to take Assads regime down. Watch the Russians and Chinese veto any vote to take direct action. The two countries with the poorest human rights.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Neil on Sunday 27 May 2012, 06:40:01 PM
Couldn't watch that.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Big Geordie on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:28:10 PM
f***. Could only watch the first 20secs or so of that and I wish I now hadn't. :(

Something needs to be done about this evil regime, but as usual the UN will sit on their hands and do nout. :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:40:28 PM
Awful stuff, UN being completely useless in trying to sort it out.  No country should have veto's nowadays.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BONTEMPI on Sunday 27 May 2012, 11:54:32 PM
Don't care which county it's happening at, any scum f***ers doing stuff like that need need taking out pronto.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Monday 28 May 2012, 12:06:25 AM
f***. Could only watch the first 20secs or so of that and I wish I now hadn't. :(

Something needs to be done about this evil regime, but as usual the UN will sit on their hands and do nout. :(

I couldn't watch more than that myself, I have to admit. And I also feel a bit scarred by watching it. f***ing f***. How anyone can do that is beyond my (and most people's) comprehension... :(

Meanwhile, as the UN Security Council met this evening it doesn't look like we're going to be doing anything about it anytime soon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18229870 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18229870)

Quote
Shashank Joshi, Associate fellow, Royal United Services Institute

So far, there is no sign that Houla will be a game-changer. First, remember that this massacre will be interpreted differently around the world.

Many countries sympathise with the Assad's government narrative that the opposition are Arab-backed Sunni fundamentalists and terrorists.

Just as some critics argue that the massacres in Libya last year and Racak, Kosovo, in 1999 are exaggerated or fabricated, similar scepticism about Houla will persist, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence - and that will affect how the UN Security Council lines up on the issue.

Moreover, the growing role of al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups in Syria has, in recent months, become a further deterrent to intervention.

American officials are terrified that support for the opposition may end up in the hands of the very same people that mounted attacks on Western forces in Iraq just a few years ago.

Above all, however, no-one wants to pick a fight with Russia.

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Monday 28 May 2012, 12:11:42 AM
Don't care which county it's happening at, any scum f***ers doing stuff like that need need taking out pronto.
even if it leads on to worse ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Realist on Monday 28 May 2012, 12:31:33 AM
Don't care which county it's happening at, any scum f***ers doing stuff like that need need taking out pronto.
even if it leads on to worse ?
Some men you just can't reach.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BONTEMPI on Monday 28 May 2012, 12:36:03 AM
Don't care which county it's happening at, any scum f***ers doing stuff like that need need taking out pronto.
even if it leads on to worse ?

And how worse could it be?

They'd be more occupied trying to dodge a major onslaught than they would killing innocents.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Big Geordie on Monday 28 May 2012, 10:53:02 AM
I think the worry is Russia and China and who wants to cross them......
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: 54 on Monday 28 May 2012, 11:01:37 AM
Thats sickening, how can Russia just sit by and allow that. The leader should be shot and burned for what he's done.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Craig-NUFC on Monday 28 May 2012, 12:13:54 PM
Rebels in Syria are partly responsible for the massacre of more than 100 people in the town of Houla, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18235965 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18235965)

Take it Russia are preventing the UN taking action again. Purely down to the fact that the weapons that are killing these civilians were bought from Russia.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Monday 28 May 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Sickening but as ususal innocent civilians are caught up in the geo-political game.

Russia and China are twitchy about Syria cause they know Iran is next and especially China has a lot tied up in Iran now.

You can bet your life on the fact that a good proportion of the rebels are American and Saudi backed and there is eveidence a lot have been flown into Turkey from Libya and paid to fight in Syria.

As dominoes go, Syria is a big one for America and on the other side Russia and China.

What nobody wants is this breaking out into something bigger and worse.

And Kofi is f***ing useless.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Craig-NUFC on Monday 28 May 2012, 03:36:07 PM
Sickening but as ususal innocent civilians are caught up in the geo-political game.

Russia and China are twitchy about Syria cause they know Iran is next and especially China has a lot tied up in Iran now.

You can bet your life on the fact that a good proportion of the rebels are American and Saudi backed and there is eveidence a lot have been flown into Turkey from Libya and paid to fight in Syria.

As dominoes go, Syria is a big one for America and on the other side Russia and China.

What nobody wants is this breaking out into something bigger and worse.

And Kofi is f***ing useless.

Russia have straight up said that they're treating any attack on Iran as an attack against their security and they will attack anyone involved. They've also began massing troops in Armenia and it's thought that they could make a full scale attack on Georgia as there's an important road linking Russia to Armenia that runs through Georgia which the Georgian's have blocked Russia from using after the last invasion. Basically, an attack on Iran and the whole region is one giant f*** up which is likely to begin on Iranian turf and then expand across Central Asia, as allies of Iran begin to bomb the s*** out of allies of the West, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Monday 28 May 2012, 03:39:14 PM
Russia blaming the rebels for the killings, f***ing typical Communist t***s.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Big Geordie on Monday 28 May 2012, 03:45:21 PM
Russia still siding itself with the regime then. How long for though?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Monday 28 May 2012, 03:52:20 PM
Much bigger game here being played by the west, Russia and China wont budge cos of this reason.  No matter how many innocents are dying. 

Plus Russia is Syrias historical Allie.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 11:24:10 AM
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 01:15:34 PM
Quote
Syria: most Houla dead executed says UN

The UN said on Tuesday that entire families were shot in their homes during a massacre in Syria last week that killed more than 100 people, including children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9297123/Syria-most-Houla-dead-executed-says-UN.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9297123/Syria-most-Houla-dead-executed-says-UN.html)

:(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Big Geordie on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 01:19:33 PM
:( indeed.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 02:02:01 PM
nowt will happen.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 02:16:30 PM
France, Germany, UK, Spain and others have all kicked their Syrian ambassadors out.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 10:29:10 PM
France, Germany, UK, Spain and others have all kicked their Syrian ambassadors out.

And that will be it. That will be the sum total of Western "action" on this issue. :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: axel on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 10:35:12 PM
Do we actually know they were killed by the security forces? Just saying, it seems pretty unclear and with conflicting reports it's just stupid to point fingers. Just seems strange to me that Assad's forces would execute children in this way. Their main target is neutralizing insurgents, not killing children.

Not trying to start some kind of conspiracy theory but it's a fact that private military companies like Blackwater are operating in Syria atm and they are the sort of people that would do something like this to incinerate the conflict.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 11:39:13 PM
Chap on the radio earlier said that most believe it to be a particular militia that has ties with and sympathetic support from the Assad regime, rather than their own security forces.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 11:50:44 PM
Its the ruling party that issues orders to them to do so, His dad killed even more people in similar ways during his regime, they rule by blood its simple as that.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Tuesday 29 May 2012, 11:52:28 PM
If he had any sense he would punish them..severely (if true).

What the hell were they trying to achieve on his behalf ???
submission by fear, it's worked time and time again.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tyson on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 07:33:09 AM
Sickening but as ususal innocent civilians are caught up in the geo-political game.

Russia and China are twitchy about Syria cause they know Iran is next and especially China has a lot tied up in Iran now.

You can bet your life on the fact that a good proportion of the rebels are American and Saudi backed and there is eveidence a lot have been flown into Turkey from Libya and paid to fight in Syria.

As dominoes go, Syria is a big one for America>>> (AIPAC) and on the other side Russia and China.

What nobody wants is this breaking out into something bigger and worse.

And Kofi is f***ing useless.

Edited
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 08:55:34 AM
Oh yeh...I realise that tactic. But with the world watching...it's a retarded one. If it is his work then he has sent out a hugely antagonising message. Is he that dumb?

He's all but destroyed any sympathisers he had in the West and now we are closer than ever to attacking. Even if that's still far away...public support of a United Nations offence will have gone through the roof.

If this is the work of Assad...he's shot himself in both feet.

They don't have much Oil, not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: garth on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 09:09:57 AM
Oh yeh...I realise that tactic. But with the world watching...it's a retarded one. If it is his work then he has sent out a hugely antagonising message. Is he that dumb?

He's all but destroyed any sympathisers he had in the West and now we are closer than ever to attacking. Even if that's still far away...public support of a United Nations offence will have gone through the roof.

If this is the work of Assad...he's shot himself in both feet.

They don't have much Oil, not gonna happen.


But what it does have is a safer way for the west and cheaper to import oil from the middle east. Huge pipelines going through Syria, Lebanon. Faster and cheaper.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:44:55 AM
Inncoents never get protected and never will, especailly in states like syria.

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 11:25:28 AM
I dont want the kids being killed but the reality of it is, no one is going to stop it.

We dont even know who killed these kids..

And what would the west do?  Roll into Syria with all guns blazing causing even more deaths to civillians.


The West playing the good guy


 :yao:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 11:53:43 AM
In what way can the west stop the killing, what pressure can the west put on Syria or the rebels???

Im not saying dont discuss it, im saying dont expect anything to change.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: garth on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 12:24:02 PM
Can't really rely on the UN, it's the most lethargic s*** of an organisation there is. An absolute waste, when it concerns taking action against countries  that deserve it.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 12:58:07 PM
It's a horrific situation. I'm sort of trying to block it out as it's making me so upset and I know the UN won't do anything other than 'condemn' Assad's regime. Pathetic. Thousands of our brothers and sisters are being slaughtered and we just have to watch.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 01:07:26 PM
Wonder what happened to the war on terror.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: garth on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 01:24:14 PM
While Syria, continues to be backed by China and Russia, nothing will be done at all.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 01:47:29 PM
Why shouldn't China and Russia back Syria, their country is riddled with rebels. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 02:02:20 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-05-2012/121255-syria_massacre-0/ (http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-05-2012/121255-syria_massacre-0/)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 02:16:58 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-05-2012/121255-syria_massacre-0/ (http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-05-2012/121255-syria_massacre-0/)

the writer can f*** off with h s*** like this, there is absolutely no defending what Syria are doing right now,

"The only question remains is was this massacre committed by the so-called FSA (Free Syrian Army) or by the British and American special forces reportedly already inside the country? After what the FUKUS-Axis did in Libya..." 

The only question my ass, i know that anyone can use the "you're not there so you can tell what its like argument" but there is no f***ing way either has commited these crimes, the free Syria Army are no angels themselves but they consist mostly of people who defected from Bahar Al Assad's forces because they refused to kill innocent people, Like i said its not the first time Al Baath Party do such things in Syria and Haafez al Assad Bashar's dad was well known for his war crimes against humanity, this is what they always did and its not some new "western Conspiracy" against anyone, they kill with cold blood whoever goes against them, its They who are doing it and no one else, and they will continue doing it until all those who attempt to go against them are silences, honestly man can't understand how you're trying to defend them..
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 02:24:08 PM
And you know for sure?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 02:33:22 PM
I grew up with Syrian's who feld from there because of his Dad's regime, the story's they told me about what he was doing there are almost exactly the same to what's happening now, i can bet my life that its not the Syrian Free Army who committed  these acts, but people who follow the ruling Baath party. of course i can't know for sure which is why i won't take this any further, i like the fact that you're searching and reading about it instead of just listening to what the media say but i in my opinion its very obvious who's behind those horrible massacres and the ones that are to come soon.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 02:40:17 PM
I dont trust either source of information tbh
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: garth on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 03:12:22 PM
Why shouldn't China and Russia back Syria, their country is riddled with rebels. 

Not only that but they have to much invested in Syria.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 08:59:44 PM
Accordinv to the ch4 report...thd murders were carried out by people from other towns near by. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:12:49 PM
Given 48 hours to stop killing people again or else the UN will have another meeting.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:31:56 PM
UN threats  :yao:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:39:45 PM
I know. But surely the threat of a meeting will make him stop. I mean, a meeting.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:45:26 PM
Make who stop?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:45:47 PM
Greg Norman.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:47:36 PM
Not Barry Norman?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 10:58:06 PM
f***..a meeting?!

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4hhyvuBl11r717et.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 11:00:01 PM
Not just a meeting but a meeting about biscuits to have at the meeting.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 11:01:56 PM
Given 48 hours to stop killing people again or else the UN will have another meeting.

Bringing the real deal there, a f***ing meeting lol.

Hey parky who runs the banking system in syria ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 30 May 2012, 11:56:09 PM
Given 48 hours to stop killing people again or else the UN will have another meeting.

Bringing the real deal there, a f***ing meeting lol.

Hey parky who runs the banking system in syria ?

The Syrians. Not the New York 'crowd'. That's one of the issues here. Very perceptive of you. ;) (Same as Libya).

The banking system is based around Islamic lines. iirc Societe Generale (Fr) had applied in the last years to open banking in Syria. Not sure if that went through. To the best of my knowledge it isn't wired into the western banking system

"Syria has made progress in easing its heavy foreign debt burden through bilateral rescheduling deals with its key creditors in Europe, most importantly Russia, Germany, and France. Syria has also settled its debt with Iran and the World Bank. In December 2004, Syria and Poland reached an agreement by which Syria would pay $27 million out of the total $261.7 million debt. In January 2005, Russia forgave 73% of Syria's $14.5 billion long-outstanding debt and in June 2008, Russia’s parliament ratified the agreement. In 2007, Syria and Romania reached an agreement by which Syria will pay 35% of the $118.1 million debt. In May 2008, Syria settled all the debt it owed to the Czech Republic and Slovakia."

Looks to me that by western standards the debt is minimal.

http://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/Syria/economy (http://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/Syria/economy)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Thursday 31 May 2012, 02:41:07 AM
Does anyone in the world actually pay off their debts? :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Thursday 31 May 2012, 10:44:36 AM
Does anyone in the world actually pay off their debts? :lol:

Usually the losses of bad debt are pushed eventually onto consumers indirectly.  The whole system is a farce.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Thursday 31 May 2012, 12:33:07 PM
But I mean, most football clubs are in debt, most countries have some sort of debt, billions of people have mortgages or other types of debt. I just don't understand where the money comes from :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Thursday 31 May 2012, 01:13:05 PM
But I mean, most football clubs are in debt, most countries have some sort of debt, billions of people have mortgages or other types of debt. I just don't understand where the money comes from :lol:

Various Sources.  Obviously the vast majority of debt is paid off (or was until the last few years) but they make a profit on the interest they charge which then helps to cover losses from bad debt and make some profit for whoever is offering it. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 31 May 2012, 02:02:59 PM
But I mean, most football clubs are in debt, most countries have some sort of debt, billions of people have mortgages or other types of debt. I just don't understand where the money comes from :lol:

The future.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 31 May 2012, 05:33:15 PM
Was wondering about the lack of a thread about it here, absolutely horrific stuff happening there daily and the overall death toll is over 11,000 people, they have no mercy for anyone and at times target specifically children to torture and kill them in order for their parents or older siblings to stop protesting, its a disgrace that after what happend with Libya there seems to be little indication that anyone will step up to stop Al Assad and his regime from continuing the Bloodshed.

What a load of horseshit
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Thursday 31 May 2012, 06:16:57 PM
what part ???
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 31 May 2012, 08:47:22 PM
The murders were carried out by men from surrounding towns who are from a different religous group...when law and order goes it all goes to s***...see the fall if berlin at the end of ww2...germans killing each other
Title: Films in the pipeline
Post by: Tyson on Sunday 3 June 2012, 10:22:07 AM
The volume of the War Drums, within AIPAC's hallowed hallways, must be deafening. 

Most groups of mates have one of those lads who will nudge forward the group's thrower of the first punch.  That same lobbyist will then retire to the self-appointed role of pint-holder, or they'll conveniently f***-off & shout their only round of the night. That's AIPAC for you.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Monday 4 June 2012, 07:53:07 PM
15 Mar 2012 Special Interview Webster Tarpley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqPhkqMN2dc#)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 6 June 2012, 09:59:18 PM
Reports of Another massacre today, also 100+ people killed, also involving women and children and also using the same methods :(

 for f***s sake..
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Wednesday 6 June 2012, 10:14:49 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18348201 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18348201)

:undecided:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Thursday 7 June 2012, 01:08:45 AM
bet they threaten with sanctions, oooooooh
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 7 June 2012, 06:04:54 PM
Pretty sure that I've actually been to the village where the latest massacre has taken place. :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Thursday 7 June 2012, 06:15:27 PM
Pretty sure that I've actually been to the village where the latest massacre has taken place. :(

Probably best you don't say any more in that case. Wouldn't want you to have to give an alibi.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 10:45:19 AM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 11:48:23 AM
I wouldn't say I got the impression from news sources that it had taken over the whole country and would not at all be surprised that people are unaffected. I don't think that's spin. And I trust the likes of Amnesty International.

I couldn't possibly call what may happen. I only hope it's not been in vain.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 12:16:09 PM
Damascus is a big city so what is happening the outskirts will not be seen or heard on the otherside of the city.

Also when you have 3 ministers being killed by a bomb then you know that something pretty large is going on.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 02:46:49 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 04:40:17 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 06:13:38 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 06:18:36 PM
Textbboook CIA phoney 'peoples revolution'. :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 06:28:34 PM
Textbboook CIA phoney 'peoples revolution'. :lol:

 :thup:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 06:30:54 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 06:46:56 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 07:22:41 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 07:24:14 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly?

:lol: did you hear this from the BBC? AlJazeera maybe?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.



U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is not dictated by ideals, no matter how much pro-democracy rhetoric is espoused. Nor should it be dictated by them.

The U.S./NATO involved itself in Libya because it could. It is taking a much more measured approach to Syria because Syria represents a far more significant challenge than Libya ever did. Taking sides in a conflict like Libya really doesn't matter; even if the NTC in Libya turns out to be the biggest anti-American group in the region, it doesn't really harm U.S. interests all that much. Capacity of any Libyan regime is dwarfed by what might happen if the West sides with the wrong group of people in Syria. Especially when the rebel forces are so disorganized.

"1000%" more freedom?

It is very much a civil war, as many respected academics and public intellectuals have claimed. Not all civil wars are alike (vast majority are not in fact). Such a broad generalization as "civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other" is simply not true.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Si on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 07:57:24 PM
http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/cyber-attack-forces-iranian-nuclear-computers-to-play-acdc-we-approve/ (http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/cyber-attack-forces-iranian-nuclear-computers-to-play-acdc-we-approve/)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 08:03:46 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They forgot to give it a 'colour'...;)

China and Russia will not step aside this time. Putin was a little weak during Libya but not now.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 08:04:33 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 08:21:57 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.

The BBC has become the biggest propaganda tool since Fox News, so please let's leave them out of this as they are irrelevant.

Who has "massacred" thousands exactly? If an armed group financed and supplied by North Korea began to shoot at British police or armed forces within the UK, what would the British government's reaction be?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 08:50:25 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.

The BBC has become the biggest propaganda tool since Fox News, so please let's leave them out of this as they are irrelevant.

Who has "massacred" thousands exactly? If an armed group financed and supplied by North Korea began to shoot at British police or armed forces within the UK, what would the British government's reaction be?

I think they'd storm homes and massacre children. Wait, no.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 09:02:59 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.

The BBC has become the biggest propaganda tool since Fox News, so please let's leave them out of this as they are irrelevant.

Who has "massacred" thousands exactly? If an armed group financed and supplied by North Korea began to shoot at British police or armed forces within the UK, what would the British government's reaction be?

I think they'd storm homes and massacre children. Wait, no.

Right, so you'd believe that the Syrian army, with the Syrian government as its central command, would storm homes and massacre children aye? But not the British Army because the British are some sort of superior breed? Please stop getting your news from mainstream media.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 11:46:10 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.

The BBC has become the biggest propaganda tool since Fox News, so please let's leave them out of this as they are irrelevant.

Who has "massacred" thousands exactly? If an armed group financed and supplied by North Korea began to shoot at British police or armed forces within the UK, what would the British government's reaction be?
and yet when assad was meeting the queen there were still sections of the BBC questioning it because of human rights violations in syria. you'd have thought they'd be on the same page wouldn't you ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 11:49:37 PM
Maybe time for a bump?

The truth about Syria has been lost in the quagmire of misinformation, a psy-ops war waged by the MIC, Western media (and that includes Aljazeera), as well as the supposed "activists" who publish "news" and "facts" from their cushy homes and dorms in "London".

The BBC will have you believe that there is absolute pandemonium going on, and a full blown civil war going on in Damascus and other cities. I have relatives living there, and they've not felt, heard or seen a thing from whatever has been reported. They've been at weddings, at the pool, out on the town at night time, and pretty much enjoying their summer. There has been a spike in crime admittedly, and young men and women have set up neighborhood watch systems to protect their homes and families. But that's about it.

The fighting and insurgency is happening in sporadic and scattered places all over Syria, bar the major events such as the bombing that took place at the security HQ last week.

Really don't know how this will pan out. Russia seems to be standing its ground, backed up silently by China who are sat in the corner watching events unfold. My guess is it will all be resolved one way or another as soon as there is a new American president in place in November.

You sure about that?

Well, maybe that was some wishful thinking on my part. I sincerely hope there will be a new face in the white house to replace the current two-bit lying impostor.

Even should Barry, that shining beacon of democracy get reelected, it would still see a resolution of the Syria situation imo.

If your benchmark of any Presidential candidate is whether or not they've shifted positions at some point, you'd probably be best served not voting at all.

The Syria situation will resolve itself regardless of the outcome of the election (I have a feeling it will be "resolved" sometime before November anyway). Obama won't do anything drastic and neither will Romney if elected, despite all the campaign rhetoric.

Obama/Romney are in no position to do anything drastic. The US does not have the upper hand. They created this mess, and will pay dearly for it. They will face off with Russia/China once it's determined who the president is. Negotiations and concessions between these two sides will determine the outcome in Syria.

The "revolution" has got the sum total of f*** all to do with the people and democracy.

They created the mess of al-Assad killing his own people and igniting a civil war...how exactly? The CIA basically just came out and said they don't know what the f*** is happening on the ground, as they've been unable to establish any real presence (made all the more difficult by the embassy being shut down). Romney can rattle his saber all he wants, but if he's elected, he won't challenge Russia/China any more than Obama has thus far.

And we should call it as it is...a civil war. It will be resolved when one side wins and the other loses. Very much a zero-sum game at this point, because I sure as hell don't see either side agreeing to power-sharing or a peaceful transition.

Well, your last sentence actually means it isn't a civil war. Civil wars never end up giving one side complete control of the other. Civil wars almost always end up in some form of power sharing, especially in the Arab world.

It is NOT a civil war. This is a textbook covert overthrow attempt, and nothing else. There's about 1000% more freedom in Syria than there is in the Gulf states, yet the US administration in its usual hypocritical way, fails to comment on or acknowledge this. Syria however has been a thorn in its side (and Israel's), playing an important strategic role in the balance of power in the region. The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.


And the BBC and Amnesty International are in on this too.

I agree and condemn that the west i hypocritical re regimes, but is also understandably pragmatic. But more importantly, there's a big difference between a lack of democracy as in the likes of Jordan and massacring thousands over a few months.

The BBC has become the biggest propaganda tool since Fox News, so please let's leave them out of this as they are irrelevant.

Who has "massacred" thousands exactly? If an armed group financed and supplied by North Korea began to shoot at British police or armed forces within the UK, what would the British government's reaction be?

I think they'd storm homes and massacre children. Wait, no.

Right, so you'd believe that the Syrian army, with the Syrian government as its central command, would storm homes and massacre children aye? But not the British Army because the British are some sort of superior breed? Please stop getting your news from mainstream media.
the western media has shown it when the US done it, why wouldn't they if brits done it, after all they did publish obviously faked photos of british soldiers in abu ghirab type scenarios.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Tuesday 24 July 2012, 11:58:39 PM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 04:42:51 AM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Man, they just need to give those people their own country already. Kurds take more s*** from the Arabs than the Israelis do.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 09:08:47 AM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:

Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:43:48 AM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:

Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
but i thought it was all so the US could "install it's own puppet" ? seems to me like the standard muslim "tribal" power struggle.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:05:28 AM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:

Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
but i thought it was all so the US could "install it's own puppet" ? seems to me like the standard muslim "tribal" power struggle.

wow some uncharacteristic bad quoting on your part madras  :D

Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology (does that describe it right?). They don't want an active and educated population in the Arab world so they can keep their hold on the natural resources and milk them dry. Case in point, KSA/Qatar/UAE etc... All Sunni despotic undemocratic regimes. Iran is a different case altogether. Iran has history, culture, science and a motivated population to go along with its shiite hardline government. The majority of the populations in the aforementioned Gulf states are distracted by malls and luxuries, in the hope that they will not clock on to how their natural resources are being syphoned from under their noses.

The muslim brotherhood for instance are no more a threat to the US and Israel than is Norway let's say. They are a threat to moderates and anyone who isn't a Sunni muslim within the region though. Bottom line is, the US (and Israel) does not want an educated, free and progressive thinking leadership anywhere in the Middle East. It's not in its best interests, nor that of its main allies.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:15:58 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 06:29:44 PM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:

Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".
but i thought it was all so the US could "install it's own puppet" ? seems to me like the standard muslim "tribal" power struggle.

wow some uncharacteristic bad quoting on your part madras  :D

Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology (does that describe it right?). They don't want an active and educated population in the Arab world so they can keep their hold on the natural resources and milk them dry. Case in point, KSA/Qatar/UAE etc... All Sunni despotic undemocratic regimes. Iran is a different case altogether. Iran has history, culture, science and a motivated population to go along with its shiite hardline government. The majority of the populations in the aforementioned Gulf states are distracted by malls and luxuries, in the hope that they will not clock on to how their natural resources are being syphoned from under their noses.

The muslim brotherhood for instance are no more a threat to the US and Israel than is Norway let's say. They are a threat to moderates and anyone who isn't a Sunni muslim within the region though. Bottom line is, the US (and Israel) does not want an educated, free and progressive thinking leadership anywhere in the Middle East. It's not in its best interests, nor that of its main allies.

Completely agree.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 06:30:54 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 09:12:26 PM
I was talking to a Kurdish bloke today who comes from North Eastern Syria and he was saying that although they get treated as second class citizens under Assad and even need a visa to travel to the rest of the country they're worried about what might happen if the militant Muslims take over. This guy was a Muslim himself, but he said that in the Kurdish area there were Christians (there are actually loads of Christians throughout Syria btw), Muslims, Jews and others and they all live quite happily together, but that if the fundamentalists took control that would all be over and he feared for what might happen in the future.

Love how this was put in brackets as some kind of revelation :lol:

Not at all a dig at you indi, I'm aware that you're not very mainstream, and as I understand it you have visited the region recently? Anyway, there are millions of christians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, obviously in Palestine and in Iraq. There won't be many left of us in the region if this "revolution" manages to topple Assad. I'll say again, I have family living in Syria, and the stories I've heard don't fill me with hope - such as the killing in cold blood of entire christian families by "rebel militants", as well as the chanting done by these hard line Sunni "rebels" promising deportation or death to Shiites and Christians during "freedom protests".

Pretty sure it will not have been that widely known, but the reason it is in brackets is simply to indicate that it was an aside from me and not something that the Kurdish guy had said. I know that there are loads of different kinds of people living in the middle east and I'm sure that a lot of people also know that, but they wouldn't have learnt it from the media, who always portray it as a uniformly Islamic region and don't even seek to explain the many different subsets of that particular religion. Anyway, the bit in brackets was the only bit that wasn't me paraphrasing what the guy had said.

Yeah, I was in Syria and Lebanon a couple of years ago and, as I've said before, for a country I've often seen described as having the most repressive regime in the region, it wasn't bad. Yes there were a few things that I noticed, but by and large the Syrians seemed to be pretty free to get on with their daily lives and struck me as an open, friendly and welcoming people, not what I'd have expected from a population living in fear of repression. So I would definitely say that I am somewhat wary of believing what I am told by the press.

I'm not really sure what it is that you're disagreeing with in what I've said to be honest.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 09:52:37 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:42:00 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:43:23 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:45:19 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:47:26 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:51:16 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...

They've come up against problems in Syria and Nato and Clinton are getting hysterical now talking about punishing Russia and China...Good luck with that. ;)

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:54:43 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:55:24 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

They're not muslim hardliners. They appear to be. American purview is not what it used it used to be.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:56:41 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

They're not muslim hardliners.
so you don't agree with him then.

fwiw i believe the US to be doing the exact opposite in saudi arabia what you think they are doing in syria.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 10:58:57 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

They're not muslim hardliners.
so you don't agree with him then.

fwiw i believe the US to be doing the exact opposite in saudi arabia what you think they are doing in syria.

American has 200 years of untapped natural gas in a decade or so they couldn't give a flying f*** about Saudi. It's a temprary arrangement.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:01:54 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

They're not muslim hardliners.
so you don't agree with him then.

fwiw i believe the US to be doing the exact opposite in saudi arabia what you think they are doing in syria.

American has 200 years of untapped natural gas in a decade or so they couldn't give a flying f*** about Saudi. It's a temprary arrangement.
a decade is a long way off and of course it's atemporary arrangement, everything is.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:04:36 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:22:59 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:32:44 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:43:42 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.


if europe went under russia would have a few months celebrating before following it.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:45:48 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.
Title: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:49:14 PM
Any country that is exporting big amounts of fossil fuels will be in the s*** eventually, unless they do what the UAE etc do and invest those profits now to create jobs for a economy after those fuels run out.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 25 July 2012, 11:54:55 PM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:09:03 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:20:04 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:21:51 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:23:04 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:25:07 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:25:41 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:
my cousin goes over 3 or 4 times a year selling plastics. we rule them ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:26:09 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.

It's my point and I should have been clearer. Is that as you say they are only 'pretend' hard liners.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:26:24 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:28:32 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad has been trading and helping Iran logistally too much for America's liking. Turkey was to be the trump card but it looks like they don't have the balls.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:31:29 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:38:43 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.

Yup. This is going down a storm in parts of Africa and even South America where China is gaining new partners and assets.

Russia isn't going to give up its only warm water port without a proper fight or its 6-10billion in arms sales to Syria.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:39:14 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

"Trade is war"? Okay, Chomsky.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:39:33 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.

Yup. This is going down a storm in parts of Africa and even South America where China is gaining new partners and assets.
here ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:40:05 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

"Trade is war"? Okay, Chomsky.

:)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:40:13 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

"Trade is war"? Okay, Chomsky.
is in some cases. it's not absolutely though.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:41:35 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.

Yup. This is going down a storm in parts of Africa and even South America where China is gaining new partners and assets.
here ?

I hope we can work and trade more closely with China. We stil have tech and bio-tech that they would love to get a handle on...
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:42:55 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:43:01 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.

Yup. This is going down a storm in parts of Africa and even South America where China is gaining new partners and assets.
here ?

I hope we can work and trade more closely with China. We stil have tech and bio-tech that they would love to get a handle on...
whats the big thing about enjoying our chinese built power stations then as if it's a bad thing then (aside form eco consideratione etc) ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:49:28 AM
They're not going to win in Syria anyway cause China/Russia won't allow it. They have drawn a line in the sand and no amount of hysteria from Clinton will alter that. The so called freedom fighters have taken a beating all this week btw.

Not having to use military force would be a big "win" for the U.S. in Syria.

China and Russia couldn't do a damn thing should the U.S. and NATO (because it would be a NATO operation) decide to intervene. The Chinese and Russians both know that the prospect of a yet another large-scale military operation in the Middle East is not something the U.S. and NATO want or can politically afford right now. Which is why China/Russia have been able to remain steadfastly resolute in defiance of a crackdown on al-Assad.

China is America's biggest creditor.

If Russia stopped supplying gas to Germany and the UK it would be game over within the context of the euro crisis and our double dip depression.



Actually no, America's biggest creditor is the American government. But if you want to view it your way, I would counter that America is China's biggest shopper. By far.

As Gazprom has considerable influence throughout the Russian government and basically sets the natural gas market in both Russia and Asia, I highly doubt they would allow the pipelines west to be shut off. As madras said, Russia wouldn't exactly come out with peaches and cream from that decision.

Russia and China don't care enough about Syria to retaliate anyway.

All eyes are on Iran. They understand Syria is the stepping stone. China is winnng new trade and deals in Africa daily and are growing in confidence. They have the biggest paper dollar and american bond holdings. They are growing their middle class soon they won't give a f*** about what america buys. Read up.

"Read up" :lol:

The rise of China is wildly overblown. As soon as the yuan is forced to appreciate, which it will as China continues to grow, their export-led growth will slow down.

I also see a country that, yes, has a GDP of $11.3 trillion but a GDP/capita of a little over $8K. That kind of disparity is untenable over the long-run.

Looking forward to the Chinese built nuclear power stations in England.
that means they are trading with other nations, not ruling them.

An amatuerish mistake there madass. :lol: Trade is war. I see now the difference between us is actually that you've failed to grasp even the basics of the matter. :lol:

That's the difference between China and the US.

In the past the US would pay hefty cash sums in aid, in return for political favors from relative minnows, or countries needing help to build infrastructure etc... In turn, corrupt governments will trouser the aid money, and nothing would get done.

China nowadays says, "right, you need a power plant? here's a power plant". They don't pay you to build it, but they'll build it for you. A clear and vast diplomatic improvement in the eyes of the relevant populations who receive this form of aid.

Yup. This is going down a storm in parts of Africa and even South America where China is gaining new partners and assets.
here ?

I hope we can work and trade more closely with China. We stil have tech and bio-tech that they would love to get a handle on...
whats the big thing about enjoying our chinese built power stations then as if it's a bad thing then (aside form eco consideratione etc) ?

Sometimes you have to learn a new song. :)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:53:33 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.

Good analysis. FWIW they aren't going to win in Syria. Proper army, upto date anti-aircraft stuff and willpower coming from Russian and Chinese veto's. This one will go to the wire. America will soon have problems in Pakistan and might even lose interest in Syria.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:55:15 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?


Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.

And yet the CIA just came out and said they have no significant presence in Syria at this point. Must be a smokescreen, right?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:58:10 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.
the father met bush (my mistake), the son met the queen and blair, also nancy pelosi speaker of the house of reps.

a couple of other things... I know well that the US has little to do with supporting democracy and it will pull down a democracy to get what it wants. I'm aware of the situation in the west bank and gaza, and with the killing of the lebanese PM which was origianlly blamed on a syrian backed forces but i'm sure the STL if it was corrupt as you assume could have concocted something for the worlds press (thats in their pockets apparently).

I'm a nuetral here, don't like US foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter) and at the same time I dont like what I was reading about the syrian regime when even when we were friendly with them...have you got an axe to grind ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 12:59:44 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.

Good analysis. FWIW they aren't going to win in Syria. Proper army, upto date anti-aircraft stuff and willpower coming from Russian and Chinese veto's. This one will go to the wire. America will soon have problems in Pakistan and might even lose interest in Syria.
and saudi arabia are the ones that frighten me.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:04:08 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?


Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.

And yet the CIA just came out and said they have no significant presence in Syria at this point. Must be a smokescreen, right?

Because the CIA is going to openly admit to covert operations it is currently undertaking? It won't come out with it now. An ex-handler or retired general will come out with it in 20 years' time as is the norm.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:12:58 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.
the father met bush (my mistake), the son met the queen and blair, also nancy pelosi speaker of the house of reps.

a couple of other things... I know well that the US has little to do with supporting democracy and it will pull down a democracy to get what it wants. I'm aware of the situation in the west bank and gaza, and with the killing of the lebanese PM which was origianlly blamed on a syrian backed forces but i'm sure the STL if it was corrupt as you assume could have concocted something for the worlds press (thats in their pockets apparently).

I'm a nuetral here, don't like US foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter) and at the same time I dont like what I was reading about the syrian regime when even when we were friendly with them...have you got an axe to grind ?

An axe to grind with who? With you? :lol: why would I? I thought we're just exchanging ideas and having a good old forum debate.

I consider myself very much immersed and well versed in this topic due to my circumstances, so I'm contributing a point of view that will naturally be different to the views of those who are relatively removed from what is going on.

Assad did indeed meet those you mentioned above, but I don't think it's anything extra ordinary for a head of a geopolitically important state to meet his/her counterpart, even if they are relative adversaries. There is a US embassy in Syria for f***'s sake :lol:

Syria and the US have long disagreed over many issues, but it's not like Assad preaches the destruction of the US in his weekly sermons  :undecided: He is a first class diplomat, who has genuinely been trying to do his best for his country ever since coming to power. He didn't even want the gig, his brother Bassel was being groomed to take over, but died in a dubious car accident. He reluctantly accepted the role, and since taking over from his father he has brought Syria on leaps and bounds.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:17:22 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:18:58 AM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?


Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.

And yet the CIA just came out and said they have no significant presence in Syria at this point. Must be a smokescreen, right?

Because the CIA is going to openly admit to covert operations it is currently undertaking? It won't come out with it now. An ex-handler or retired general will come out with it in 20 years' time as is the norm.

Admitting to covert operations is different than admitting to having a presence. Current and former CIA officials have come out damning the decision to close the embassy, because it basically forced NCS out of the country. The U.S. is having to rely primarily on Turkish and Jordanian intelligence on the ground. Which isn't poor, but you'd prefer your own guys be there too (especially with how much is spent on the CIA relative to Turkish/Jordanian intelligence).
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:22:17 AM

If you don't mind me asking, manupstairs, what is your family's situation in Syria?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:24:13 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:27:28 AM

If you don't mind me asking, manupstairs, what is your family's situation in Syria?

Up until a few days ago things were normal. The army has moved into the center of Aleppo now though, and is sweeping the city smoking the rebels out of their holes. My gran hasn't left her house in the last 2 days.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:36:40 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.
i remember being politicised by the sabra and shatila massacres, i've been aware of bourj el-barajneh since i was 14 and hated Israel ( i lived with a girl who won a holiday for 2 to eilat....i refused to go) for years till i learned to differentiate people from politics. our views may not be so far apart  but i require more evideence through not having the emotive component.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:51:38 AM

If you don't mind me asking, manupstairs, what is your family's situation in Syria?

Up until a few days ago things were normal. The army has moved into the center of Aleppo now though, and is sweeping the city smoking the rebels out of their holes. My gran hasn't left her house in the last 2 days.

I hope they all stay safe. Best wishes.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:52:55 AM

If you don't mind me asking, manupstairs, what is your family's situation in Syria?

Up until a few days ago things were normal. The army has moved into the center of Aleppo now though, and is sweeping the city smoking the rebels out of their holes. My gran hasn't left her house in the last 2 days.

I hope they all stay safe. Best wishes.
agreed
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:56:52 AM

If you don't mind me asking, manupstairs, what is your family's situation in Syria?

Up until a few days ago things were normal. The army has moved into the center of Aleppo now though, and is sweeping the city smoking the rebels out of their holes. My gran hasn't left her house in the last 2 days.

I hope they all stay safe. Best wishes.
agreed

:thup: thanks lads.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 26 July 2012, 01:59:39 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.

Just starting reading this thread (and hope your Gran is OK btw).

Question: What's Lebanon like as a Country now? Good conditions? Bad? Only know of one person who has visited and he thought it was a terrific place.
Also heard Beirut was booming (no pun intended) Always fancied a visit on the back of that report but have never came across anybody to ask.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 07:48:14 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.

Just starting reading this thread (and hope your Gran is OK btw).

Question: What's Lebanon like as a Country now? Good conditions? Bad? Only know of one person who has visited and he thought it was a terrific place.
Also heard Beirut was booming (no pun intended) Always fancied a visit on the back of that report but have never came across anybody to ask.

It's alright I suppose.More on the good side than the bad. In comparison to everything else that's going on in the Middle East nowadays, it's relatively quiet. The Lebanese are pleasantly surprised that it's other Arabs in the news, and not them. Makes for a change.

Should definitely pay a visit if you're up for it. It's always better to go when you know someone there who can show you around. But even if you don't, do your research and hit me up with a PM and i'll narrow down your choices depending on what you'd like to do when you're there. Nightlife is mental, food is top class, there's plenty of history to see and the people are friendly and hospitable. You could also ask indi about his experience.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 26 July 2012, 09:05:14 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.

History has a funny way of reversing these kinds of situations. Their time will come.

Best wishes to your family.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 10:17:58 AM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.

History has a funny way of reversing these kinds of situations. Their time will come.

Best wishes to your family.

Cheers Parklife.

Was reading this morning how the Knesset has reduced the Arab population in Jerusalem by 100k. They have basically removed half a dozen towns/villages from the Jerusalem constituency, and for the first time ever the settlers outnumber the locals. The stat, after the cull, is something like 220k settlers to 180k original inhabitants. The justification is that the villages within the Jerusalem district that lay beyond the apartheid wall don't belong, so they've been cut. The plan is to reduce the Arab population in Jerusalem to 30% by 2015. Apparently.

The wheels are turning. As per the norm, Israel will take advantage of other goings on in the world to conduct such flagrant violations. And there's more to come.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 26 July 2012, 06:35:29 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.
the father met bush (my mistake), the son met the queen and blair, also nancy pelosi speaker of the house of reps.

a couple of other things... I know well that the US has little to do with supporting democracy and it will pull down a democracy to get what it wants. I'm aware of the situation in the west bank and gaza, and with the killing of the lebanese PM which was origianlly blamed on a syrian backed forces but i'm sure the STL if it was corrupt as you assume could have concocted something for the worlds press (thats in their pockets apparently).

I'm a nuetral here, don't like US foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter) and at the same time I dont like what I was reading about the syrian regime when even when we were friendly with them...have you got an axe to grind ?

An axe to grind with who? With you? :lol: why would I? I thought we're just exchanging ideas and having a good old forum debate.

I consider myself very much immersed and well versed in this topic due to my circumstances, so I'm contributing a point of view that will naturally be different to the views of those who are relatively removed from what is going on.

Assad did indeed meet those you mentioned above, but I don't think it's anything extra ordinary for a head of a geopolitically important state to meet his/her counterpart, even if they are relative adversaries. There is a US embassy in Syria for f***'s sake :lol:

Syria and the US have long disagreed over many issues, but it's not like Assad preaches the destruction of the US in his weekly sermons  :undecided: He is a first class diplomat, who has genuinely been trying to do his best for his country ever since coming to power. He didn't even want the gig, his brother Bassel was being groomed to take over, but died in a dubious car accident. He reluctantly accepted the role, and since taking over from his father he has brought Syria on leaps and bounds.

Suspended since February.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov/ (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Thursday 26 July 2012, 06:47:29 PM
in post 110 you stated " The US administration wants rid of this ideology and wants to install its own puppet, under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring". I don't think it can get any more obvious than that." so i was responding to the post i quoted by mentioning what you had earlier posted ie the puppet bit.

also remember the salient feeling in the moderate arab world is just as liable to rampant paranoia as everywhere else, as in the cold war in the west everything was blamed on the evil empire, now it's muslim extremists or the CIA.

as i said it seems like muslim "tribal" power games that is an undercurrent in most muslim countries and has been for years.

You carry on like the CIA and Reagan were never caught flying coke into Miami to fund illegal wars and death squads. Seriously man wake the f*** up!  :aww:
really, i'm well aware of that and the way the US engineered effective coups in chile and other southern and central american countries, how the west installed the shah in Iran etc. However I was under the impression that the west was getting on quite well with assad (meeting the queen, Blair,Bush etc). i could understand the US being underhand in trying to keep their man in. I'm struggling to see what the gain in getting rid.

the difference between you and I parky is that evertime an event happens I don't immediatly assume the unseen hand. sometimes things are as they seem and as yet the proof for your hypothesis is not enough to persuade me. thats not saying evidence won't come to light in the future.


Yes I immediatley assume its the bogey man. What bollocks. :lol:
well if not bogeyman, the bogeylizard in human form.

You are aware I take it of the vaguest nuance of American foreign policy?
yes, explain the advantage of them kicking assad out and replacing him with muslim hardliners ?

Err cause they aren't muslim hardliners...:lol:

If you want to know it's about breaking states down into tribal factions, micro states and dividing up the assests. It's what is happenning in Iraq now, what will happen in Libya (North and South) and ultimately what they want for Syria...


but in post 127 where you 'completely agreed' with the manupstairs where he stated "Believe me, the salient feeling in the moderate Arab world is that the US indeed would rather have muslim hardliners in power rather than an open minded multi-secular ideology"

which is it to be ?

I explained this in one of my previous posts.

The brotherhood will behave like hardliners in amongst their own people, to harness the Sunni fundamentalism that is sweeping large parts of the Arab world, and will capitalize on this sectarianism to come to power, seeing as the vast majority of the muslim population in the Arab world is Sunni.

At the same time, they will stay the f*** away from Israel and will forge positive relationships with the US and its allies.
has assad not already done that ?

Assad the father you mean? The son is clearly on the side of what is termed "the resistance front", alongside Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form the military deterrent against Israel, should it have any more thoughts about attacking its neighbors willy nilly as it has done in the past.

Everything that is happening to Syria now is happening because Israel suffered an embarrassing defeat to Hezbollah in 2006. Israel's mission now is to isolate each of the 3 neighbors (Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas), and then have one last push against Iran.

Hamas: Gaza continues to be isolated from the rest of the world. Living conditions continue to get worse by the day, and nobody in the international community bats an eye lid. The aim is to weaken Hamas' resolve to fight. The rush to install a president in Egypt had f*** all to do with democracy. It was to make sure the border crossings between Egypt and Gaza are secured.

Hezbollah: The fraudulent Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the murder of ex PM Hariri has done everything in its power to pin the murder on Hezbollah. The idea is to bring them down politically, by tarnishing their credibility, in the hope that their own local supporters will turn on them, or give Israel or Nato an excuse to wage war on them again. Hezbollah clearly did not commit the murder, hence why for the past 5 years the STL has been unable to prove a thing.

Syria: Well, I don't need to explain this one.

Again. The CIA, and Mossad merely took advantage of the wave of anger and protests in the Arab world to start up on Syria. It is a guerilla insurgency, financed by the real dictators in the Gulf, having been given the green-light by the US and the EU. If the Assad regime is toppled by nook or by crook, it will not be pretty. For anyone. Anywhere. This is a far reaching global conflict that will have massive consequences.
the father met bush (my mistake), the son met the queen and blair, also nancy pelosi speaker of the house of reps.

a couple of other things... I know well that the US has little to do with supporting democracy and it will pull down a democracy to get what it wants. I'm aware of the situation in the west bank and gaza, and with the killing of the lebanese PM which was origianlly blamed on a syrian backed forces but i'm sure the STL if it was corrupt as you assume could have concocted something for the worlds press (thats in their pockets apparently).

I'm a nuetral here, don't like US foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter) and at the same time I dont like what I was reading about the syrian regime when even when we were friendly with them...have you got an axe to grind ?

An axe to grind with who? With you? :lol: why would I? I thought we're just exchanging ideas and having a good old forum debate.

I consider myself very much immersed and well versed in this topic due to my circumstances, so I'm contributing a point of view that will naturally be different to the views of those who are relatively removed from what is going on.

Assad did indeed meet those you mentioned above, but I don't think it's anything extra ordinary for a head of a geopolitically important state to meet his/her counterpart, even if they are relative adversaries. There is a US embassy in Syria for f***'s sake :lol:

Syria and the US have long disagreed over many issues, but it's not like Assad preaches the destruction of the US in his weekly sermons  :undecided: He is a first class diplomat, who has genuinely been trying to do his best for his country ever since coming to power. He didn't even want the gig, his brother Bassel was being groomed to take over, but died in a dubious car accident. He reluctantly accepted the role, and since taking over from his father he has brought Syria on leaps and bounds.

Suspended since February.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov/ (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/)

Well aware of that. I was pointing out that the US and Syria have somewhat normalized diplomatic relations in the recent past, despite being political adversaries.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 26 July 2012, 07:25:22 PM
no man, an axe to gring in the way you view the situation man. i am referring to your circumstances, if they could make you biased ?

Of course they make me biased. I've explained it on the forum before. I was born in a warzone in Beirut in 79. An uncle of mine was killed in an airstrike. I was raised believing we were refugees until the war was over in Lebanon. There was always one aggressor. Always one instigator. Always one enemy. Israel.

My circumstances are a lot more convoluted than just that. Obviously I'm older now, I've educated myself on the subject, and have struggled with my own points of view and opinions, to reach the conclusion I have now. On the very basic levels though, Israel has always caused me and my family grief, and it's not something you let go of lightly.

Just starting reading this thread (and hope your Gran is OK btw).

Question: What's Lebanon like as a Country now? Good conditions? Bad? Only know of one person who has visited and he thought it was a terrific place.
Also heard Beirut was booming (no pun intended) Always fancied a visit on the back of that report but have never came across anybody to ask.

It's alright I suppose.More on the good side than the bad. In comparison to everything else that's going on in the Middle East nowadays, it's relatively quiet. The Lebanese are pleasantly surprised that it's other Arabs in the news, and not them. Makes for a change.

Should definitely pay a visit if you're up for it. It's always better to go when you know someone there who can show you around. But even if you don't, do your research and hit me up with a PM and i'll narrow down your choices depending on what you'd like to do when you're there. Nightlife is mental, food is top class, there's plenty of history to see and the people are friendly and hospitable. You could also ask indi about his experience.


I loved it, would have liked to have stayed for longer in Lebanon and seen more of the rest of the country (we basically stayed in Beirut and did a few day trips to Baalbek, etc), but we didn't have the time. Beirut is great, it felt like somewhere I could live quite happily, and it's true that there's a s***-load of building going on - or at least there was a couple of years ago, anyway. The people we spoke to said the money was coming from the gulf states, as apparently Lebanon has always been a holiday destination for the rich of the region and I guess they must believe that there's not much chance of a war with Israel at the moment. I'd definitely go back.

Hope your family (and everyone else) in Syria stay safe btw.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Village Idiot on Tuesday 21 August 2012, 10:04:12 PM
Fighting the government like a boss.

(https://p.twimg.com/A02HdvMCIAAb2fg.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Sunday 30 September 2012, 12:47:04 PM
Apart from the obvious human cost of what's going on, stuff like this happening is tragic, I hope whatever happens this is over soon.

Quote

Medieval Aleppo souks destroyed by fire as battle rages in Syria

Syrian activists say residents are struggling to control blaze in labyrinthine markets which were once a tourist attraction


    Jo Adetunji and agencies
    guardian.co.uk, Saturday 29 September 2012 16.27 BST   



A huge fire has destroyed parts of the medieval souks in Aleppo, Syria, following raging battles between rebels and government troops.

The city is a Unesco world heritage site and the labyrinth of narrow alleys and shops was once a major tourist attraction and is one of Syria's largest commercial hubs.

Over the past two months, the city, home to 2.5 million people, has become a focus of the insurgency against Bashar al-Assad's regime, with near daily fighting and shelling.

Activists posted online videos which showed the fire around wooden doors and shops and a pall of smoke hanging over the city on Saturday.

Ahmad al-Halabi, an activist based in Aleppo, said residents were struggling to control the blaze with a limited number of fire extinguishers and low water supply: "It's a disaster. The fire is threatening to spread to remaining shops," he said. "It is a very difficult and tragic situation there."

The souks of Aleppo, a maze of vaulted passageways with shops that sell everything from foods to fabrics, perfumes, spices and artisan souvenirs, are a tactical prize for the combatants. They lie beneath the city's towering citadel where activists say regime troops and snipers have taken up positions.

Many of the shops have wooden doors, and clothes, fabrics and leather wares inside helped spread the fire, activists said.

Rebels and government troops have roughly controlled half of the city each since the offensive began in August.

The British-based activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has a network of activists across Syria, said Assad's forces and rebels were blaming each other for the blaze. The observatory estimates that 30,000 people have died across the country since fighting began.

In awarding heritage status, Unesco said Aleppo's "13th-century citadel, 12th-century Great Mosque and various 17th-century madrasas, palaces, caravanserais and hammams all form part of the city's cohesive, unique urban fabric."

Aleppo'a souks are not the only Syrian cultural treasures to have fallen victim to the violence following the country's uprising and the crackdown by the Assad regime.

Some of the country's most significant sites, including centuries-old fortresses, have been caught in the crossfire in battles between regime forces and rebels. Others have been turned into military bases. In Homs, where up to 7,000 are estimated to have died, historic mosques and souk areas have also been smashed and artefacts stolen.

Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Syrian Observatory, said it was not clear how the fire at the Aleppo market was started but also said a large part of the souks had been destroyed.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Sunday 30 September 2012, 03:18:30 PM
A once peaful country has now been ravaged.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Thursday 4 October 2012, 01:08:33 PM
Turkey aint to happy then :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 4 October 2012, 01:17:11 PM
Turkey is supplying the radical muslim malitias.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Thursday 4 October 2012, 02:21:31 PM
Turkey is supplying the radical muslim malitias.

Yeah thats true, but for what purpose and what do they stand to gain from it ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 4 October 2012, 06:54:16 PM
Turkey is supplying the radical muslim malitias.

Yeah thats true, but for what purpose and what do they stand to gain from it ?

Geopolitical power. With Syria out of the way they'd be even more the dominant power in the region. Pretty sure that they'll just be funding the opposition whatever flavour Turkey is a secular state by law, they're far from being Qu'ran thumpers.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Thursday 4 October 2012, 07:49:57 PM
Turkey is supplying the radical muslim malitias.

Yeah thats true, but for what purpose and what do they stand to gain from it ?

Geopolitical power. With Syria out of the way they'd be even more the dominant power in the region. Pretty sure that they'll just be funding the opposition whatever flavour Turkey is a secular state by law, they're far from being Qu'ran thumpers.

OK, cheers for that. But the poses the next question. Surely if Turkey continue to push this (which looks as though they have a good chance of doing) Then that will only bring Iran into play !!

Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

Syria is one of Iran's most important allies - a pro-Iranian foothold in the Arab Middle East and an important conduit for contacts between Tehran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Reports that members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards may be active in Syria is one reason why 48 Iranians were seized by Syrian opposition fighters.

The exact status of those kidnapped remains unclear, but the fears for their safety are real enough.

But it is regional political considerations as much as their fate that is driving this burst of Iranian diplomacy.

Iran sees Turkey as a competitor for regional influence. Tehran is alarmed at renewed ties between Egypt and Saudi Arabia which constitute, at least in part, a thinly-veiled alliance of "moderate Sunni Islam" against Shia Iran.

The ultimate fall of the Assad regime could leave Iran dangerously isolated. Its diplomatic activism is an effort to underscore that whatever happens it remains an essential regional player.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 4 October 2012, 07:55:12 PM
Maybe this is a way to drag Iran into it and then the west and its arab allies have the reason to finally blat Iran.  Wild specualtion on my part.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 4 October 2012, 08:29:03 PM
Turkey is supplying the radical muslim malitias.

Yeah thats true, but for what purpose and what do they stand to gain from it ?

Geopolitical power. With Syria out of the way they'd be even more the dominant power in the region. Pretty sure that they'll just be funding the opposition whatever flavour Turkey is a secular state by law, they're far from being Qu'ran thumpers.

OK, cheers for that. But the poses the next question. Surely if Turkey continue to push this (which looks as though they have a good chance of doing) Then that will only bring Iran into play !!

Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

Syria is one of Iran's most important allies - a pro-Iranian foothold in the Arab Middle East and an important conduit for contacts between Tehran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Reports that members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards may be active in Syria is one reason why 48 Iranians were seized by Syrian opposition fighters.

The exact status of those kidnapped remains unclear, but the fears for their safety are real enough.

But it is regional political considerations as much as their fate that is driving this burst of Iranian diplomacy.

Iran sees Turkey as a competitor for regional influence. Tehran is alarmed at renewed ties between Egypt and Saudi Arabia which constitute, at least in part, a thinly-veiled alliance of "moderate Sunni Islam" against Shia Iran.

The ultimate fall of the Assad regime could leave Iran dangerously isolated. Its diplomatic activism is an effort to underscore that whatever happens it remains an essential regional player.

Whilst I don't doubt that Iran will have some people in Syria, along with Turkey, Hezbollah, all the other regional powers, and many western nations too, there's no way that Iran would overtly pick a fight with Turkey. They've have to be mad to attack a NATO nation, especially given the current context of certain people itching to give them a good kicking and they aren't anywhere near as mental as they're portrayed to be by the media over here. Speaking of which it's almost impossible to have any faith in our media's reporting of that region, my experience of Lebanon and Syria was nothing like how they're reported to be and is the writer of the article above seriously expecting to get away with saying that Saudi Arabia is an example of moderate Sunni Islam!?! :lol:
Title: SAbre rattling
Post by: womblemaster on Friday 12 October 2012, 06:54:02 PM
Why is Turkey thinking of war with syria?   Are they being persuaded by outside force, or do they think they can make big gains in territory?

Turkey Ready for War with Syria says PM Erdogan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxgTjZyvfbY#ws)


IF syria collapses, how will israel and iran act....

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Saturday 13 October 2012, 01:02:26 PM
Turkey has massive interests in the region,Also Erdogan's new policy focuses on giving more attention on establishing good relationships with middle-eastern and gulf states than western states, Turkey is now on good terms with all the GCC countries and are establishing very solid ties with the rest of the Arab world. and his reputation in this part of the world is booming as you can hear words of praise and his stance on issues in the region everywhere. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Monday 24 December 2012, 04:19:25 PM
Get a Christmas present for your soul and donate some money to help the refugees through the winter:

http://donate.unhcr.org/syria-uk?utm_source=Spotlight&utm_medium=UKWebsite&utm_campaign=SyriaCrisis-UK (http://donate.unhcr.org/syria-uk?utm_source=Spotlight&utm_medium=UKWebsite&utm_campaign=SyriaCrisis-UK)

And/or email both sides to request that they protect civilians and stick to human rights law:

http://action.amnesty.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1194&ea.campaign.id=18108&utm_source=aiuk&utm_medium=Homepage&utm_campaign=MENA&utm_content=CiviliansSyria_nib (http://action.amnesty.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1194&ea.campaign.id=18108&utm_source=aiuk&utm_medium=Homepage&utm_campaign=MENA&utm_content=CiviliansSyria_nib)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Monday 24 December 2012, 05:31:38 PM
Turkey has massive interests in the region,Also Erdogan's new policy focuses on giving more attention on establishing good relationships with middle-eastern and gulf states than western states, Turkey is now on good terms with all the GCC countries and are establishing very solid ties with the rest of the Arab world. and his reputation in this part of the world is booming as you can hear words of praise and his stance on issues in the region everywhere.

 :serious:

He pulled a stunt when walking out on the G8 forum when debating with Perez/Olmert (can't remember who it was), and that's about it. He's done the total sum of f*** all to further enhance his image since then, and the way he handled the whole flotilla incident was cowardly. He is a liar and an opportunist. He'll follow whatever opportunity swings his way and doesn't really have a "policy". Old or new.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 25 December 2012, 08:15:47 AM
Get a Christmas present for your soul and donate some money to help the refugees through the winter:

http://donate.unhcr.org/syria-uk?utm_source=Spotlight&utm_medium=UKWebsite&utm_campaign=SyriaCrisis-UK (http://donate.unhcr.org/syria-uk?utm_source=Spotlight&utm_medium=UKWebsite&utm_campaign=SyriaCrisis-UK)


Good call.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tyson on Wednesday 16 January 2013, 11:59:47 AM
s*** has belted the fan, courtesy of the rocket attack on the university.

If that was the rebels (*cough* Israel-backed insurgency effort) handywork  the stakes have been raised ie. Rebel firepower, and the munitions they're obtaining now, as supplied by it's master.
 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 16 January 2013, 03:49:08 PM
s*** has belted the fan, courtesy of the rocket attack on the university.

If that was the rebels (*cough* Israel-backed insurgency effort) handywork  the stakes have been raised ie. Rebel firepower, and the munitions they're obtaining now, as supplied by it's master.
 

Despite his saber-brandishing, the Israelis weren't overwhelmingly displeased with the Assad regime. There was stability in that relationship. Israel certainly prefers a stable Assad regime to a fundamentalist Islamist regime. Considering the ambiguous nature of the Syrian rebels (who's Islamist and who's not?), I don't buy that the Israelis are pulling the strings. As if any rebels would accept support from Israeli, Islamist or otherwise.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tyson on Wednesday 16 January 2013, 05:35:30 PM
s*** has belted the fan, courtesy of the rocket attack on the university.

If that was the rebels (*cough* Israel-backed insurgency effort) handywork  the stakes have been raised ie. Rebel firepower, and the munitions they're obtaining now, as supplied by it's master.
 

Despite his saber-brandishing, the Israelis weren't overwhelmingly displeased with the Assad regime. There was stability in that relationship. Israel certainly prefers a stable Assad regime to a fundamentalist Islamist regime. Considering the ambiguous nature of the Syrian rebels (who's Islamist and who's not?), I don't buy that the Israelis are pulling the strings. As if any rebels would accept support from Israeli, Islamist or otherwise.

Re: that last sentence, the perception that any rebel group (in an attempt at a forced regime change)  would never accept help from israel, irrespective of their religious alignment.

Are you sure about that. The NCRI (with its miliatant arm MEK) have accepted assistance from Israel for years ie. Financial backing, sharing of intel concerniing iran's nuclear energy program, and most importantly.diplomatic backing (MEK's removal from the terrorist org list was orchestrated by Israel, after NCRI presented presented the US a cache of intel on the said nuclear programme).

To put it simply: Israel have form, its strategists use proxy forces to try and undermine a regime deemed to not be 100% playing ballwith them. Hell, Israel enjoyed an amicable relationship with Iran in the 80's (trade, including the sale of arms to Iran) with Khomeni, and then it went sour. The wind can change swiftly with this lot/Israel, and a divide & conquer seems to be the desired strategy.

A rag-tag resistance group, meaning the NCRI are now viewed, by the US and Israel, to be the viable political alternative in Iran. The removal of MEK (who carried out massacres of kurds, and ran one of suddam's prisons) from the Terror List legitimises this claim. Thats a significant achievement for a group that has been a gun-for-hire in the region, and have been responsible for carryiing out human rights violations/war crimes. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 16 January 2013, 05:49:52 PM
MEK hasn't been militarily operational for a decade though. I should have clarified, I was referring exclusively to Syrian rebel groups. I don't think there's any desire on the part of Israel to back any of the rebels, nor are too many Syrian rebels keen on accepting help from the Israelis. They're much more likely to look for help from the Saudis, Qataris, and Jordanians (and probably even the Americans).
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tyson on Thursday 17 January 2013, 04:50:29 AM
MEK hasn't been militarily operational for a decade though. I should have clarified, I was referring exclusively to Syrian rebel groups. I don't think there's any desire on the part of Israel to back any of the rebels, nor are too many Syrian rebels keen on accepting help from the Israelis. They're much more likely to look for help from the Saudis, Qataris, and Jordanians (and probably even the Americans).

Joint effort though, re: the backing of the Syrian rebels. Israel have a vested interest in seeing a Sunni-led overthrow of Assad, and the United States continue to bend over backwards for the Israelis - as their foreign policy in the region is geared towards serving Israel's interests. The Israel Lobby (in the area of influence over US middle-east policy) has more power in Washington than the Energy/Oil interest groups. It's not in the energy companies' interests, nor the US economy's best interest, to have Iran threatening to pull the 'fuel trigger' by cutting production everytime the US pushes it's weight around in the region.

The weakening of Hezbollah is a nice consolation prize for Israel - it's just about on par with orchestrating a regime change in Iran (hence Israel supporting NCRI). As inferred with the NCRI-Israeli link, a precedent has already been set re: Israeli strategists using foreign proxies to undermine a stable/entrenched government.

On to Hezbollah, and they're are the only cross-border groundforce whom Israel's military strategists fear.

With that mind the Syrian uprising (along with the potential ousting of Assad, to be replaced by a west-backed Sunni ruling body) weakens Hezzbollah in two ways.
 
1.Hezbollah loses it's only diplomatic allie in their immediate (crossborder) vicinity, and Assad has been a middleman in the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria alliance. An overthrow of Assad (a Sh'ia) would be losing a vital cog in that alliance, geographically in particular. So Hezbollah then becomes isolated, with Sunni 'enemy' controlled territory driving a wedge between themselves and Iran.

2.Hezbelloh getting dragged into the conflict (just by overseeing so-called security measures, for Assad, along the Lebanese/Syrian Frontier - against Sunnis) marginalises them in their own homeland, where there is an established Sunni powerbase within the Lebanese government. The relationship between Hezbollah and the ruling government is a marriage of convenience at best.

So the conflict itself isolates them in two ways, and i'm sure Parky/Indi etc will elaborate further, or dispute . The loss of a genuine  diplomatic (and spiritual) supporter, outside Iran's Mullahs is a body blow. As alluded to earlier they become isolated domestically too, as their involvement opens old wounds in Lebanon circa the cival war days. 'Alive & well' Anti-Shia sectarianism is good for business, in the eyes of Israeli expansionist interests. In this case, the weakening of a feared (and begrudgingly respected) cross-border armed/resistance force.

The blunting of what has been a thorn in the Zionist movement (ie. Hez) would ring as sweet music to an ultra-right (expansionist) governing coalition featuring Likud & *Lieberman's mob - *imho, the most dangerous man in the region. Why confront a strong & focused Hezbollah again (in Southern Lebanon, on Hez's terms re:guerilla warfare), only to get turned around with their tails between their legs. Another factional blow-out in Lebanon (thanks to a Syrian spill-over into Leb), thus reigniting longstanding factional divisions in Leb, equates to a weakened & distracted Hezbollah force.  This is a big strategic plus for an increasingly hawkish Israeli thinktank, in that Hezbollah would be ripe for picking-off & ultimately Southern Lebanon is again available for the taking. In history says that chunk of land is up for grabs, at least where expansionist Israeli governments are concerned.

Divide & conquer from within, by launching a molotov cocktail into a fireworks factory. Of course Israel has plenty to gain out of this factional based infighting inside Syria (including a potential spill-over into Lebanon).


Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 24 March 2013, 08:57:53 PM
Rumours flying around of an attempt on Assad's life by one of his bodyguards.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 24 March 2013, 09:31:59 PM
Rumours flying around of an attempt on Assad's life by one of his bodyguards.

 :pokerface:  *Awaits inevitable posting from snopes.com*
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Sunday 24 March 2013, 09:35:33 PM
`Assad in Syria Shot Dead, Israel Fires into Syria, skirmishes on the boarder! `

still rumours...atmo
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Monday 25 March 2013, 09:00:04 PM
:lol:

all bollocks by the way
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Craig-NUFC on Wednesday 17 April 2013, 11:50:26 PM
Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on Syria is a good watch. Consists of footage filmed in a couple of villages, one occupied by rebels and the other by the Syrian army, showing both sides and not giving much of a commentary, letting the people give their story. Pretty nasty in parts seeing the human element to it, as you would expect.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Wednesday 17 April 2013, 11:59:47 PM
Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on Syria is a good watch. Consists of footage filmed in a couple of villages, one occupied by rebels and the other by the Syrian army, showing both sides and not giving much of a commentary, letting the people give their story. Pretty nasty in parts seeing the human element to it, as you would expect.

Yeah was interesting.

The whole thing's just tragic.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Monday 6 May 2013, 02:47:51 PM
So it seems that it's the rebels that have actually been using Sarin, not the government - well according to the UN - wonder how that affects things? It just adds to my feeling that there's a whole load of dodgy s*** going on behind the scenes in Syria and a whole load of outside influences poking their noses in and pulling strings, we will probably never know the actual truth about what's going on. Both sides (if there is actually only two) seem to have done awful things and it's really hard to know who the "good" guys are apart from the innocent Syrian civilians caught up in the middle of this who will undoubtedly pay the highest price and almost certainly get the least out of the end result.

It's times like this that show just how terrible place the world can be, the human race has this unjustifiably high opinion of itself as a civilised group of beings, well we're not, we're probably the least civilised organism on this planet.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Hudson on Tuesday 7 May 2013, 12:11:33 AM
Wonder how the rebels manged to get hold of sarin.
Not the sort of weapon you buy on the black market
Title: The Destruction of damascus and war in the med
Post by: womblemaster on Friday 17 May 2013, 09:07:13 AM
I have a feeling that the uk could get sucked into this one.....

Russia and Israel could end up fighting over syria....whcih means pretty much every country in the world taking a side.

http://rt.com/news/russian-pacific-fleet-mediterranean-374/

Obama could use ww3 as an excuse to survive being ousted from the whitehouse....as washington turns on his ass.

`hes going to provoke war`
Title: Re: The Destruction of damascus and war in the med
Post by: Northerngimp on Friday 17 May 2013, 09:08:18 AM
I thought Russia had come to an agreement with the US??
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 May 2013, 11:36:36 PM
Russia is going to send advanced weapons to Syria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/israel-warns-russia-against-arming-syrian-rebels
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Wednesday 29 May 2013, 12:37:02 AM
Yay, it's a good old fashioned arms race!!
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 29 May 2013, 10:19:56 PM
Israel have backed down now and trying to smooth things over with the Russians. Delegations are in Moscow. America probably told them off for saying they might attack a russian ship or whatever they were cooking up...
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Saturday 1 June 2013, 12:08:20 PM
Turns out they're not getting the missiles till next year. Drat.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Destruction of damascus and war in the med
Post by: womblemaster on Sunday 16 June 2013, 05:20:26 AM
predictable stuff.  Obama wants to see this happen to israeli children too, thats his goalin the middle east.

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/u-s-backed-obama-supported-fsa-syrian-rebels-massacre-an-entire-christian-village/
Title: Re: The Destruction of damascus and war in the med
Post by: Parky on Sunday 16 June 2013, 10:02:54 AM
Obama only gets to decide the Whitehouse menu bro.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 17 July 2013, 03:58:12 PM
america continues to prep for war.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama-seize-internet-emergency/2012/07/11/id/445083
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Wednesday 17 July 2013, 07:33:48 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZLTkMYg4zbI
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 17 July 2013, 10:21:01 PM
Hasn't quite gone how they wanted it in Syria mind...
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 24 July 2013, 06:20:32 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-russia-intend-to-arm-sides-in-syria-2013-7#ixzz2ZunzEkWR


hate to say it but am starting to admire russia for opposing obama.  Its clear imo hes a fraud of apresident and is undermining democracy at home and abroad.  No longer can amaerica be portrayed a gleaming knight on a shiney white horse.....its all just a fraud!

ram vs goat war coming soon....
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 24 July 2013, 09:27:42 AM
Hasn't quite gone how they wanted it in Syria mind...

Cant go directly in themselves, start reveolution, hope it gains momentum and topples the existing gov...fails to happen, send weapons, if that fails...claim human rights infringements and send troops in.  Turn Syria into a western style state open for trade.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: B-more Mag on Wednesday 21 August 2013, 04:21:39 PM
New allegations of chemical attacks by the Assad regime. Shameful, if true.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: icemanblue on Wednesday 21 August 2013, 04:37:48 PM
:lol: I'm not knocking your use of words here, but that was an amusing contrast to five minutes spent in the football section. There, far stronger words are used to convey someones dismay at Pardew's latest quotes on transfers. Here, 'shameful' is used to describe a chemical weapons attack on a nations own people.

It's horrific, obviously. Genuinely awful.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 21 August 2013, 05:25:54 PM
Very specious to think the US started these revolutions, and typical of armchair conspiracy theorists who have likely never encountered that part of the world.  Reality is that the Syrian establishment is f***ing brutal (and of course some thugs have piggybacked on the opposition).

In 2011, seeing the other revolutions raging, perhaps, just perhaps the Syrian people had enough of the abuses of al Assad's regime.  FFS US imperialism doesn't explain everything.  It's a cop out argument every bit as stupid as the other side saying that al Qaeda hate us for our freedom.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 23 August 2013, 12:54:41 PM
Quote
For months, a group of dovish lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been fighting against U.S. military intervention in Syria. But after Wednesday's stunning allegations of a massive chemical weapons attack outside of Damascus, even some of these doves are beginning to reconsider intervention as images of lifeless children flash across TV screens.

"If it looks like this is the beginning of a long term chemical weapons campaign from Assad, even I would reevaluate whether the United States needs to step in," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told The Cable on Thursday.

In May, Murphy was the only senator to join Kentucky libertarian Rand Paul in support of a defeated amendment to prohibit weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels. He urged caution and spoke about the risks of intervention at the time. Now, he conceded, he may reconsider after a series of alleged nerve gas attacks that Syrian opposition forces say may have killed as many as 1,800 people. Eyewitnesses say many of the victims were children.

"If the Assad regime has begun a campaign of systematic chemical weapons attacks, clearly that's going to alter even my analysis," Murphy said.

And he isn't the only skeptic of intervention who's now opening the door to greater U.S. involvement

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), one of the House's most vocal opponents of arming the Syrian rebels, told The Cable on Thursday that he's now open to U.S. forces bombing the Syrian regime's chemical weapons delivery systems.

"I think we ought to look at ways of degrading Assad's chemical weapons use in the future," he said. "Some of the mechanisms Assad is using to deliver chemical weapons we could potentially take kinetic action against." ("Kinetic action" is the military euphemism for striking a target with bombs, missiles or other weaponry.)

Both lawmakers stressed their deep reluctance about further U.S. intervention in Syria and Murphy said he'd only consider it if there was clear evidence of a continued chemical weapons assault by Assad --- something that has yet to be proven. Still, Murphy and Schiff's sober reluctance stands in stark contrast to a groundswell of hawkish lawmakers clamoring for a strong response from the U.S. military in light of the alleged chemical attack.

"The U.S. has two options: continue to largely stand on the sidelines as the regime slaughters its own people, or tip the balance of power against a brutal dictator by degrading its ability to attack civilians," said Rep. Eliot Engel, the most senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on Wednesday. "If we are to salvage what remains of our credibility in the region, we must act soon."

Sen. John McCain echoed Engel's enthusiasm on Thursday, saying intervention in Syria could be done "easily."

"We can supply the right kind of weapons to rebels and to establish a no-fly zone by moving patriot missiles up to the border. This can be done very easily," McCain said.

As it stands, the Syrian opposition claims that authorities fired an onslaught of chemically-laced rockets on Wednesday killing between 1,000 and 1,800 people. The Assad regime calls the claims "absolutely baseless." On Thursday, a State Department official explained the difficulty of making any determination on the attack in a timely manner.

"At this time, we are not able to conclusively determine whether chemical weapons were used," the official told The Cable. "One of the problems is access - we have long called for full, unfettered access from the Syrian government."

Meanwhile, eyewitnesses on the ground have described the attack in the most harrowing of terms.

Razan Zaitouneh, an opposition activist in the town of Douma, told The Cable during a Skype conversation that when the attacks first came, she thought it was no big deal. Then she went to the local clinic. "Usually, when attacks like this happen, we see it's injured people, but usually very few. So when we got the news yesterday -- two after midnight - we thought it was the same thing," said Zaitouneh. "Then we got terrible, terrible news -- hundreds of people at the medical points. First time we see this much injured people."

"It was something different this time. They're not able to breathe. Eyes very red. Circles in the eyes very narrow. They cannot see very well. Their mouths, something comes out white,"  Zaitouneh added.

The victims had a range of symptoms. Some were in shock -- one little girl couldn't even recognize her own mother. A handful of others were convulsing. "The nurses, they're holding [live] bodies that were shocking. Moving without willingness. Their hands were moving without willingness," Zaitouneh remembered.

Convulsions, constricted pupils, blurred vision, and impaired breathing are all classic signs of nerve gas exposure.

Razan Zaitouneh stayed in touch with friends in nearby towns by phone; travel was impossible, she said, because "the regime was shelling everywhere." When she was finally able to leave and move to other towns, she began to see hundreds of people killed.

"The dead bodies -- this is the strange thing -- the dead bodies, there were hundreds. And there were two kinds." The first continued to have foam come out of their mouths. "Another kind - blood came out from their mouths and noses."

But skepticism remains about the veracity of opposition claims.

"A major concern is the timing," former Defense Department intelligence analyst John McLeary wrote in an influential defense newsletter. A team of U.N. weapons inspectors is in Damascus with the permission of the Assad government, he noted. "The opposition has a strong interest in attracting the attention of the U.N. team, or any potential outside source of assistance, any way it can."

And while there have been dozens of videos allegedly taken from the attack and uploaded to YouTube, exactly what that footage shows is unclear. American intelligence officials and outside experts believe they show the tell-tale signs of some sort of nerve gas attack. But they can't be sure.

"There are pictures, lots of video, lots of primary information as well but we are still trying to make sense of it," said Rafal Rohozinski, the CEO of the SecDev Group, which is under contract from the State Department to provide secure communications software to Syrian activists and monitor social media there. "There are some aspects which are almost to picture-perfect and unexplained, like why so much information is getting out even though the zone itself is tightly controlled. It is really too early to make any assessments, but certainly there is more gray around this event  than most we have tracked in the past."

Yet amid the haze of confusion remains a desire by members of Congress, the White House and the State Department to do something. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. "If this truly was a massive chemical weapons attack, it's very serious," said Murphy. "But frankly ... the questions still remains: Will U.S. arms make the situation better or worse? I still argue that we can't definitively show it will make the situation better."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/congress_doves_rethinking_us_military_intervention_after_syria_s_chemical_attacks#.UhawieCEKJ8.twitter
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: themanupstairs on Friday 23 August 2013, 02:59:54 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 23 August 2013, 07:49:56 PM
???
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 23 August 2013, 07:54:21 PM
:lol:

a proponent of the use of chemical weapons, I take it?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 23 August 2013, 07:56:38 PM
Quote
U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have made a preliminary assessment that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to attack an area near Damascus this week and that the act likely had high-level approval from President Bashar al-Assad's government, according to U.S. and European security sources.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the assessment is preliminary and, at this stage, they are still seeking conclusive proof, which could take days, weeks or longer to gather.

President Barack Obama on Friday called the alleged attack, which rebels say killed between 500 and 1,000 civilians, a "big event of grave concern." But he stressed he was in no rush to embroil Americans in a costly new war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-crisis-intelligence-idUSBRE97M0UY20130823
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Friday 23 August 2013, 07:58:15 PM
So, that will have been a covert black ops and blame al-Assad then?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 23 August 2013, 07:59:48 PM
:lol: f*** off mate.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Sunday 25 August 2013, 01:33:58 AM
Quote
It seems likely that President Obama will bomb Syria sometime in the coming weeks.

His top civilian and military advisers are meeting in the White House on Saturday to discuss options. American warships are heading toward the area; those already there, at least one of which had been scheduled for a port call, are standing by. Most telling perhaps is a story in the New York Times, noting that Obama’s national-security aides are studying the 1999 air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for action in Syria.

In that conflict 14 years ago, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia, were being massacred by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. President Bill Clinton, after much reluctance, decided to intervene, but couldn’t get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, where Russia—Serbia’s main ally—was certain to veto any resolution on the use of force. So Clinton turned to NATO, an appropriate instrument to deal with a crisis in the middle of Europe.
The parallels with Syria are obvious. In this case too, an American president, after much reluctance, seems to be considering the use of force but can’t get authorization from the U.N. because of Russia’s (and China’s) certain veto. The pressures to act have swelled in recent days, with the growing evidence—gleaned not just from Syrian rebels but also from independent physicians’ groups and U.S. intelligence—that Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,000 civilians.

But where can Obama turn for the legitimacy of a multinational alliance? Nobody has yet said, but a possible answer is, once again, NATO—this time led perhaps by Turkey, the alliance’s easternmost member, whose leaders are very concerned by the growing death toll and instability in Syria just across their southern border.

The weapons that NATO used—and, more important, did not use—in Kosovo are also likely to appeal to President Obama. Clinton was insistent that no U.S. ground troops be sent to aid the Albanians and told his commanders to keep from losing a single American in the fight, if possible.

And so, the Kosovo campaign was, from America’s vantage, strictly an air war. (Just two U.S. servicemen were killed, and not in battle but in an Apache helicopter that crashed during an exercise.) The air war went on for what seemed, at the time, an eternity—78 days. More than 1,000 NATO planes (including the first Predator drones) flew a total of 38,000 combat sorties. The bombs—most of them dropped from altitudes of 10,000 feet and higher, to avoid air-defense batteries—seemed to have no effect on Milosevic’s actions until the final days of the campaign, and so NATO’s commanders kept adjusting and expanding the target list, which ranged from military bases, factories, and electrical power plants to individual Serbian tanks on the battlefield.

Bad intelligence led to a few horrific mistakes: the bombing of an Albanian caravan, which was confused with a Serbian convoy, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was thought to be a military relay station. In all, “collateral damage” over the 78 days killed an estimated 1,200 civilians.

In the end, though, the war was won. The strategic goals were to stop the fighting, force Milosevic to pull back his army, restore Kosovo as an autonomous Albanian enclave, and insert NATO troops—30,000 of them—as peacekeepers. All the goals were met.

During and after the war, many Republicans and some retired U.S. military officers lambasted Clinton for relying so heavily on NATO. They called it a war “by committee” and claimed that it could have been won much more quickly had America gone it alone. But Gen. Wesley Clark, who was NATO chief at the time, later argued in his book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat, that the multilateral approach was necessary for two reasons: to give the war legitimacy (especially given the lack of a U.N. resolution) and to counter whatever resistance the Russians might muster (in the end, Milosevic surrendered when he realized that, despite earlier promises, Moscow was not coming to his rescue).

Let’s say that Obama agrees that NATO could be the key force of an air campaign in Syria—and that enough NATO members agree to go along. (In Kosovo, every member of the alliance, except Greece, played some kind of role.) What would be the war’s objectives?

This is the crucial question of any military intervention. It should be asked, and answered, before a decision is made to intervene—along with a calculation of how much effort might be needed to accomplish those objectives and whether the cost is worth the benefit.

A few things are clear from Obama’s record as commander-in-chief: He tends to resist the use of military force. When he sees it as unavoidable, he tends to steer clear of grandiose objectives, and he demands that allied nations come along, even take the lead, especially if their interests in the conflict outweigh ours.

If Obama does use force in Syria, he will do so because of clear evidence that Assad’s regime has killed lots of civilians with chemical weapons. Two considerations will likely drive his decision, if it comes to that. First, he has drawn a “red line” on this issue, publicly, at least five times in the last year, and failure to follow through—especially after the latest revelations—would send confusing signals, at best, about U.S. resolve and credibility. Second, failure to respond would erode, perhaps obliterate, the taboo that the international community has placed on chemical weapons (especially nerve gas) since the end of World War I. I suspect that this factor may be more pertinent to Obama, who takes the issue of international norms very seriously.

So the No. 1 objective of a U.S. air campaign against Syria would be the seemingly limited one of deterring or preventing Assad’s regime from using chemical weapons again. However, Obama’s top generals and intelligence officers would likely tell him that they can’t do much to fulfill this mission. They probably don’t know where the remaining chemical stockpile is located, so they wouldn’t be able to destroy it. And the notion of using military force to deter some future action is a bit vague: It’s unclear whether it would have any effect on Assad. Obama would also have to specify the additional damage he’d inflict if Assad ignored the message, and he’d have to be reasonably sure ahead of time that that damage would be enough to deter him from taking the dare.

A more extravagant, but possibly more feasible, target of an air strike might be Assad’s regime itself—with the objective of destroying it or at least severely weakening it.

In an Aug. 5 letter to Congress, made public just this past week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a comment pertinent to this point. He said that if Assad’s regime were to topple, none of the myriad Syrian rebel factions are currently in a position to fill the power vacuum. Nor, if any of these factions did come to power, do they seem inclined to promote U.S. interests. For that reason, he expressed skepticism about the good of taking the side of a particular rebel faction or, presumably, sending its fighters more arms.

However, Dempsey also said in this letter that U.S. military intervention could tip the balance against Assad in the Syrian civil war—by, among other things, destroying his military assets and infrastructure as well as reducing the flow of arms from Iran, Russia, and others.

President Obama seemed on the same page when he said, during an interview aired this weekend on CNN, that while the Syrian situation is “troublesome,” his job as president is “to think through what we do from the perspective of … national interests.” He added, “Sometimes what we’ve seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

But Obama also said that if the evidence clearly shows that Assad has used chemical weapons “on a large scale,” that would “start getting to some core national interests … in terms of … making sure that weapons or mass destruction are not proliferating as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”
This marked the first time that Obama has mentioned “core national interests” in the context of Syria. It may signal rising pressures to do something—and, again, Kosovo, where Clinton switched his views on intervention dramatically, serves as an intriguing parallel.

In his letter, Gen. Dempsey wrote, “We can destroy the Syrian air force” but he also warned that doing so could “escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict.”

That would be the risk, and it’s the sort of risk that Obama is generally inclined to avoid. There have been some exceptions, most notably in Libya, where he concluded that the important thing was to get rid of Qaddafi and to let those on the ground—aided to some extent by the United States but more by allies with bigger stakes in the region—settle the aftermath.

This may be the position he takes in Syria, in consultation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other interested parties, which would play some role along with the NATO command. If he decides to use force, it’s the only position he could reasonably take. Given the threat, the humanitarian crisis, America’s standing in the region, and the importance of preserving international norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, the best option might be to destroy huge chunks of the Syrian military, throw Assad’s regime off balance, and let those on the ground settle the aftermath. Maybe this would finally compel Assad to negotiate seriously; maybe it would compel the Russians to backpedal on their support (as NATO’s campaign in Kosovo compelled them to soften their support for Milosevic). Or maybe it would just sire chaos and violence. But there’s plenty of both now, and there might be less—a road to some sort of settlement might be easier to plow—if Assad were severely weakened or no longer around.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/barack_obama_s_logic_for_bombing_syria_the_united_states_will_seek_to_put.single.html
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 25 August 2013, 08:06:27 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ez5r6nQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Sunday 25 August 2013, 10:07:29 PM
 :lol: and there is the middle east in a bite sized chunk
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Tuesday 27 August 2013, 08:36:00 AM
America wants a conflict, to deflect attention fromits economic collapse.

`Putin says “No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria” Condemns “War Rhetoric” `

Can they beat the Russians though?    imo NO

Its a worry that fool hague will sink hms Britiania, as a poodle lap dog of america.

DId ashley get around to nukeproofing st james park?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Tuesday 27 August 2013, 08:47:31 AM
:lol: and there is the middle east in a bite sized chunk

You can also add that Qatar is pro Muslim brotherhood and the rest of the GCC is against them, and he hasn't even factored in the Shiite/Sunni divide :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Tuesday 27 August 2013, 08:50:02 AM
So, that will have been a covert black ops and blame al-Assad then?

possibly, seems abit too obvious tho!

http://endtimeheadlines.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/false-flag-hacked-e-mails-reveal-washington-approved-plan-to-stage-syria-chemical-attack/

I would be very insulted if I was Russia, at such a transparent plot.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 27 August 2013, 08:54:58 AM
womblemaster, do you have any actual practical experience in the Middle East?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Tuesday 27 August 2013, 09:01:54 PM
America wants a conflict, to deflect attention fromits economic collapse.

`Putin says “No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria” Condemns “War Rhetoric” `

Can they beat the Russians though?    imo NO

Its a worry that fool hague will sink hms Britiania, as a poodle lap dog of america.

DId ashley get around to nukeproofing st james park?

No offence, but honestly, how the hell have you not been sectioned under the Mental Health Act yet?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:16:04 AM
A video claiming to offer proof that the chemical weapon attacks were a NATO ploy appeared on Storm Clouds Gathering along with links to documents that backed the claim up. The video went viral, about 48 hours ago. All links have been taken down, everywhere. But you can still find the documents in the Amazon cloud. For now.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/share?ie=UTF8&s=zS5O8dyGSyInqAm0xAWmsc#
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:18:45 AM
Quote
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush  and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite  enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:25:54 AM
That's an interesting link I posted above, going through some of it now. A hacked e-mail account from Britam reveals the following...

Quote
Phil

We've got a new offer.  It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous.  Your opinion? 

Kind regards
David
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:53:58 AM
more fraud exposure:

http://www.livetradingnews.com/un-official-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-assads-army-6636.htm
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:55:02 AM
America wants a conflict, to deflect attention fromits economic collapse.

`Putin says “No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria” Condemns “War Rhetoric” `

Can they beat the Russians though?    imo NO

Its a worry that fool hague will sink hms Britiania, as a poodle lap dog of america.

DId ashley get around to nukeproofing st james park?

No offence, but honestly, how the hell have you not been sectioned under the Mental Health Act yet?

Easy!  my guardian angels wouldnt let em in the front door!

:P
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 11:22:52 AM
That's an interesting link I posted above, going through some of it now. A hacked e-mail account from Britam reveals the following...

Quote
Phil

We've got a new offer.  It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous.  Your opinion? 

Kind regards
David

The Daily Mail published that email back in January, and printed this retraction in April.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2311199/Britam-Defence-David-Goulding-Philip-Doughty.html

Quote
An article on 29 January reported allegations on the internet that the US Government had backed a plot to launch a chemicals weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.
The reports made reference to an email said to have been from David Goulding, the Business Development Director of Britam Defence, to company founder, Philip Doughty. The email had been published on the internet after Britam’s computer system was illegally hacked in Singapore. It referred to a proposal that Britam would deliver chemical weapons to Syria for enormous financial reward and suggested that the directors were willing to consider the illegal proposal.
We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity.
We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.

Of course 'they' would say that ;)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 11:40:02 AM
more fraud exposure:

http://www.livetradingnews.com/un-official-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-assads-army-6636.htm

Quote
Testimony from victims now strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian  government, that used Sarin Nerve Gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior UN diplomat said Monday.

Now this is an interesting piece of deliberate deception, isn't it.  Those quotes are from May and don't refer to the recent attack at all.  I suppose the article doesn't say how recent or which Monday, but obviously anyone reading a story dated yesterday would assume it meant this Monday and the mass-casualty attack of last week. But then she gave the interview on a Sunday anyway.  Here's the original story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 01:30:18 PM
Mr. Logic AND womble? Have I accidentally stumbled into the tin foil hat thread?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 01:32:39 PM
Quote
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush  and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite  enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

What a terribly myopic and simplistic understanding of the Syrian conflict.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 08:41:13 PM
This is true, Deuce.  To equate all rebels with al Qaeda is not only inaccurate, it's insulting to the people who stood up in the beginning and peacefully protested, and got slaughtered for their efforts.  It's the specious reasoning of if you are against Assad, then you support al Qaeda.  The 1's and 0's principle.

But I believe the policy makers have a horrible misunderstanding of the situation as well.  Their Kosovo example is an utter s*** one, and wasn't nearly effective as they claim.  As one man said, "it's the psychopathic marriage of coercive diplomacy with limited precision bombing."

Caught between the hammer and the anvil on this one.  Since a red line was drawn, their reasoning will be something has to be done.  But doing something for the sake of something needing to be done doesn't mean it's a wise decision. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 08:47:53 PM
Fwiw, I'm against military action being taken.

I understand the need to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. But it's also not as if the rest of the world would read inaction on the part of the U.S. as tacit approval for using CWs.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Miercoles on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:10:46 PM
Deuce, get your s*** together man, if there's anything this country needs it's more wars in the middle east. Let's go America!!! :icon_salut:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Wednesday 28 August 2013, 10:14:25 PM
Good luck guys  :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: chicago_shearer on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:09:19 AM
Politically, nobody has any tolerance for actually doing anything. Which would probably involve, at a minimum, flying air sorties over their dangerous air defense systems or boots on the ground.

So what's the point of chucking cruise missiles at them? Who is it going to stop and who is it going to save?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:52:43 AM
Politically, nobody has any tolerance for actually doing anything. Which would probably involve, at a minimum, flying air sorties over their dangerous air defense systems or boots on the ground.

So what's the point of chucking cruise missiles at them? Who is it going to stop and who is it going to save?

It's to save face. They can't realistically believe air strikes would deter Assad from employing his arsenal again.

If this does have to happen, and all indications are that it will, let it be short and limited.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 02:01:06 AM
Recent history suggests that it is not going to deter him at all.  It's all doing something for the sake of doing something, and to save face since a line was drawn.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 02:01:30 AM
Good luck guys  :lol:

We'll drag you all down with us.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Thursday 29 August 2013, 07:47:02 AM
COuld this be the real agenda of america?

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/28/obama-will-advance-islam-by-attacking-syria/#comments
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: icemanblue on Thursday 29 August 2013, 09:09:04 AM
No, mate.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ian W on Thursday 29 August 2013, 09:10:55 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:45:24 AM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:57:06 AM
No matter who was in gov they would be all for millitary action.  its already been decided, just stupid democracy *cough in the way.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Thursday 29 August 2013, 12:01:20 PM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.

So should we get involved?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 29 August 2013, 12:02:36 PM
Its already decided...we dont have a say
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 12:37:00 PM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.

So should we get involved?

Along with the UN yes just us backing America no
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:08:41 PM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.

So should we get involved?

Along with the UN yes just us backing America no

Given the Russian stance would we ever get UN backing though?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:10:02 PM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.

So should we get involved?

Along with the UN yes just us backing America no

Given the Russian stance would we ever get UN backing though?

There's no way a UNSCR goes through. The U.S. has all but given up on seeking one too.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:12:16 PM
So Labor won't support military action oh what a surprise and if it was the other way around and they were in power it would be Conservatives who would be against action.
There is never going to be absolute proof provided by the weapons inspectors that the bio weapons were used by the Government.

So should we get involved?

Along with the UN yes just us backing America no

Given the Russian stance would we ever get UN backing though?

There's no way a UNSCR goes through. The U.S. has all but given up on seeking one too.

The BBC actually had a decent article about the Russian perspective on this. Said that Russians believe it would lead to the growth of radical Islam in the area. Both sides have vested interests I feel.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:12:45 PM
The UN may crack, even Russia demanded that they allowed the weapons inspectors into the area.
Action will be taken soon though, won't be full out invasion but air strikes are on the way soon I think.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Thursday 29 August 2013, 01:16:03 PM
I wouldn't want to see us go any further than air strikes and even then that would be reluctantly with strong evidence.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 03:31:56 PM
What an utter waste of time and money these fkers are.. anyone watching this House Of Commons debate on BBC News ?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 29 August 2013, 04:03:01 PM
You actually want us to go to war?  I mean, seriously? ???
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 29 August 2013, 05:06:02 PM
Spoof Assad op-ed in The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/

Quote
So, What’s It Going To Be?
Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013
By Bashar al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.

I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.

Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Varadi on Thursday 29 August 2013, 07:07:18 PM
Interesting take on the current situation:

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2013/08/ugly-truth-behind-obamas-syria-plan

Quote
America's aims in Syria are not what the government wants you to think.

You can see the evidence in what action is being suggested. Jay Carney, the White House chief spokesman, yesterday categorically ruled out regime change as an objective. “The options that we are considering are not about regime change,” he said to the assembled White House press corps. “They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.” But the targeted strikes being proposed will only perpetuate the butchery – and that is what they are designed to do.

A true solution to the conflict in Syria would have been difficult and incredibly complex even two years ago. It would take a long time, and more money than would probably be palatable to either Britain or America. Solving this problem would mean attempting rapprochement between two factions whose hatred for each other is drenched in the blood of thousands and steeped in years of murder. It is probably impossible.

But nobody is even talking about a solution, and there's a reason for that.

America is not interested in regime change. Obama does not want to be a war-time president. Nor is he interested in the humanitarian argument for intervention for any more than rhetorical purposes. A cursory glance shows his 'red line' of the use of chemical weapons to be ridiculous. The death toll in Syria stands at more than a hundred thousand people. The rhetoric has been that Assad must be “punished” for the use of chemical weapons, but why? The tools used to reach this number are immaterial in the face of that horror. Who cares whether people were killed with shells, mortar or gas?

The truth is that evening the odds in Syria – which the West has already been doing, by drip-feeding supplies and weaponry to rebel forces – has turned a brief if bloody resolution into an interminable meat-grinder, in which no side has the decisive edge, and flattening out some more of Assad's tactical advantages will only maintain this grisly status quo.

Here is why that is attractive to the American government. At the moment, the conflict in Syria is acting as a sort of sump; collecting the resources of America's enemies in a confined space. It's a black hole for extremists. When Assad's army re-took the town of Qusayr in June, they were supported by Lebanese Hezbollah. Iran, too, is supporting him: the Independent on Sunday reported in June that a contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops would be sent to fight alongside Syrian government forces. Tehran has even threatened to strike at Israel should America attack Syria, a move which could start a disastrous chain of events.

On the other side, Jabhat Al-Nusra, widely regarded the most effective and disciplined rebel group fighting the Assad regime, is openly linked with Al-Qaeda; another jihadist affiliate, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a hugely powerful faction of the rebel Free Syrian Army.

As far as the White House is concerned, this is a zero-sum game. While these groups are spending money and resources fighting in Syria, the threat they pose to the West is greatly diminished. If Al-Qaeda is focussing on overturning Assad, it is not plotting the next 9/11; and it is even possible that it might be grateful to the US for even miserly airborne assistance. My enemy's enemy, so the saying goes, is my friend.

Obama and his advisers will also be calculating that victory for the rebels in Syria could allow anti-Western sentiment to resurface under an extreme Islamist regime. Another lesson from recent history: in Iraq, it was after Saddam was toppled that things went to hell in a handcart.

So that leads to the awkward conclusion: that a half-hearted airborne intervention in Syria is designed not to rock this deadly boat, but to steady it.

The situation for Putin is much the same. Perpetual civil war in Syria works almost as well for Russia as for the United States. Russia has enormous business ties with Assad's Syria – some 20 billion dollars worth, according to the Congressional Research Service, and they stand to lose this if Assad is toppled – as well as Russia's only military naval base outside of its borders, . But Syria is also a large-scale buyer of Russian arms; spending nearly five billion dollars in the four years to 2010, and that number has increased significantly since the conflict began, with Assad signing deals to buy advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and MiG-29 fighter jets in just the last few months.

More importantly, the Syrian conflict allows Putin to tighten political support at home in an era of increasing unrest and protest by increasing anti-American, and anti-Western sentiment. With Russia and the US implacable on the UN security council, no resolution is likely, however much Russian foreign ministers may bluster about “catastrophic consequences” if the US and its allies were to intervene.

Russia doesn't want the rebels to win, because it will lose its business and its naval base. America doesn't want the rebels to win because the state they will most likely form will be an extremist Al-Qaeda backed breeding-ground for terrorism, led by the Al-Nusra Front.

So Syria has become effectively a straw man, by tacit agreement of both Russia and America. And as long as the straw man continues to burn, neither side cares how many civilians are lost in the inferno.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 08:04:41 PM
You actually want us to go to war?  I mean, seriously? ???

Its not a case of going to war but do I think we should just stand by and watch no of course not, act alone NO but we need action of some kind with world support.

My son serves so war is not somewhere I want to see him go but the world cannot ignore what is happening.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 08:20:46 PM
I am seriously tired of all sides on the Syria argument (well, I should say the 1 or the 0 side). On one side, you have the 1: a saber-rattling group who happily jump the gun when not all is known what exactly happened with the sarin attack. On the other, you have the 2: a group that will invariably side with those against the US, claiming that the rebels are just as odious as the al-Assad regime.

Both sides can go f*** themselves. Yes, there are some horrible thugs who have piggybacked on the rebel cause (as they always do), but should it dilute the crimes that al-Assad's regime has committed? On the other hand, limited airstrikes have not exactly proven to be effective. The 3-day Kosovo salvo turned into a 78 day campaign.

I am dead certain that the Assad regime is more than capable of using chemical weapons, but on the other hand, there are those on the other side that would have no problem either. Let's really think about this:

1) What does al-Assad's regime have to gain from using chemical weapons, even though they have made major inroads in the past months.

2) Who benefits the most from this attack?

3) The Great War was a result of an arms race of the previous 20 years between the European powers. This arms race put the balance in an unstable equilibrium, and it just took a little fluctuation to set the world on fire. We are seriously getting close to this, and should weigh our options more carefully.

In this case, I would not be surprised if the US is being baited by some other power to do something incredibly rash, and could shatter the unstable equilibrium.

Having said all that, I would be more than happy to see al-Assad and his cronies get their comeuppance, which is more than deserved for their horrible crimes against their own people, but not at the expense of all-out war.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 08:22:27 PM
and if it's true that our source comes from the IDF...FFS
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 08:26:48 PM
Quote
It now seems virtually inevitable that the United States will be launching a military strike against the Syrian regime in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons. The contours of this planned strike seem increasingly clear, as well: several days of bombing of military targets and perhaps chemical weapons facilities. That means it should look a lot like Operation Desert Fox, the December 1998 airstrikes against alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sites, and not like the actions against Kosovo or Libya.

The rumored air strikes would drag the United States across a major threshold of direct military involvement, without any serious prospect of ending the conflict or protecting Syrian civilians (at least from non-chemical attacks). They likely would not accomplish more than momentarily appeasing the whimsical gods of credibility. The attack would almost certainly lack a Security Council mandate. Meanwhile, the response from Arab public opinion to another U.S. military intervention has been predictably hostile; even the very Arab leaders who have been aggressively pushing for such military action are refraining from openly supporting it. And nobody really believes that such strikes will actually work.

But it could be worse. The real test of the U.S. air strikes in Syria will be whether they preempt or accelerate moves toward an intervention aimed at regime change, which would drag the United States inexorably into a quagmire. U.S. President Barack Obama's manifest determination not to get pulled down that slippery slope and his understanding of the implausibility of a successful limited intervention suggest that he believes that he can resist allowing the air strikes to trap America in the Syrian civil war. Let's hope he's right.

The debate about Obama's Syria policy has too often been framed around the supposed existence of plausible options for ending the war through a limited military intervention -- if only the president showed more backbone. Nonsense. If there were easy options for ending Syria's bloodbath and delivering on the president's public aspiration to see President Bashar al-Assad gone, the administration would have taken them long ago. There are not.

Gen. Martin Dempsey's authoritative analysis of military options in response to Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) made painfully clear the Pentagon's understanding of the likely costs and risks of limited military intervention. None of those have changed in the last month. Indeed, this is one of the greatest differences from the run-up to Iraq: Instead of politicized intelligence minimizing the likely costs and risks of a war already decided on, Dempsey and the White House are honestly assessing and communicating the costs of a Syrian war. No wonder McCain is outraged.

Washington suffers no shortage of suggestions for getting more deeply involved in Syria's civil war. Over the last year and a half, I've read dozens of think tank reports and thousands of op-eds urging U.S. military intervention in some form, from no-fly zones to arming the opposition to air campaigns. Not one has made a remotely plausible case that these limited means will resolve the war in ways favorable to Syrians, the region, or America. The honest ones admit that limited intervention is a wedge toward mission creep (as if Iraq had not proven that full-scale intervention is bound to fail). The rest rely on an alarming series of best-case assumptions that fall apart on close inspection. Seriously, when was the last time any best case scenario actually materialized in the Middle East?

From what I've seen and heard in countless public and private settings over the last two years, Obama and his team have thoroughly examined all of these ideas and more. Their hesitation is based on a well-founded recognition of the implausibility of these proposals for limited intervention. And it's not like they haven't tried. The administration has spent many long months trying to engineer a viable Syrian opposition, pushing for a diplomatic process, jawboning erstwhile allies to stop working at cross-purposes by competitively funding local proxies, assessing the prospects of military options, and trying to plan for what comes next. Assad's presumed use of chemical weapons has transformed the demand for action, but not the strategic analysis underlying America's painful policy choices.

Obama is routinely lambasted for a failure to lead on Syria. In fact, he has been leading ... just not in the direction his critics would like to go. Washington remains wired for war, always eager to talk itself into another battle in the same basic ways: invocations of leadership, warnings of lost credibility, stark sketches based on worst-case scenarios of inaction and the best case scenarios for low-cost, high-reward action. Most presidents -- including a John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney -- would likely have long ago leapt to play the assigned role; the United States would already be hip deep in the Syrian civil war. But Obama has actually learned the real lessons of Iraq, the risks and costs, to America and to the world, of poorly conceived interventions abroad that never go quite as promised.

It came as a bit of shock, then, when the administration suddenly began moving toward military action this week, especially when pundits quickly grabbed onto Kosovo as a likely model for the impending campaign. Fortunately, the administration rushed to clarify that they did not in fact envision such plans. It has been reassuring to see their war plan aggressively communicated in terms of punitive strikes (which will presumably also take out the SCUD launchers and attack aircraft which have wreaked such bloody havoc on Syria's people) and explicit rejection of the goal of regime change. Every message coming out of the administration screams limited goals and warnings against mission creep.

But the administration's loud protestations of limited aims and actions are only partially reassuring. Much the same language was used at the outset of the Libya campaign. Everybody knows that it will be excruciatingly difficult for Obama to hold the line at punitive bombing after those strikes inevitably fail to end the war, Assad remains publicly defiant, the Geneva 2 diplomatic process officially dies, and U.S. allies and Syrian insurgents grumble loudly about the strike's inadequacy. Once the psychological and political barrier to intervention has been shattered, the demands for escalation and victory will become that much harder to resist. And what happens when Assad launches his next deadly sarin attack -- or just massacres a lot of Syrians by non-chemical means? This too Obama clearly knows. But that knowledge may still not be enough to save him.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/restraining_order_barack_obama_syria?page=0,0
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Thursday 29 August 2013, 09:55:02 PM
I'm very wary of us getting involved militarily in Syria for a number of reasons.

To start with I'm not sure that it would improve things and it certainly won't end the war, so what's the point?

However, the biggest concern for me is that a lot about what's going on in Syria doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think everything is exactly how it seems to be. I think that there's a s*** load of propaganda flying about the place from the many groups both within the country and around the world who have a vested interest in portraying the situation in a particular way to suit their own agenda. There's definitely a load of external forces manipulating and meddling in what's going on in Syria, including us, and there are many serious questions that remain unanswered. Who exactly is doing what and for what purpose? Given that question remains unanswered, I think it's seriously reckless for us to wade in like a bull in a china shop. What exactly are our motives in doing this and what evidence are we basing our opinions upon? You can bet your arse that the welfare of the Syrian people isn't actually high up the list of anyone's priorities.

I was there not that long before this all kicked off and Syria didn't seem like a country on the verge of an all-out civil war. I have a great affection for the country and particularly it's people, who are genuinely amazing, so I definitely don't want to see them suffer at the hands al Assad, but that doesn't mean I want to see them suffer at the hands of anyone else either, especially my own county. At the moment though, they're caught in the middle of all this and are suffering terribly. It seems pretty certain that a lot of people were killed or injured last week by a chemical attack and it's absolutely certain that an even bigger number have been killed and injured since this whole thing started by violence of all kinds, but who was responsible and what their motives were is unclear. Everyone is assuming that it was a government attack and it may well have been, but it's far from clear and there's a lot about that view that doesn't make sense. Why would the government finally allow the weapons inspectors into the country and then as soon as they got there launch a huge chemical weapons attack walking distance from their hotel? Why would the government who have been winning the war recently need to resort to chemical weapons and risk all the possible consequences of that when they could do much the same thing using conventional weapons and face no comeback whatsoever? It could all be a massive double-bluff I guess, but that's one hell of a risk to take and what exactly would be the benefit to the regime of doing it when they were winning anyway?

The only thing more preposterous than that would be if the rebels had done it themselves, although I guess that one faction might not be above sacrificing a few of another faction's people if they thought it would bring the west in on their side.

The only other alternative is that a 3rd party was responsible and normally that too would seem far-fetched, but who knows!?!

That sums it up for me really "...but who knows!?!" because I don't think anyone really does. I don't believe that us or the Americans know for certain, how could we? The only people who actually know are those who did it and my guess is they're not going to say.

So I think what I'm saying is that if David Cameron wants me to support his supposition that it was the government then I need more information to back that up than what he's giving at the moment.

If he were to provide that information, then I'm still not sure I'd support his plan of action as it currently appears to stand. I don't think that missile-strikes are going to help the Syrian people and end this war, they could well make things worse. So what someone needs to come up with is a plan that could actually make a difference and if someone did I think I'd probably support it regardless of the level of justification for getting involved.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: alexthegreat on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:13:32 PM
I think it's just a case of the side we want to win is getting beaten so now we are stepping in.

Some good stuff in this article:

Quote
Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all now have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the Cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic Republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.  Iran is Israel’s enemy.  Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy.  So there is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus.  Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing.  But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad.  Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we nightmared over.  And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf.  And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah.  But there you go.  Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982 in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”.  And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation.  “Hama Rules,” is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.  Anyway, there’s a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn’t even bring himself to say ‘boo’ when their elected president got deposed.

So what in heaven’s name are we doing?  After countless thousands have died in Syria’s awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths.  We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011.  And 2012.  But now?  Why?  Well, I suspect I know the reason.  I think that Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm.  With the assistance of the Lebanese Hizballah – Iran’s ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs.  Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government.  Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran.  And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.

And while we’re on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations John Kerry was boasting about?  While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up.  Israel’s Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan’s nightmare (a much more potent one than the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger:  that Palestine will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.

But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the ‘civilised’ world, it’s only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes.  To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure.  And the most shameful.  Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shiite Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims.  That’s what civil war is made of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-should-have-been-traumatised-into-action-by-this-war-in-2011and-2012but-now-8789506.html
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:19:44 PM
:anguish: can we please not do this

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:36:09 PM
Parliament votes against military action.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Wullie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:37:19 PM
Parliament has voted against, even in principle.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:45:58 PM
Parliament votes against military action.

Belfast Mags :thup:'s this
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Wullie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:49:59 PM
Not surprised like, Iraq has made going to war in this sort of situation political suicide.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Varadi on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:50:31 PM
Parliament has voted against, even in principle.

Genuinely surprised.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Thursday 29 August 2013, 10:53:22 PM
Sanity prevails............For now.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:03:46 PM
Not surprised like, Iraq has made going to war in this sort of situation political suicide.

Yanks are going in though man, no question
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:04:41 PM
Now the UN can p*ss around for 10 years while thousands more die horrific deaths at the hands of that lunatic.

I wonder now though if this will force the USA into action.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:08:59 PM
Re: Iran...

Quote
Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said has passed many messages between America and the Islamic Republic of Iran during their 34-year long antipathy. He lobbied the Iranians on behalf of the United States to release detained American journalist Roxana Saberi, and eventually pardon three young hikers who were accused of spying in 2009. He also negotiated the release of both Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan and Mojtaba Atarodi, Iranians whom America had imprisoned for allegedly trying to export to Iran night-vision goggles and high-tech lab equipment, respectively.

It is hardly surprising then that the arrival on August 25th of the 72-year-old sultan for a three-day state visit in the same month as the inauguration of President Hassan Rohani (pictured on the right), a more moderate man than his predecessor, has sparked regional media speculation that he brings with him another message from the Americans.

Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper, quoted sources in Iran as saying that the trip was "not normal and does not fall under normal protocol". Bahar, a publication linked to Iran’s newly-empowered reformist bloc, reported that the sultan was visiting as a precursor to future talks between America and Iran to negotiate a deal on greater nuclear transparency in exchange for sanctions relief. Fararu, a reformist-leaning website, has suggested that a new back channel might be established between the two countries, to pave the way for discussions over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme as well as the crisis in Syria.

Iran’s foreign-ministry spokesperson at first denied that the sultan would bring word from the US, but the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, subsequently backtracked, saying that he would wait to see what the sultan might convey. Both America and Iran have softened their rhetoric since the election in June of a presidential candidate who campaigned on improving relations with the West. Iranians are demonstrating a rare cautious optimism that a deal, which would bring much-needed sanctions relief, might be at hand this time.

The sultan's trip coincided, meanwhile, with that of Jeffrey Feltman, a former US ambassador to Lebanon, who was visiting as an official of the UN to discuss Syria, and whom the Iranian press described as “the most senior American official to visit Iran since the revolution”. Mr Feltman reportedly trod the line between feeling out for Iranian help over Syria and encouraging calm in the event of an increasingly likely Western intervention against Bashar Assad.

Whatever the speculation over Sultan Qaboos’s trip, he will have had plenty to discuss with his Iranian hosts.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/08/iran


Quote
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic Republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable

And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.

Well, this is simply incorrect. The last thing the Obama Administration wants is to unseat the one guy who has openly displayed an interest in increasing dialogue and reducing tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:10:58 PM
Now the UN can p*ss around for 10 years while thousands more die horrific deaths at the hands of that lunatic.

I wonder now though if this will force the USA into action.


The problem is, we're quite happy on numerous occasions to sit around and do f*** all whilst other despots murder people on an industrial scale.

Chemical weapons are vile (and nobody should know that more than, say, the Vietnamese who were doused in them by the Americans on a near daily basis not so long ago), but then again, so is killing people with good old fashioned guns and bombs.

If we are going to have some kind of NATO or UN led interventionist approach, then it needs to stop being so selective, and the motives and reasons for doing so need to be made totally clear to us.

Why, for example, do we let Mugabe get away with it? Why are we appeasing the Egyptian army who seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how democracy works (key point being you don't just topple a democratically elected government just because you don't like them).

Why is the Assad regime any worse than, say, the Saudis or the Bahrainis or the many friendly Middle East governments we are happy to sell weapons to so they can suppress their own people? Or the Israelis, for that matter?

I just heard Paxman talking to Douglas Alexander, and making the very good point that maybe, people in this country are thinking about the last time we were led into war in a situation like this, and it turned out our own government had been lying and distorting the truth to us in order to make it happen.

It's hard not to think there is a certain amount of that going on.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:15:21 PM
Now the UN can p*ss around for 10 years while thousands more die horrific deaths at the hands of that lunatic.

I wonder now though if this will force the USA into action.


The problem is, we're quite happy on numerous occasions to sit around and do f*** all whilst other despots murder people on an industrial scale.

Chemical weapons are vile (and nobody should know that more than, say, the Vietnamese who were doused in them by the Americans on a near daily basis not so long ago), but then again, so is killing people with good old fashioned guns and bombs.

If we are going to have some kind of NATO or UN led interventionist approach, then it needs to stop being so selective, and the motives and reasons for doing so need to be made totally clear to us.

Why, for example, do we let Mugabe get away with it? Why are we appeasing the Egyptian army who seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how democracy works (key point being you don't just topple a democratically elected government just because you don't like them).

Why is the Assad regime any worse than, say, the Saudis or the Bahrainis or the many friendly Middle East governments we are happy to sell weapons to so they can suppress their own people? Or the Israelis, for that matter?

I just heard Paxman talking to Douglas Alexander, and making the very good point that maybe, people in this country are thinking about the last time we were led into war in a situation like this, and it turned out our own government had been lying and distorting the truth to us in order to make it happen.

It's hard not to think there is a certain amount of that going on.

well put, mate.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:17:53 PM
Now the UN can p*ss around for 10 years while thousands more die horrific deaths at the hands of that lunatic.

I wonder now though if this will force the USA into action.


The problem is, we're quite happy on numerous occasions to sit around and do f*** all whilst other despots murder people on an industrial scale.

Chemical weapons are vile (and nobody should know that more than, say, the Vietnamese who were doused in them by the Americans on a near daily basis not so long ago), but then again, so is killing people with good old fashioned guns and bombs.

If we are going to have some kind of NATO or UN led interventionist approach, then it needs to stop being so selective, and the motives and reasons for doing so need to be made totally clear to us.

Why, for example, do we let Mugabe get away with it? Why are we appeasing the Egyptian army who seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how democracy works (key point being you don't just topple a democratically elected government just because you don't like them).

Why is the Assad regime any worse than, say, the Saudis or the Bahrainis or the many friendly Middle East governments we are happy to sell weapons to so they can suppress their own people? Or the Israelis, for that matter?

I just heard Paxman talking to Douglas Alexander, and making the very good point that maybe, people in this country are thinking about the last time we were led into war in a situation like this, and it turned out our own government had been lying and distorting the truth to us in order to make it happen.

It's hard not to think there is a certain amount of that going on.


Oh I 100% agree, Darfur for one example of this selective UN/NATO action, they have needed help there for so long but are ignored by the rest of the world.

UN though are a waste of space cannot get an agreement on anything but so many countries behave in such a childish way towards each other.. won't back the US in any way, rather see thousands die than agree with America.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:20:00 PM
U.S. intel officials claim to have intercepted calls that prove the CW attack came from the Syrian Army

Quote
Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty f***ing stupid."

American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.

However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.

There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately -- or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the work of that team "redundant ... because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale."

But within the intelligence community, at least, "there's an interest in letting the U.N. piece run its course," the official said. "It puts the period on the end of the sentence."

When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn't even indentify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime's chemical weapon of choice.

Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. "Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn't be so much rocket left," the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.

In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria's horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story -- one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.

The official White House line is that the president is still considering his options for Syria. But all of Washington is talking about a punitive strike on the Assad government in terms of when, not if. Even some congressional doves have said they're now at least open to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Images of dead children, neatly stacked in rows, have a way of changing minds.

"It's horrible, it's stupid," the intelligence official said about the East Ghouta attack by the Syrian military. "Whatever happens in the next few days -- they get what they deserve."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:21:02 PM
Now the UN can p*ss around for 10 years while thousands more die horrific deaths at the hands of that lunatic.

I wonder now though if this will force the USA into action.


The problem is, we're quite happy on numerous occasions to sit around and do f*** all whilst other despots murder people on an industrial scale.

Chemical weapons are vile (and nobody should know that more than, say, the Vietnamese who were doused in them by the Americans on a near daily basis not so long ago), but then again, so is killing people with good old fashioned guns and bombs.

If we are going to have some kind of NATO or UN led interventionist approach, then it needs to stop being so selective, and the motives and reasons for doing so need to be made totally clear to us.

Why, for example, do we let Mugabe get away with it? Why are we appeasing the Egyptian army who seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how democracy works (key point being you don't just topple a democratically elected government just because you don't like them).

Why is the Assad regime any worse than, say, the Saudis or the Bahrainis or the many friendly Middle East governments we are happy to sell weapons to so they can suppress their own people? Or the Israelis, for that matter?

I just heard Paxman talking to Douglas Alexander, and making the very good point that maybe, people in this country are thinking about the last time we were led into war in a situation like this, and it turned out our own government had been lying and distorting the truth to us in order to make it happen.

It's hard not to think there is a certain amount of that going on.

Brummie lad :thup:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:23:18 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:25:30 PM
Incidentally, I don't agree with all of it, but this blog by Adam Curtis on intevention is very thought provoking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/goodies_and_baddies.html#orb-footer
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:26:37 PM
Brummie again :thup:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Skirge on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:26:58 PM
He might have played a blinder, I think he knew dam well he would lose this vote but he tried and now he can pass the unwanted ball the America and let them choose.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:27:52 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.
don't think it spells a sea change in the country though, just iraq and afghanistan are too current/recent, if syria was happening a decade after we'd pulled out of afghanistan we'd be in there on a wave of "we have to do something" like we have time and again.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:28:43 PM
I'm very wary of us getting involved militarily in Syria for a number of reasons.

To start with I'm not sure that it would improve things and it certainly won't end the war, so what's the point?

However, the biggest concern for me is that a lot about what's going on in Syria doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think everything is exactly how it seems to be. I think that there's a s*** load of propaganda flying about the place from the many groups both within the country and around the world who have a vested interest in portraying the situation in a particular way to suit their own agenda. There's definitely a load of external forces manipulating and meddling in what's going on in Syria, including us, and there are many serious questions that remain unanswered. Who exactly is doing what and for what purpose? Given that question remains unanswered, I think it's seriously reckless for us to wade in like a bull in a china shop. What exactly are our motives in doing this and what evidence are we basing our opinions upon? You can bet your arse that the welfare of the Syrian people isn't actually high up the list of anyone's priorities.

I was there not that long before this all kicked off and Syria didn't seem like a country on the verge of an all-out civil war. I have a great affection for the country and particularly it's people, who are genuinely amazing, so I definitely don't want to see them suffer at the hands al Assad, but that doesn't mean I want to see them suffer at the hands of anyone else either, especially my own county. At the moment though, they're caught in the middle of all this and are suffering terribly. It seems pretty certain that a lot of people were killed or injured last week by a chemical attack and it's absolutely certain that an even bigger number have been killed and injured since this whole thing started by violence of all kinds, but who was responsible and what their motives were is unclear. Everyone is assuming that it was a government attack and it may well have been, but it's far from clear and there's a lot about that view that doesn't make sense. Why would the government finally allow the weapons inspectors into the country and then as soon as they got there launch a huge chemical weapons attack walking distance from their hotel? Why would the government who have been winning the war recently need to resort to chemical weapons and risk all the possible consequences of that when they could do much the same thing using conventional weapons and face no comeback whatsoever? It could all be a massive double-bluff I guess, but that's one hell of a risk to take and what exactly would be the benefit to the regime of doing it when they were winning anyway?

The only thing more preposterous than that would be if the rebels had done it themselves, although I guess that one faction might not be above sacrificing a few of another faction's people if they thought it would bring the west in on their side.

The only other alternative is that a 3rd party was responsible and normally that too would seem far-fetched, but who knows!?!

That sums it up for me really "...but who knows!?!" because I don't think anyone really does. I don't believe that us or the Americans know for certain, how could we? The only people who actually know are those who did it and my guess is they're not going to say.

So I think what I'm saying is that if David Cameron wants me to support his supposition that it was the government then I need more information to back that up than what he's giving at the moment.

If he were to provide that information, then I'm still not sure I'd support his plan of action as it currently appears to stand. I don't think that missile-strikes are going to help the Syrian people and end this war, they could well make things worse. So what someone needs to come up with is a plan that could actually make a difference and if someone did I think I'd probably support it regardless of the level of justification for getting involved.

The powers placing the pieces on the Risk board are in an unstable equilibrium.  Obviously you can't say it's like 100 years ago, but as soon as they place themselves in this unstable equilibrium and start to rattle their sabers through mobilization, it just takes a little fluctuation to set everything on fire.  This is exactly what happened in the Great War.  And in many ways, the Syria conflict is just a continuation of this.  The French Mandate and the British line drawing f***ed a lot of this s*** up, put willing minorities in power, and threw conflicting groups under them.  Of course the willing minorities have to fight tooth and nail to keep their power for fear of later reprisal.

Then to add to this Gordion Knot, the US gets involved at the dawn of the Cold War.  Unconditional support for an increasingly belligerent Israel, expansion of worldwide military bases, etc... Since we are putting ourselves precariously in that unstable equilibrium, it's time to learn lessons from the past, and weigh the consequences carefully.  But will it be done?  Or will the dick waving just intensify?

My fear however is that foreign policy has a 15-second memory, unless you are the victim, in which it has a 2000 year memory.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:30:44 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.

Having nuclear weapons to bring to the table means that are a bit more than a middle level European power.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:37:14 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.

Having nuclear weapons to bring to the table means that are a bit more than a middle level European power.

It isn't an independent nuclear deterrent, though, is it?

It is American technology which we are entirely dependent on the Americans to use, to service and to operate.

And if you're using that as an entry requirement for the Security Council, I hope you'll do the same when the North Koreans and Iranians suggest they deserve a place, too.

Oh, and the Israelis, the Indians and the Pakistanis, too.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:41:22 PM
The whole point of acquiring nuclear weapons is to get a seat at the proverbial table. As long as you have them, your profile is raised.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:44:13 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.

Having nuclear weapons to bring to the table means that are a bit more than a middle level European power.

It isn't an independent nuclear deterrent, though, is it?

It is American technology which we are entirely dependent on the Americans to use, to service and to operate.

And if you're using that as an entry requirement for the Security Council, I hope you'll do the same when the North Koreans and Iranians suggest they deserve a place, too.

Oh, and the Israelis, the Indians and the Pakistanis, too.

problem for them is that club is now closed.  Should have had nukes before the non-proliferation treaty.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:45:10 PM
The whole point of acquiring nuclear weapons is to get a seat at the proverbial table. As long as you have them, your profile is raised.

In the past, maybe, but I wonder if some of the current or aspiring nuclear powers would be welcomed to the top table.

Military power is much more useful in terms of being able to put troops on the ground, quickly, anywhere you like in the world than it is about the power to launch nuclear weapons these days.

For example, which would be most useful if we ever got into a Falklands War with Argentina again? Clearly nuclear weapons would provide absolutely nothing. Our inability to put our hands on aircraft carriers and troops would have way, way more effect.

Any involvement with Syria would mean launching the odd cruise missile from a sub somewhere in the med, and that'd be it. We simply do not have the military power to do anything more than that and also see out our other commitments.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:46:26 PM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.

Having nuclear weapons to bring to the table means that are a bit more than a middle level European power.

It isn't an independent nuclear deterrent, though, is it?

It is American technology which we are entirely dependent on the Americans to use, to service and to operate.

And if you're using that as an entry requirement for the Security Council, I hope you'll do the same when the North Koreans and Iranians suggest they deserve a place, too.

Oh, and the Israelis, the Indians and the Pakistanis, too.

problem for them is that club is now closed.  Should have had nukes before the non-proliferation treaty.

What if they're not signed up to the non profileration treaty? Like India, Pakistain and maybe North Korea and Iran?

They'd still have nuclear weapons.

The fact we have them too is, in a post cold war era, not really that important.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:49:05 PM
It is if you want to be on the Security Council.  That is the elite club, man.

Having said that, Iran having nukes is a great bargaining chip for them.  If I were them, I'd certainly want that chip.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:53:05 PM
which is also an important point about the nukes.  As long as any nuclear power has an arsenal, it becomes harder to bully them using the threat of force. 
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: chicago_shearer on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:55:04 PM
Not surprised like, Iraq has made going to war in this sort of situation political suicide.

Yanks are going in though man, no question

You say that, but Obama doesn't seem interested in this and the right wing in this country have turned from neocon to isolationist.

I think this decision by Parliament may put the brakes on things.

Give peace a chance. Or not peace since people are dying horribly. But not bothering. Give that a chance.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:55:06 PM
It is if you want to be on the Security Council.  That is the elite club, man.

Having said that, Iran having nukes is a great bargaining chip for them.  If I were them, I'd certainly want that chip.

But it isn't is it, because there are plenty of nuclear states who are not in the security council.

That was my point - we are in there not because we are a nuclear power today, but because we were 50 odd years ago.

The security council is an anachronism. Nobody in their right mind could suggest that Britain or France are still two of the most diplomatically and militarily important countries on the planet in any sense other than them being on the security council.

Why, for example, isn't Germany on it? They are a nation far, far more important than us these days.

Or, even if you could suggest Britain and France are number 4 and 5 in the world, the sad fact is that it means absolutely nothing whatsover these days. Geopolitically there isn't any real power attached to it.

Could we even put together an armed force to take part in ground operations in Syria if it was ever proposed? No. Do we have any sway over the Americans beyond "we need at least someone to support us"? No, not really. Our entire role is to legitimise the Americans doing what they want to do.

If having nuclear weapons makes us more than a middle ranking European power then, by that definition, security council member or not, we've got to admit that power to several other countries, too.

We're a small country, with a highly professional but very small army, and a nuclear deterrent which is both increasingly irrelevant, and entirely dependent on the Americans. Unfortunately, because we have a long, imperial history, we've spent every year since 1945 trying to live up to an image which doesn't match reality.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:56:11 PM
which is also an important point about the nukes.  As long as any nuclear power has an arsenal, it becomes harder to bully them using the threat of force. 

Do you think Assad is going to let the fact that Britain has nuclear weapons affect his reasoning if we threaten military action?

Of course he won't. Nuclear weapons don't even come into the equation.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:56:38 PM
The whole point of acquiring nuclear weapons is to get a seat at the proverbial table. As long as you have them, your profile is raised.

In the past, maybe, but I wonder if some of the current or aspiring nuclear powers would be welcomed to the top table.

Military power is much more useful in terms of being able to put troops on the ground, quickly, anywhere you like in the world than it is about the power to launch nuclear weapons these days.

For example, which would be most useful if we ever got into a Falklands War with Argentina again? Clearly nuclear weapons would provide absolutely nothing. Our inability to put our hands on aircraft carriers and troops would have way, way more effect.

Any involvement with Syria would mean launching the odd cruise missile from a sub somewhere in the med, and that'd be it. We simply do not have the military power to do anything more than that and also see out our other commitments.

Nuclear power is still not something that can be ignored, even if the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used has shrunk in recent years. The most destructive weapon ever devised is, as Quakes said, a massive bargaining chip, particularly for states who aren't otherwise taken seriously (i.e. North Korea). In the case of Pakistan, that country's stability and security is paramount, more so than any other in the regime, simply due to the potential of their nuclear arms to fall into the "wrong" hands.

I'm not surprised the UK is pulling back. Getting the Brits involved was only ever about legitimacy, not capability. The U.S. would be doing the heavy-lifting regardless of whether or not the UK came along.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:57:38 PM
No, but at the same time, if al-Assad had a nuclear arsenal, would we really even be talking about airstrikes?  And Pakistan is not exactly a good example, because they have been on the surface working with us at least.  But even then, the US was playing a seriously dangerous game.

I see what you're saying.  I'm just saying that the UK's power, although greatly attenuated, still shouldn't be dismissed, because they do have that bargaining chip.  When it comes to localized conflicts, it won't make much difference.  But when you start seeing all the pieces on the Risk board, it makes a load of difference.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Thursday 29 August 2013, 11:59:43 PM
There was hardly any likelihood of nuclear weapons being used during the cold war, even.

Yes, the Cuban missile crisis was pretty close, but other than that, 45 years of not really coming close to it.

There is even less likelihood now.

In which circumstances could Britain ever use nuclear weapons in the world of today? When was the last time they were used as a bargaining chip? In which of the armed struggles we've been involved in since WW2 have nuclear weapons even come into it?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:01:19 AM
No, but at the same time, if al-Assad had a nuclear arsenal, would we really even be talking about airstrikes?  And Pakistan is not exactly a good example, because they have been on the surface working with us at least.  But even then, the US was playing a seriously dangerous game.

My point re: Pakistan was that they cannot be ignored, not because of the threat of them using nuclear weapons, but because of the immense potential for instability which could see their nuclear arsenal be captured by some other element.

Take Pakistan's nuclear weapons away and it's a far less important country geopolitically (save for the fact that it's next to Afghanistan and India).
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:01:22 AM
No, but at the same time, if al-Assad had a nuclear arsenal, would we really even be talking about airstrikes?  And Pakistan is not exactly a good example, because they have been on the surface working with us at least.  But even then, the US was playing a seriously dangerous game.

he hasn't, but Britain having a nuclear deterrent wouldn't come into it.

Do you think we'd have any lattitude whatsoever to act on our own behest and threaten to use our own nuclear weapons? Of course we wouldn't.

So, if Germany can get along without them, and Italy can, and Spain can, and France could if it tried, why can't we?

They're nothing more than a national penis extension, and a total waste of money.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:01:58 AM
No, but at the same time, if al-Assad had a nuclear arsenal, would we really even be talking about airstrikes?  And Pakistan is not exactly a good example, because they have been on the surface working with us at least.  But even then, the US was playing a seriously dangerous game.

My point re: Pakistan was that they cannot be ignored, not because of the threat of them using nuclear weapons, but because of the immense potential for instability which could see their nuclear arsenal be captured by some other element.

Take Pakistan's nuclear weapons away and it's a far less important country geopolitically (save for the fact that it's next to Afghanistan).

Pakistan is in a state of almost constant near war with its neighbouring state.

Where is Britain's similar situation?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:02:15 AM
There was hardly any likelihood of nuclear weapons being used during the cold war, even.

Yes, the Cuban missile crisis was pretty close, but other than that, 45 years of not really coming close to it.

There is even less likelihood now.

In which circumstances could Britain ever use nuclear weapons in the world of today? When was the last time they were used as a bargaining chip? In which of the armed struggles we've been involved in since WW2 have nuclear weapons even come into it?

1983-85 was considered a seriously close time, nearly as bad as the Cuban Missile crisis.  Didn't you hear the story about the radar glitch that a Russian commander reported?  It appeared like Russia was being attacked.  He was ordered to prepare for counterstrike, but refused.  He was later removed from his position.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:05:05 AM
ahh, that was his name.  Stanislav Petrov.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

pardon though.  He refused to report what he thought was a false alarm.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:07:25 AM
No, but at the same time, if al-Assad had a nuclear arsenal, would we really even be talking about airstrikes?  And Pakistan is not exactly a good example, because they have been on the surface working with us at least.  But even then, the US was playing a seriously dangerous game.

My point re: Pakistan was that they cannot be ignored, not because of the threat of them using nuclear weapons, but because of the immense potential for instability which could see their nuclear arsenal be captured by some other element.

Take Pakistan's nuclear weapons away and it's a far less important country geopolitically (save for the fact that it's next to Afghanistan).

Pakistan is in a state of almost constant near war with its neighbouring state.

Where is Britain's similar situation?

I understand where you're coming from. But the desire for nuclear weapons is more about perceptions and less about actual capability. For right or wrong, many states, particularly developing states, view nuclear weapons as a great equalizer in the international system. And that is what makes them relevant to this day.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:09:35 AM
This is all relevant, but at the same time, it's sort of beside the point.  Back on the topic of Syria...

s*** just got even more complicated :)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/syria-conflict-intensifies-as-bears-enter-war,33659/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:2:Default
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:22:16 AM
Not surprised like, Iraq has made going to war in this sort of situation political suicide.

Yanks are going in though man, no question

You say that, but Obama doesn't seem interested in this and the right wing in this country have turned from neocon to isolationist.

I think this decision by Parliament may put the brakes on things.

Give peace a chance. Or not peace since people are dying horribly. But not bothering. Give that a chance.

Yep. Obama has been extremely reluctant to let it get to this point (if the U.S. wanted to get involved, it wouldn't have tried so damn hard to avoid doing so the past 2 years).

The right-wing is saying 'no' simply because Obama is considering it. If he had come out steadfastly against any action being taken, they'd have sounded the war-horns and readied the chariots.

I don't think the decision by Parliament will have any effect on what the U.S. does or doesn't do. Getting the UK on board was only ever about legitimacy, however little would've been provided. If there's one thing the U.S. can take or leave, it's international legitimacy.


I'm actually not convinced that Obama doesn't have something else up his sleeve. The White House has been a leaky faucet all week, basically telegraphing every move they intend to make, down to which installations it intends to target and when. You don't do that if you're looking to do anything of significance.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: biggs on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:50:11 AM
just let the Yanks do it and we stay well clear
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: B-more Mag on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:44:04 AM
I get realpolitik and pursuing what's in our national or western interest. I get the moral charade of protecting the innocent from war crimes. And I sure as f*** get that we, America, have made our bed as the self-proclaimed leader of the "free" world, to police the globe on behalf of all of its good, just, and, god fearing people, and have to lie in that bed when it comes down to doing what we must regrettably do to fulfill our self-imposed moral duties. But, my god, wouldn't it be nice, for once, for us to f***ing be reserved, let others handle their own f***ing business, and let events play out? Naive, I know, but I f***ing tire of this.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ameritoon on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:55:19 AM
It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens from our perspective. Had we not gone into Afghanistan/War on Terror then I think we would've been active in this much sooner. But, we have a lot of interest in what happens in Syria and Iran, two of the huge players here and so there's no way they let it play out. Maybe Obama will just keep expressing disappointment in speeches and not do anything, I'm pretty convinced he's not interested in getting us physically involved here. Not only have we kind of gotten out of the area, he doesn't want to be the one who brings us back. If there's one thing that calls for it though, it's chemical weapons.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ronaldo on Friday 30 August 2013, 03:55:14 AM
just let the Yanks do it and we stay well clear

The mark of true humanity, just letting someone else help the weak at their weakest.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Incognito on Friday 30 August 2013, 06:57:49 AM
I agree, the Russian stance on things like this is frequently mental, but that's the UN security council, and it's a vehicle which has contributed hugely to peace for sixty years now.

We can't - or we shouldn't - start to ignore the requirements within the security council or the veto as used by the Russians or the Chinese just because we don't like it. Take that root and we'll have to start to accept that they can do it, as well.

There's another argument to be had re Britain's role in this, too. The only reason we have the say we do - ie a permanent member of the UN security council - is based on geopolitics which are six decades out of date. The same with the French.

We're a middle level European power with an army of, what, 90,000 people? We are not any longer a force in international politics and haven't been for years.

Sadly, every prime minister we have these days seems to have to have his own war or military intervention. I am a Labour Party member and the thought of Blair's behaviour in his urge to get his own war makes me want to vomit even now.

What happened with the vote in parliament this evening was very, very important, it is a vote which will have resonance way beyond the Syrian issue.

I agreed with Iraq at the time, changed my mind as it became evident that it was conducted on a bed of bullshit, but I wonder if we had gone there on the premise of punishment for the murder of thousands of Iraqi citizens with chemicals by Saddam, it would've been  more palatable?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Friday 30 August 2013, 08:26:02 AM
Advocating war under any circumstances can never be considered palatable. Escalating the Syrian conflict is insanity.

Unfortunately, we the common people, of all countries, can never know the truth of any situation. We know govts lie to us, we know the media are controlled. We don't know who pulls strings nor what their agendas may be.

I think it is safe to say there are a number, perhaps a great number, of functioning psycopaths in positions of power. That behind the scenes of any political drama there are various factions trying to influence the outcome. There is a power base that want to hold onto power, and there is money to be made in conflict. Some of these people wouldn't bat an eyelid if it meant the deaths of millions. No cost would be too great.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Incognito on Friday 30 August 2013, 08:43:33 AM
Advocating war under any circumstances can never be considered palatable. Escalating the Syrian conflict is insanity.

Unfortunately, we the common people, of all countries, can never know the truth of any situation. We know govts lie to us, we know the media are controlled. We don't know who pulls strings nor what their agendas may be.

I think it is safe to say there are a number, perhaps a great number, of functioning psycopaths in positions of power. That behind the scenes of any political drama there are various factions trying to influence the outcome. There is a power base that want to hold onto power, and there is money to be made in conflict. Some of these people wouldn't bat an eyelid if it meant the deaths of millions. No cost would be too great.

I meant that it wouldn't then have been a campaign based on bullshit, palatable is probably a poor choice of word. More acceptable is probably better.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 30 August 2013, 08:54:00 AM
I will be appearing on Buzzsaw, Oliver Stone's son's show tomorrow at 9 pm GMT, talking about both Libya and Syria if any of you are interested.  Gods know why they are going to have me discuss Syria.  My experience is based on my buddies who went there.  But at least it will act as a counterpoint to their al-Assad is a poor victim narrative.  That is all.  And I will be slamming Cynthia McKinney for the horrible lying fraud that she is.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Buzzsaw/315063551949301?fref=ts
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Friday 30 August 2013, 12:20:55 PM
good summary of all the hype:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4u5Z5FESlA

I am biased against the muslim brotherhood, so I dont support usa attempt at regime change.  I dont think the rise of the 13th caliphate is good for the world in general, let alone the middle east.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dokko on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:39:13 PM
Seems the French will have more balls than us on this.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: icemanblue on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:40:31 PM
Let them.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dokko on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:41:10 PM
Let them.

Tbh I'm in no position to stop them.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:41:49 PM
Let them.

Tbh I'm in no position to stop them.

Good.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:42:20 PM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:53:02 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Pata on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:55:16 PM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?

(http://storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/bladerunner.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: B-more Mag on Friday 30 August 2013, 01:55:19 PM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?

Hover-cities and flying car highways.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dokko on Friday 30 August 2013, 02:02:38 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

Don't know what to make of that, the guy is clearly an arsehole but a good read nevertheless.

Was taught in school never to start a sentence with 'and', is this wrong or are journalists in all areas s**** at writing?  :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Oakie Doke on Friday 30 August 2013, 02:44:51 PM
The whole of the middle east is a write off. Bomb the entire region and start again. The old Windows 98 error method.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Friday 30 August 2013, 02:45:54 PM
The whole of the middle east is a write off. Bomb the entire region and start again. The old Windows 98 error method.

Switch it off and back on again?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Oakie Doke on Friday 30 August 2013, 02:46:15 PM
Precisely.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 30 August 2013, 02:50:40 PM
The whole of the middle east is a write off. Bomb the entire region and start again. The old Windows 98 error method.

:pokerface:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: brummie on Friday 30 August 2013, 03:49:42 PM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?

Hover-cities and flying car highways.

iphones would be AWESOME
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: SEMTEX on Friday 30 August 2013, 06:20:28 PM
John Kerry giving it the big one. Time for a barney I reckon.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 07:01:49 PM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?

We might have invented a magical machine that boils single mugs of water almost instantly.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Slarth on Friday 30 August 2013, 07:02:23 PM
John Kerry giving it the big one. Time for a barney I reckon.

Wasn't he supposed to release classified intel? All I basically got was that he knows that Assad did it, no evidence mind.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 07:02:31 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 30 August 2013, 07:41:16 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 30 August 2013, 07:44:05 PM
It's based entirely on the premise that the U.S. seeks only to "stick it" to Iran. Which is a lazy accusation and flies counter to what's actually happening in U.S.-Iran relations.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:03:04 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:06:31 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Military targets, comms etc.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:12:49 PM
It's based entirely on the premise that the U.S. seeks only to "stick it" to Iran. Which is a lazy accusation and flies counter to what's actually happening in U.S.-Iran relations.

So you're saying that behind the near full economic embargo against Iran and companies that sell to Iran they're really great pals? That "Death to America" chant the other day must've just been a bit of banter, eh?

I'm the fool here mind. Someone on an Internet message board writes off what Robert Fisk says about the Middle East as bollocks and I bother to reply. f*** my sides.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:28:02 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Military targets, comms etc.

For what purpose though - just to put their army out of action for a while? Is there an overall aim to kill Assad?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ameritoon on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:28:17 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Government buildings that will be empty.

This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Military targets, comms etc.

For what purpose though - just to put their army out of action for a while? Is there an overall aim to kill Assad?

It's basically just a slap on the wrist, a reminder that we won't let them sit there and use chemical weapons. That's what it's supposed to act as at least, obviously it wont. No chance Assad is killed.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Varadi on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:37:46 PM
It's based entirely on the premise that the U.S. seeks only to "stick it" to Iran. Which is a lazy accusation and flies counter to what's actually happening in U.S.-Iran relations.

So you're saying that behind the near full economic embargo against Iran and companies that sell to Iran they're really great pals? That "Death to America" chant the other day must've just been a bit of banter, eh?

I'm the fool here mind. Someone on an Internet message board writes off what Robert Fisk says about the Middle East as bollocks and I bother to reply. f*** my sides.

Have to say Fisk is one of the few journalists whose opinion I respect on these matters - he's been reporting on the middle east for decades.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 30 August 2013, 10:40:09 PM
It's based entirely on the premise that the U.S. seeks only to "stick it" to Iran. Which is a lazy accusation and flies counter to what's actually happening in U.S.-Iran relations.

So you're saying that behind the near full economic embargo against Iran and companies that sell to Iran they're really great pals? That "Death to America" chant the other day must've just been a bit of banter, eh?

I'm the fool here mind. Someone on an Internet message board writes off what Robert Fisk says about the Middle East as bollocks and I bother to reply. f*** my sides.

Have to say Fisk is one of the few journalists whose opinion I respect on these matters - he's been reporting on the middle east for decades.

He's lived there almost his entire career too. He's pretty much peerless.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: chicago_shearer on Friday 30 August 2013, 11:22:22 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

Probably that stuff.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Matt on Saturday 31 August 2013, 12:01:25 AM
Cameron has been made to look a fool. The narrow nature of the defeat in the Commons goes to show that with a little more patience and sticking to his own timetable than Obama's he'd probably have got the result he wanted in 7 to 14 days. Instead now military action is off the table for the forseeable future.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: biggs on Saturday 31 August 2013, 12:09:41 AM
just let the Yanks do it and we stay well clear

The mark of true humanity, just letting someone else help the weak at their weakest.
Why the f*** should we get involved in everyone elses s*** maybe i want to go there on an excursion to Roman ruins one day  :coolsmiley:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: biggs on Saturday 31 August 2013, 12:12:51 AM
What would America be like if since 1945 they spent the money they have spent on interventionalist foreign policy on infrastructure?

(http://storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/bladerunner.jpg)
:yikes:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Saturday 31 August 2013, 04:35:21 AM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Military targets, comms etc.

For what purpose though - just to put their army out of action for a while? Is there an overall aim to kill Assad?

They would never admit that it was their aim to kill al-Assad.  Given how Kosovo worked out, they'll likely attack microwave ovens.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 06:18:08 AM
It's based entirely on the premise that the U.S. seeks only to "stick it" to Iran. Which is a lazy accusation and flies counter to what's actually happening in U.S.-Iran relations.

So you're saying that behind the near full economic embargo against Iran and companies that sell to Iran they're really great pals? That "Death to America" chant the other day must've just been a bit of banter, eh?

I'm the fool here mind. Someone on an Internet message board writes off what Robert Fisk says about the Middle East as bollocks and I bother to reply. f*** my sides.

I must say, that was some impressive leap you just made. Because of course, nothing exists between "great pals" and "mortal enemies." Neither of which describes the complex relationship between the U.S. and Iran, one that is constantly shifting.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Happy Face on Saturday 31 August 2013, 08:18:33 AM
Quote
"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale."

"The world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons."

[Because]

The main findings of the released unclassified summary state that the attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

Whenever the US plays the moral card in this way in order to propagandise the public I like to visit this site.....

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com

To cleanse my palette. Evil, self serving, hypocritical scum justifying their own atrocities and condemning those of others.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Saturday 31 August 2013, 12:26:44 PM
I think there's two independent questions which have somehow become conflated into one.

Did forces loyal to Assad carry out the chemical weapons attack?

Should a chemical weapons attack by the regime of this type be countered with military force from western powers?

If you say no to the latter, you're probably going to say no to the former, and vice-versa.  Possibly if you don't want military action anyway, it's more soothing to your conscience to believe that it wouldn't be striking the right persons anyway, and if you're keen on military action, certainty of justification eases any worries you might have.

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe Russia's assertions (both the ones they make from a political perspective, and the more outlandish ones they put out through the Kremlin's media wing, RT) that rebels got hold of chemical weapons and instead of fighting the regime with them they managed to toddle off to a government held area to assault one of their own strongholds that the Syrian Army had been attempting to take.  Especially given that Assad refused to let weapons inspectors in for five days, during which time he bombed the s*** out of the evidence (why would you do that if they could find evidence the rebels had committed harakiri to make him look bad?). 

Of course even if that is the case and the US are right (and I do believe Obama and John Kerry genuine believe chemical weapons were used by the regime), it's possible they're exaggerating evidence because they just don't have it.  The suggestion that Mossad intercepted calls from the regime admitting guilt, for instance, seems a little too convenient to me.

It's all understandable, given the clusterfuck in Iraq, but I think there's a danger of assuming because our own government isn't that trustworthy, the opposite must be the truth - ignoring the fact that this 'truth' is being spoken by governments, regimes, politicans and companies who are at least as shady and have their own vested interests.  How people can write off all western journalism as 'propaganda' and then accept everything RT, which doesn't even attempt to hide the fact it's a paid for mouthpiece of the Russian government, as fact is beyond me.  And there's a danger of painting the Syrian regime forces as the good guys.  People immediately tried to blame the recent attack where a Syrian jet dropped napalm, causing horrific injuries to civilians, on the rebels.  Only one side in this conflict has jets, but people were frantically grasping around and making assumptions like "The rebels must have hijacked the jet."  It's not Battlefield 3, you can't just run through a chainlink fence, hop in a cockpit, fly off, bomb some of your own supporters, jump out and fire a bazooka at a tank on your way down.  It takes hours to get a jet into the air and a whole infrastructure behind it to even start the engine.  "They must have done it with mortars and waited for a jet to be overhead"  Again, napalm can't be fired from mortars outside of Worms Armageddon.

As for if it justifies military action... Discounting all else I'd say probably.  In reality, would it make the situation better for the people in Syria or in the West?  Probably not.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 01:57:08 PM
:thup: Great post.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: biggs on Saturday 31 August 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Quote
"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale."

"The world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons."

[Because]

The main findings of the released unclassified summary state that the attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

Whenever the US plays the moral card in this way in order to propagandise the public I like to visit this site.....

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com

To cleanse my palette. Evil, self serving, hypocritical scum justifying their own atrocities and condemning those of others.
Yanks call it collateral damage to justify killing of innocents
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 02:52:53 PM
It is collateral damage, by the very definition. That doesn't make it any less unsavory. But no one has claimed otherwise.

Unless you believe the U.S. military is targeting civilians. Which is asinine.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Kimbo on Saturday 31 August 2013, 02:54:03 PM
But didn't Turkey catch rebels with sarin gas just a few months ago? We know they have the means and they have more motive than Assad, so I really don't think it's wrong to suspect them.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Parky on Saturday 31 August 2013, 02:54:29 PM
This is a completely daft question, but what exactly are the US going to attack?

Anything their big companies can come in later and rebuild at huge cost. see Iraq.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 02:59:58 PM
But didn't Turkey catch rebels with sarin gas just a few months ago? We know they have the means and they have more motive than Assad, so I really don't think it's wrong to suspect them.

There were reports yesterday (unconfirmed) that the military head of Assad's chemical weapons program had been executed.

IMO, the most likely source of the CW attacks was a mid-level military officer who acted without orders from the top circles.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Kimbo on Saturday 31 August 2013, 03:05:41 PM
But didn't Turkey catch rebels with sarin gas just a few months ago? We know they have the means and they have more motive than Assad, so I really don't think it's wrong to suspect them.

There were reports yesterday (unconfirmed) that the military head of Assad's chemical weapons program had been executed.

IMO, the most likely source of the CW attacks was a mid-level military officer who acted without orders from the top circles.

I think that is more likely than Assad ordering it aswell. I just can't get my head around him being so suicidal.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Saturday 31 August 2013, 03:47:49 PM
Is Gordon Duff a reliable commentator or a crackpot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM_FElma6Cw&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 04:11:40 PM
Never heard of him. According to wiki, his organization, Veterans Today, has been cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League for 'promoting bigoted and extremist viewpoints.'
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: SEMTEX on Saturday 31 August 2013, 06:51:30 PM
'bama chatting again. NBC have interrupted the football ffs.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Kanji on Saturday 31 August 2013, 06:56:34 PM
Really respect that Obama is seeking congressional approval.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: neesy111 on Saturday 31 August 2013, 07:16:32 PM
Really respect that Obama is seeking congressional approval.

Saw the sense of what we did in the UK or due to his opinion polls plunging?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 31 August 2013, 07:32:49 PM
Really respect that Obama is seeking congressional approval.

Saw the sense of what we did in the UK or due to his opinion polls plunging?

Probably a bit of both. Even though his approval ratings are far higher than Congress'.

It's a smart move. Republicans will oppose him simply for partisan political reasons. And when Congress says no, he can pin the blame on them if need be.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 1 September 2013, 12:09:18 PM
But didn't Turkey catch rebels with sarin gas just a few months ago? We know they have the means and they have more motive than Assad, so I really don't think it's wrong to suspect them.

There were reports yesterday (unconfirmed) that the military head of Assad's chemical weapons program had been executed.

IMO, the most likely source of the CW attacks was a mid-level military officer who acted without orders from the top circles.

Just like people fighting against Assad aren't really one homogenous group, the people fighting for him aren't all guys in military uniform who take orders directly from the top.  The Shabiha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabiha) are his plain clothes enforcement thugs and have form of basically doing whatever the f*** they like, including massacring people who they see as a threat to Alawite minority rule.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Oakie Doke on Sunday 1 September 2013, 02:22:51 PM
:thup: Great post.
cheers mate.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: bulivye on Sunday 1 September 2013, 06:17:05 PM
(https://sphotos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/p480x480/1234873_195596380618644_2035076188_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 1 September 2013, 06:45:26 PM
But didn't Turkey catch rebels with sarin gas just a few months ago? We know they have the means and they have more motive than Assad, so I really don't think it's wrong to suspect them.

There were reports yesterday (unconfirmed) that the military head of Assad's chemical weapons program had been executed.

IMO, the most likely source of the CW attacks was a mid-level military officer who acted without orders from the top circles.

Just like people fighting against Assad aren't really one homogenous group, the people fighting for him aren't all guys in military uniform who take orders directly from the top.  The Shabiha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabiha) are his plain clothes enforcement thugs and have form of basically doing whatever the f*** they like, including massacring people who they see as a threat to Alawite minority rule.

Once again, people look at it as 1's or 0's.  Since some thugs have attached themselves to the rebel cause, then to some all the rebels must be violent jihadists.  This completely dishonors the Syrian people on so many levels.  How convenient to forget that protests were peaceful for many months, which didn't deter from al-Assad's regime to use murderous force.  His clamp down forced this revolution.

Having said that, his regime has made some serious inroads in the last few months, that I highly doubt that the order to use chemical weapons came from the top.  I also suspect that some rogue midlevel commander was responsible.  Is it worth limited airstrikes?  Probably not, since they haven't had a great track record of success.  I still think that the US is being baited by somebody to get involved.

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Mr Logic on Sunday 1 September 2013, 07:42:16 PM
It could even be factions within the US doing the baiting. Who stands to benefit the most from protracted conflict?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 1 September 2013, 07:54:44 PM
The US has been a colossal part of the problem since the dawn of the Cold War, but there is another Master behind their Blaster.  Obama erred with his comments, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking for an out.  Having said that, there are clearly factions within the US pushing for intervention. 

The McCain types are pretty vocal in that.  Part of the problem though is the hubris of all of the big powers who refuse to look at the historical forces that pushed Syria into this s*** storm.  As I've said before, it's a game of Risk to all of these f***ers.  And you have the Saudis and Qataris gleefully putting their pieces on the board as well.

But I am seriously tired of people diluting the struggle of the Syrian people against a regime of thugs, because Syria just happens to be the focus of this game of Risk.  I was on Sean Stone's show on Friday talking about this, and how some idiots are claiming that 60% of the rebels are al Qaeda.  Did they take a personal f***ing census?  It's Orientalist to think we can intervene and police the "savages".  But it's also Orientalist to think that the Syrian people can't start a revolution for themselves.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Monday 2 September 2013, 12:03:35 AM
The Syrian people did start a revolution for themselves. The jihadists came afterwards. The marginalisation of the FSA isn't a joke, it's a fact. The sectarian nature of the conflict is the reason that the refugee situation has became so critical.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: QuakesMag on Monday 2 September 2013, 12:29:01 AM
That is not my point at all.  And how many jihadists are there fighting in Syria exactly?  That we will never know. I've seen numbers pulled out of people's asses without any real justification for them.  That's not to say that there aren't a large number, which there probably are.  But I know from experience in the region that it's a convenient bogeyman for these despots to take the emphasis off their own brutality.  And to make them the representative of the whole FSA is ridiculous.

As I stated before, thugs invariably come into the mix, which was in evidence in Libya.  But it shouldn't dilute the struggle against al-Assad.  Too many people think that if it isn't this, it must be that.  They generally have little practical understanding of the region, and almost no historical context.  And of course the media sources are ridiculously biased, pushing forth certain narratives down our throats.  When I lived in Benghazi, I was wondering what city they were reporting on, because it certainly wasn't the Benghazi I was living in.

On the flip side, it doesn't dilute the damage created by the French Mandate, and in particular the post-colonial powers putting pliant minority populations in the driver's seat.  But when their tight reins loosen, the majority bay for blood against those who once were in power (Rwanda and Iraq are obvious examples).  The residue of the Great War is still playing out here.  And limited airstrikes aren't going to do s***.  There is no good outcome to this, and it will take generations to pick up the pieces.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 02:07:55 PM
bait & switch

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1233436_533368883398965_1038208992_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BrettNUFC on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 02:10:21 PM
Don't follow the news really at all, just like to know, are we going to war or not?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 02:25:01 PM
No, we're not.  Cameron lost a vote on it and it's unlikely he'll go for another.  The US and French may lob a few missiles in.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: BrettNUFC on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 02:43:00 PM
No, we're not.  Cameron lost a vote on it and it's unlikely he'll go for another.  The US and French may lob a few missiles in.

 :thup:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 02:55:05 PM
US now talking of toppling Assad. SO much for not getting deeply involved.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dokko on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 07:07:08 PM
Don't really see the point of going in and doing anything less tbh.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 07:49:47 PM
Was always on the cards
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: colinmk on Wednesday 4 September 2013, 11:44:33 PM
US now talking of toppling Assad. SO much for not getting deeply involved.

Take it they will be firing on Israel too for using white phosphorus on Palestine?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 5 September 2013, 04:14:10 AM
War, what is it good for?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ibracadabra on Thursday 5 September 2013, 04:22:39 AM
Absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Thursday 5 September 2013, 05:44:06 AM
seems the puppets of nwo in congress want war soon....

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1003792_587836311258331_1170808699_n.jpg)

Tally HO! in the name of freedom and liberty
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 5 September 2013, 10:08:56 PM
UK, France and US publishing their "Proof". 

Its going to happen and the UK will be involved
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 6 September 2013, 12:06:03 AM
The thing I really don't get about this is that, thousands of people have died from shooting shelling and bombs, no one really cares. Then someone uses some gas and its suddenly a horrible thing that people are dying. The whole red line thing is utterly pathetic, you either value human life or not.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: colinmk on Friday 6 September 2013, 12:08:38 AM
The thing I really don't get about this is that, thousands of people have died from shooting shelling and bombs, no one really cares. Then someone uses some gas and its suddenly a horrible thing that people are dying. The whole red line thing is utterly pathetic, you either value human life or not.

And we know for certain that this is an excuse anyway because there have been various examples of chemical weapons used throughout the years where USA has either ignored or supported/done themselves.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Killuminati on Friday 6 September 2013, 12:18:04 AM
War, what is it good for?
For some its a business  :hmm: oil, rebuilding contracts, weaponindustry and so on
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Decky on Friday 6 September 2013, 12:29:42 AM
UK, France and US publishing their "Proof". 

Its going to happen and the UK will be involved

Hopefully not. With all the cuts happening here the last thing we need to do is finance yet another war.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: maybe_next_year on Friday 6 September 2013, 12:37:51 AM
Cameron wants his own Falklands though to try and boost his popularity though. Cuts are more about his odious opinions on the working class etc than not being able to afford it anyway, but thats a discussion for another thread...
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Friday 6 September 2013, 03:57:20 AM
`BREAKING NEWS: Three Russian warships crossed Turkey’s Bosphorus Strait Thursday en route to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, amid concern in the region over potential US-led strikes in response to the Damascus regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons.`

poker stakes are rampingup
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Friday 6 September 2013, 08:03:21 AM
obama: `no ground troops`

http://endtimeheadlines.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/breaking-news-the-uss-san-antonio-amphibious-carrying-800-marines-docks-in-haifa/

I guess marines dont count as they spent alot of timeon the sea......
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Friday 6 September 2013, 09:16:19 AM
UK, France and US publishing their "Proof". 

Its going to happen and the UK will be involved

Hopefully not. With all the cuts happening here the last thing we need to do is finance yet another war.

Always money for a war.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Friday 6 September 2013, 09:18:12 AM
The uk will be involved...id be suprised if we didnt have people on he ground now advising rebels and picking out targets for air strikes
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Neil on Friday 6 September 2013, 10:37:44 PM
That ITV news report was scarily like The Day Today.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: madras on Friday 6 September 2013, 10:43:58 PM
That ITV news report was scarily like The Day Today.
said that a while back about the itv 1pm news.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: wacko on Saturday 7 September 2013, 01:13:52 AM
The thing I really don't get about this is that, thousands of people have died from shooting shelling and bombs, no one really cares. Then someone uses some gas and its suddenly a horrible thing that people are dying. The whole red line thing is utterly pathetic, you either value human life or not.

The main thing is that Obama said they'd get involved if chemical weapons started getting thrown around.

The distinguishing feature of chemical weapons is they've got built-in "collateral damage". With conventional weapons, like bullets and explosives, you can at least pretend you were aiming for enemy combatants (even if you weren't). Chemical weapons pretty much guarantee death or serious injury to a shitload of civilians even if the actual rocket lands right on a soldier's head. It's more at the mercy of the wind than the aim of the guy firing the rocket.

Even if the Syrians are killing just as many people with indiscriminate shelling, there's a UN resolution against the use of chemical weapons, so it's kind of "against the rules".

As best I can tell, it's not much different from kicking someone in the nuts when you're only supposed to punch them in the nuts, but them's the rules, apparently.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Saturday 7 September 2013, 01:42:05 AM
I didnt see this one comming.....

`BREAKING NEWS: Western naval sources reported Friday that a Chinese landing craft, the Jinggangshan, with a 1,000-strong marine battalion had reached the Red Sea en route for the Mediterranean off Syria.  According to DEBKAfile, Beijing has already deployed a number of warships opposite Syria in secret. If the latest report is confirmed, this will be the largest Chinese deployment in the Middle East in its naval history. Debka`
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Decky on Saturday 7 September 2013, 01:43:20 AM
See, I just can't believe it when it's womblemaster posting it.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: wacko on Saturday 7 September 2013, 09:50:44 AM
I didnt see this one comming.....

`BREAKING NEWS: Western naval sources reported Friday that a Chinese landing craft, the Jinggangshan, with a 1,000-strong marine battalion had reached the Red Sea en route for the Mediterranean off Syria.  According to DEBKAfile, Beijing has already deployed a number of warships opposite Syria in secret. If the latest report is confirmed, this will be the largest Chinese deployment in the Middle East in its naval history. Debka`

I hope they tell them to go around when they reach the Suez Canal.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ant1815 on Saturday 7 September 2013, 10:19:50 AM
The Chemical weapons use is just an excuse. The rebels have used sarin at least twice in the past 6 months, apparently that doesn't count.
The US has had this planned for a long time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Saturday 7 September 2013, 05:26:30 PM
I think there's two independent questions which have somehow become conflated into one.

Did forces loyal to Assad carry out the chemical weapons attack?

Should a chemical weapons attack by the regime of this type be countered with military force from western powers?

If you say no to the latter, you're probably going to say no to the former, and vice-versa.  Possibly if you don't want military action anyway, it's more soothing to your conscience to believe that it wouldn't be striking the right persons anyway, and if you're keen on military action, certainty of justification eases any worries you might have.

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe Russia's assertions (both the ones they make from a political perspective, and the more outlandish ones they put out through the Kremlin's media wing, RT) that rebels got hold of chemical weapons and instead of fighting the regime with them they managed to toddle off to a government held area to assault one of their own strongholds that the Syrian Army had been attempting to take.  Especially given that Assad refused to let weapons inspectors in for five days, during which time he bombed the s*** out of the evidence (why would you do that if they could find evidence the rebels had committed harakiri to make him look bad?). 

Of course even if that is the case and the US are right (and I do believe Obama and John Kerry genuine believe chemical weapons were used by the regime), it's possible they're exaggerating evidence because they just don't have it.  The suggestion that Mossad intercepted calls from the regime admitting guilt, for instance, seems a little too convenient to me.

It's all understandable, given the clusterfuck in Iraq, but I think there's a danger of assuming because our own government isn't that trustworthy, the opposite must be the truth - ignoring the fact that this 'truth' is being spoken by governments, regimes, politicans and companies who are at least as shady and have their own vested interests.  How people can write off all western journalism as 'propaganda' and then accept everything RT, which doesn't even attempt to hide the fact it's a paid for mouthpiece of the Russian government, as fact is beyond me.  And there's a danger of painting the Syrian regime forces as the good guys.  People immediately tried to blame the recent attack where a Syrian jet dropped napalm, causing horrific injuries to civilians, on the rebels.  Only one side in this conflict has jets, but people were frantically grasping around and making assumptions like "The rebels must have hijacked the jet."  It's not Battlefield 3, you can't just run through a chainlink fence, hop in a cockpit, fly off, bomb some of your own supporters, jump out and fire a bazooka at a tank on your way down.  It takes hours to get a jet into the air and a whole infrastructure behind it to even start the engine.  "They must have done it with mortars and waited for a jet to be overhead"  Again, napalm can't be fired from mortars outside of Worms Armageddon.

As for if it justifies military action... Discounting all else I'd say probably.  In reality, would it make the situation better for the people in Syria or in the West?  Probably not.

Good post, very concise.

There are a couple of things that make me wary of us attacking the Syrian government.

Firstly, it's simply not logical for Assad to have launched a big chemical attack right under the noses of the UN inspectors. That doesn't mean he didn't, but there's got to be a fair amount of doubt, so I'd want to see some pretty good evidence of guilt to justify us launching an attack. I think it's more logical that it was a rogue element of the Syrian army who carried out the chemical attack and if it was I'm not sure how we should respond to that.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the result of a limited attack would be beneficial for the Syrian people, will it lead to fewer people dying or quicken the end of this civil war? I don't think it would, it could actually make things worse. Once we've attacked, but not destroyed, the government forces as punishment for the use of chemical weapons, does that make it more or less likely that they'll use them again in future? It could conceivably, make them more willing to use them again, especially if they didn't actually use them this time. After all, if you're going to get the blame for something you didn't do you might as well do it.

In a way, if the proposal was more far reaching and we were going to intervene in a meaningful way that might end the war or reduce the number of civilian deaths then I'd probably be more supportive, what's being proposed at the moment is a bit of a halfway house and I don't think intervention-lite is going to achieve anything positive, it could well have a negative affect instead.

The whole situation in Syria is very confusing for me having actually been there and met the people, it doesn't make much sense to me at all. At the end of the day I just want it to stop, I want and end to the carnage so this wonderful country full of amazing people can start to heal and I'd support anything that I thought would lead to that.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Saturday 7 September 2013, 05:37:44 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Saturday 7 September 2013, 05:42:09 PM
known build up so far.....(china now has at least 2 warships there)

(http://tatoott1009.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1236812_380862338705992_35048167_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:20:14 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

You could've also addressed my posts directly. Assuming you're referring to me here, of course.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's a lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. foreign policy and Iran-U.S. relations. A bit too black-and-white in its depiction of the international system, in which nothing is ever truly black-and-white.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of others who disagree with his opinions.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:20:40 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's some kind of lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of other experts who disagree with his opinions.

I don't think that there's anything outrageous about suggesting that Syria could well be a proxy war against Iran. I didn't take what he said to be suggesting that was the only reason for what's going on, rather that it's a significant factor that is largely ignored by most of the western media, which is a very arguable point and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:25:06 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's some kind of lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of other experts who disagree with his opinions.

I don't think that there's anything outrageous about suggesting that Syria could well be a proxy war against Iran. I didn't take what he said to be suggesting that was the only reason for what's going on, rather that it's a significant factor that is largely ignored by most of the western media, which is a very arguable point and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think that's true. In the U.S. at least, the role of Iran in Syria and the underlying motivations for launching strikes against Assad, if any, have been fairly well debated throughout the media.

In fact, the potential for Iranian retaliation (via Hezbollah, Shiite militants in Iraq, etc.) for U.S. strikes is one of the primary arguments being put forth by opponents of U.S. action. The desire to level a blow against an Iranian ally alone (though Iran is becoming less enamored with Assad as the days go by) doesn't outweigh the risk of retaliation, in the minds of U.S. policymakers at least.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:29:03 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's some kind of lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of other experts who disagree with his opinions.

I don't think that there's anything outrageous about suggesting that Syria could well be a proxy war against Iran. I didn't take what he said to be suggesting that was the only reason for what's going on, rather that it's a significant factor that is largely ignored by most of the western media, which is a very arguable point and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think that's true. In the U.S. at least, the role of Iran in Syria and the underlying motivations for launching strikes against Assad, if any, have been fairly well debated throughout the media.

How are they portraying it?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:33:28 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's some kind of lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of other experts who disagree with his opinions.

I don't think that there's anything outrageous about suggesting that Syria could well be a proxy war against Iran. I didn't take what he said to be suggesting that was the only reason for what's going on, rather that it's a significant factor that is largely ignored by most of the western media, which is a very arguable point and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think that's true. In the U.S. at least, the role of Iran in Syria and the underlying motivations for launching strikes against Assad, if any, have been fairly well debated throughout the media.

How are they portraying it?

Which part?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:45:09 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html



Yeah that was posted yesterday. It's a load of tripe tbh.

Nah, it's not mate.

It clearly isn't. Anyone who simply dismisses Robert Fisk's reporting of the middle east simply shows their own ignorance, rather than his. If you want an honest credible opinion of what's going on over there Fisk is pretty much you're only option, he really knows his s***. People can disagree with his view if they want, but they can't just dismiss it out of hand. To do so strongly suggests that they either know f*** all about the subject or are utterly biased in their opinion and unwilling to hear anything that might contradict it.

My issue with the article is the implication that any action taken by the U.S. in Syria is simply to "stick it" to Iran. It's some kind of lazy realist assertion that ignores the reality of both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

I have nothing but respect for Robert Fisk. However, he is not the only expert on the Middle East and there are plenty of other experts who disagree with his opinions.

I don't think that there's anything outrageous about suggesting that Syria could well be a proxy war against Iran. I didn't take what he said to be suggesting that was the only reason for what's going on, rather that it's a significant factor that is largely ignored by most of the western media, which is a very arguable point and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think that's true. In the U.S. at least, the role of Iran in Syria and the underlying motivations for launching strikes against Assad, if any, have been fairly well debated throughout the media.

How are they portraying it?

Which part?

Iran's involvement.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 7 September 2013, 06:52:46 PM
From what I've read, it's been a fairly well-rounded debate. I follow a lot of foreign policy wonks and MidEast experts/journos on Twitter and get the majority of my information through that medium. I can't speak much to what they're saying on CNN or Fox, because I tend to ignore cable news. So you could be right that the narrative re: Iran is more skewed when it comes to the mass cable networks. I'm not sure.

The general consensus is that the primary motivation of the Obama Administration to seek strikes against Assad is, perhaps rather incredibly, that they really are seeking to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. And that they don't want to be seen as doing nothing in the face of so much death and destruction, even if doing nothing is the most prudent choice. Can't say I've read much that puts more than secondary emphasis on the role of Iran, particularly as elements of the regime, past and present, have started to distance themselves from Assad (or at least from the use of CWs).
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ant1815 on Saturday 7 September 2013, 10:58:22 PM
The general consensus is that the primary motivation of the Obama Administration to seek strikes against Assad is, perhaps rather incredibly, that they really are seeking to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.

So why are they still backing the rebels, who have used chemical weapons already? Why were they perfectly happy to side with Saddam Hussein against Iran when he was using chemical weapons?

It's got nothing to do with international law and everything to do with maintaining US hegemony in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Sunday 8 September 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Quote
As the debate over unilateral American intervention in Syria continues, it is relatively clear that US public opinion does not favor a new adventure there. Nonetheless, the Obama Administration continues to push for Congressional authorization, promising a "full-court press" in coming days. While Obama and Kerry have spoken on the issue, remarks by Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power seem to have resonated most with the foreign policy audience and may begin to change the discussion.

Power's remarks played carefully on notions of moral indignation, then providing a nuanced and circumscribed call for limited intervention to prevent future use of weapons of mass destruction, explaining that the latest chemical attack killed far more than even the worst of Assad's conventional barrages against civilian neighborhoods. While I found her words to be compelling in a way, and I truly am conflicted in my feelings about the entire issue of Syria, I think that a deeper deconstruction of the bases of the case for intervention helps me to remain steadfastly against military action.


Power invoked the tragic image of a father mourning the death of his two girls in the latest chemical attack by the Assad regime. (As an aside, I have a high degree of confidence in the intelligence that there was indeed a regime-sanctioned chemical attack, and that it was not the first one. The argument over intelligence is a sideshow that undermines the real case against intervention. Focusing on it provides Congress with a fig leaf to excuse going against American public opinion by referencing classified material that really tells a story no one should doubt.) As a father and a human, I am moved by this father's loss and wish deeply that there is something that I could do--that we could do--to stop this slaughter. While there are "things we could do," anything short of a massive invasion and a neo-mandatory occupation of the country for years will fail to stop the slaughter. Anything short of this invasion and occupation would only be a futile and symbolic gesture to assuage our own guilt. To make a theoretical point about moral abstractions. And in making this theoretical point, we would not only be putting American lives at risk, we would also undoubtedly take the lives of more innocent civilians in the execution.

What is more, this slaughter has been ongoing for two years and it will certainly continue relatively unabated well after our 60 or 90 days of cruise missile and standoff weapons attacks. The UN asserts that over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian civil war to date. We can assume that at least 50,000 of these casualties are completely innocent civilians killed in countless regime artillery and rocket barrages. Killed in the crossfire of urban fighting between rebels and the regime. Killed by torture and execution at the hands of a regime that cares not for its people--and at the hands of various rebel groups due to their hatred of other sects, of other ethnicities, of those who are insufficiently pious. Killed by people on both sides who have simply become animals addicted to killing.

How is the brutal and senseless end of 50,000 innocent lives and the anguish hundreds of thousands of mourning parents, family, and friends somehow less tragic than the less than 2,000 lives taken by the admittedly tragic and barbarous use of chemical weapons? Some would believe that death by chemical weapons is somehow less humane than the violence inflicted by conventional weapons. This is a myth that is closely tied to the popular image of war as a lot of flashes and bangs and relatively undamaged bodies falling dramatically to a bloodless and serene rest on foreign soil. Conventional weapons in truth mangle bodies in unimaginable ways. They rend flesh and turn bodies inside out into unrecognizable minces of blood and bone. They inflict unimaginable pain. They reach children in their beds. They reach parents at their breakfast tables. They bring down entire buildings, crushing people to death if they are lucky. Leaving them to die a slow and painful death trapped in rubble if they are not. No, the point that some moral line has been crossed by the use of chemical weapons is not valid. Not if you are a compassionate human being. That line was left behind long ago.

If you are a compassionate human being, you might hope that the call to action provoked by the arbitrary and abstract line-crossing will indeed bring an end to the slaughter altogether. This is certainly not what the Obama Administration is promising nor what Congress would authorize. Congressional authorization looks iffy at best, but the Senate's draft resolution offers 60 days of military action (commencing from the date of passage) with the potential for a 30-day extension and a complete prohibition of "boots on the ground" for combat purposes (providing a loophole for covert reconnaissance, liaison, advising, and personnel recovery purposes to name a few).

This limited military action will not bring about an end to the tragedy, nor is it by any means certain to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons. You cannot reliably and safely destroy chemical weapons stockpiles by air--and that is even if you know where they all are. While the strikes will likely target aviation, artillery, and rocket delivery platforms, there is no guarantee that all will be destroyed or that Assad won't be able to utilize alternative means of delivery. The tragedy will not end. This will be a symbolic measure, more attuned to assuaging guilt, upholding personal and governmental reputations, and pleasing foreign policy wonks on a theoretical level than to creating a decisive result. Worse, we will show both our impotence and our callousness. We will step in to guard our arbitrary line. Little will happen as a result. And we will then return to our corner to watch the massacre of a nation continue. How is that more noble than doing nothing?

Still, you may believe that such a move is required to uphold that red line, as theoretical and abstract as it may be. We must show the world that there are some things we will not accept. Here, too, I am unmoved. We accept the slaughter of tens of thousands, we have looked the other way at genocides, but you have to do it "the right way," we will be arguing... with bombs. Even given the breathless and indignant statements from our leadership about drawing the line for dictators, the number of dictators so craven as to use chemical weapons on their own people is exceedingly few, they seem to do quite well at massacre without chemical assistance, and they are driven by a logic that does not align with what most of the rest of the world considers as rational. No, a dictator like Kim Jong Un will be unmoved. If anything, he will note that he must be more brutal, earlier, than Assad was. There is no long line of chemical weapons dominos waiting to fall if we do not act in Syria, breathless statements notwithstanding.

We are warned of the dire consequences of inaction and how they will embolden dictators in Iran and North Korea. We took much bolder action in the past. The Taliban were pushed from Kabul into the mountains. Saddam Hussein was toppled and ultimately hanged by his neck. Qaddafi was shot dead in the street after NATO airstrikes changed the balance. Yet none of these actions have deterred Assad, nor have they changed the bellicose behavior of Kim Jong Un or the regional chicanery of the Iranian regime. Given this as a background, how is this petty proposed action in Syria to make a dent in the craven minds of dictators one way or the other?

In the hopes that something will stick to the wall if you sling enough mud, leaders and commentators mumble about regional stability as another prompt to action. This is yet another straw man. While the civil war in Syria is undoubtedly destabilizing to the region, the use of chemical weapons within the country does not make it more so. An outside strike, especially if tentative and without the right (costly and large) set of preventive measures deployed to the right places, is likely to invite responses ranging from the possible use of ballistic missiles against Syria's neighbors to the use of non-conventional forces against US and allied interests throughout the region. Stability will not be enhanced by a limited strike.

When you deconstruct the idea of a limited intervention in Syria and the justifications for it in this manner, it seems clear to me that it will be (again) nothing more than a symbolic gesture aimed futilely at assuaging our own guilt, at upholding our self-image, and based on wrong-headed notions of the importance of poorly constructed abstractions. It will be an incredibly selfish gesture.

Reluctantly, I will add another either-or choice to an issue already crowded with false binaries. Either we are moved enough by the tragedy of Syria and the flagrant violation of international norms that the slaughter of innocents there by all means to intervene massively and decisively to stop it through invasion, regime change, and neo-mandatory occupation, or we should realize that any limited set of airstrikes is a selfish and symbolic measure that will do nothing to ease the suffering of the Syrian people.

This isn't to say that we should do nothing. As futile and unsatisfying as they may seem, efforts to further the diplomatic isolation of the Assad regime, to shore up neighboring countries, to redouble attempts to pressure neighbors like Iraq and regional powers like Iran to starve the Assad regime, to bring an indictment against Assad at the International Criminal Court, etc. will be no more ineffective than a unilateral strike and will do far more in the long run to shore up US and international credibility.

We cannot stop the tragedy with half-measures and we must be honest in that the US and the world are uninterested in anything but half-measures in this case. To try to do more would be to invite disaster. Our leaders must be smarter and less selfish. They must listen to the American people who, as much as they'd like to see the tragedy end, know this is a bad idea. The pundits and hawks must stop their irresponsible and false moralizing based on abstractions. The insulated Beltway elites are too enamored of war. They are enamored because they have studied it on the crisp white pages of textbooks, but have not seen its unspeakably messy reality. They are increasingly disconnected from the American people who they expect to fund and support their adventures. Their lives are built on abstractions and abstractions create facile certitudes and the dirty, easy labels that they use to elevate themselves to a position of supposed moral superiority to the rest of the country. They think they know better. They do not.

http://peterjmunson.blogspot.ca/2013/09/moral-abstractions-real-tragedies-and.html
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Tuesday 10 September 2013, 01:42:36 PM
 ;D

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/1236559_10200586287359125_929792730_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 04:08:05 AM
The thing I really don't get about this is that, thousands of people have died from shooting shelling and bombs, no one really cares. Then someone uses some gas and its suddenly a horrible thing that people are dying. The whole red line thing is utterly pathetic, you either value human life or not.

couldn't agree more, syria will now disclose their chemical weapons and everyone will go away...they'll then just send their fellas out with more bullets and guns, same end result, a little less efficient i suppose...but people still will still be getting murdered so that's a win :thup:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 11:21:49 AM
The thing I really don't get about this is that, thousands of people have died from shooting shelling and bombs, no one really cares. Then someone uses some gas and its suddenly a horrible thing that people are dying. The whole red line thing is utterly pathetic, you either value human life or not.

couldn't agree more, syria will now disclose their chemical weapons and everyone will go away...they'll then just send their fellas out with more bullets and guns, same end result, a little less efficient i suppose...but people still will still be getting murdered so that's a win :thup:

I do find this strange as well. I guess there is some theoretical difference in that chemical weapons are indiscriminate and hard to direct onto genuine targets, but if the question is about murdering your own people then I don't think it really matters if you do it with gas or guns. In practice the action itself is bad enough, without considering the method. It's a good question.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 04:30:42 PM
Just received a fortuitous e-mail:

Quote
Are you interested in enriching yourself by means of war? It`s
the very time to make it! The moment the first missiles get to
the earth in Syria, petroleum prices will rise just as Monarchy
Resources Inc. (MON_K) stock price. Start making cash on Sep 11,
buy MON_K shares.

Sounds legit.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 04:34:30 PM
"K, mon"
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 04:36:29 PM
What I don't understand in this whole argument, seemingly all Republicans and Democrats, the ones I've heard speaking on the subject anyway, agree that based on the evidence there is no question it was Assad's government that used the chemical weapons on the civilians and not the rebels. So why not push for him to be arrested instead? Surely that's exactly what needs to happen?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 06:15:02 PM
What I don't understand in this whole argument, seemingly all Republicans and Democrats, the ones I've heard speaking on the subject anyway, agree that based on the evidence there is no question it was Assad's government that used the chemical weapons on the civilians and not the rebels. So why not push for him to be arrested instead? Surely that's exactly what needs to happen?

Russia wouldn't allow it via the UN.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 06:18:09 PM
Would it need unilateral agreement from all UN nations for an arrest? Surely if the evidence is that strong, Russia and China can be heavily forced to change their stance on charges, but not intervention?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: indi on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 06:20:15 PM
Would require Security Council approval and that's never going to happen because Russia or China will veto it.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 11 September 2013, 07:13:25 PM
Would it need unilateral agreement from all UN nations for an arrest? Surely if the evidence is that strong, Russia and China can be heavily forced to change their stance on charges, but not intervention?

A UN resolution and ICC indictment would require the Syrian government itself to turn over Assad. Which it isn't likely to do. And Russia in particular is strongly opposed to the idea that a sitting head-of-state can be arrested and tried under international law.

Even if the U.S., the only state capable of maybe pulling off a capture like that, acted unilaterally to arrest him, the U.S. isn't a signatory to the ICC. So there's no guarantee they'd turn him over if they were to somehow bring him in.

It'd be virtually impossible anyway. Omar Bashir has an international arrest warrant on his head and nothing's been done about it. He's only the president of Sudan and we can't even bring him in. :lol:

I have a feeling Assad would sooner go down guns-a-blazin' (or rockets-a-firin') than be captured and tried under international law.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Thursday 12 September 2013, 08:57:24 AM
chess pieces still getting jiggled about:

SYRIA – Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser, dubbed a “carrier-killer” by NATO, has passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the Russian naval force there. The Russian Navy said in a statement that the Moskva cruiser passed through the Straits of Gibraltar on September 10. Interfax news agency added that the Moskva cruiser, “commanded by Sergey Tronev, Captain 1st Rank of the Guards… has enough room for maneuver now. The Black Sea flagship entered the Russian Navy’s area of responsibility in the Mediterranean at 11:00 pm Moscow time yesterday,” the agency reported a military source as saying. The missile-carrying cruiser is expected to join its final destination in eastern Mediterranean on September 15 or 16. Upon arrival, the command of the Russian Navy unit in the Mediterranean, currently stationed onboard the Admiral Panteleyev anti-submarine ship, will be relocated to the Moskva. “The armaments and technical equipment of the missile cruiser are in working condition. The crew is ready to perform combat missions,” the source said.  The missile cruiser, initially known to Western naval intelligence as “Slava” (Glory), was launched in 1979 and entered service in 1983.  (sep 11)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 12 September 2013, 12:21:03 PM
Russians in the med, gotta love it
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: wacko on Friday 13 September 2013, 12:02:22 PM
Would it need unilateral agreement from all UN nations for an arrest? Surely if the evidence is that strong, Russia and China can be heavily forced to change their stance on charges, but not intervention?

A UN resolution and ICC indictment would require the Syrian government itself to turn over Assad. Which it isn't likely to do. And Russia in particular is strongly opposed to the idea that a sitting head-of-state can be arrested and tried under international law.

Even if the U.S., the only state capable of maybe pulling off a capture like that, acted unilaterally to arrest him, the U.S. isn't a signatory to the ICC. So there's no guarantee they'd turn him over if they were to somehow bring him in.

It'd be virtually impossible anyway. Omar Bashir has an international arrest warrant on his head and nothing's been done about it. He's only the president of Sudan and we can't even bring him in. :lol:

I have a feeling Assad would sooner go down guns-a-blazin' (or rockets-a-firin') than be captured and tried under international law.

Why ever could that be?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 14 September 2013, 02:25:53 PM
https://medium.com/p/cc88e449f168

Yep.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Saturday 14 September 2013, 02:37:49 PM
Pretty much.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Saturday 14 September 2013, 03:11:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24063187

admit i couldnt be arsed to wade through all of this.

hate to say this, but Putinis playing a blinder over syria.  the ruskis look like professional politicains the yanks mere amateurs.

am sure this is more complicated than what is revealed inthe media, but atmo i have a grudging respect for putin. 

both sides are playing poker tho arent they?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: wacko on Saturday 14 September 2013, 03:29:12 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24063187

admit i couldnt be arsed to wade through all of this.

hate to say this, but Putinis playing a blinder over syria.  the ruskis look like professional politicains the yanks mere amateurs.

am sure this is more complicated than what is revealed inthe media, but atmo i have a grudging respect for putin. 

both sides are playing poker tho arent they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERSGZO2GKHo
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Saturday 14 September 2013, 03:36:12 PM
Putin just looks, points and steps back like a proper old school KGB agent.  :lol:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: wacko on Saturday 14 September 2013, 04:09:34 PM
He gives her a thumbs up :lol:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SjdEZenmfd0/UWMHpDAmuKI/AAAAAAAACKg/RSIoQfO2n70/s400/putin.gif)

Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 14 September 2013, 05:18:13 PM
Putin just looks, points and steps back like a proper old school KGB agent.  :lol:

:lol: Can't imagine why...


He's a shrewd statesman who's handled the Syria situation deftly. However, the amount of love he's getting from anti-war folks and supposed "liberals" is ridiculous. Surely they're aware that he's an authoritarian leader whose regime has imprisoned opposition leaders, murdered journalists, and persecuted gays, right?
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: chicago_shearer on Saturday 14 September 2013, 05:25:38 PM
Between the away win at Villa and the looming military conflict seemingly averted through diplomatic means, this has been a properly good start to a weekend.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Northerngimp on Saturday 14 September 2013, 05:26:03 PM
Putin just looks, points and steps back like a proper old school KGB agent.  :lol:

:lol: Can't imagine why...


He's a shrewd statesman who's handled the Syria situation deftly. However, the amount of love he's getting from anti-war folks and supposed "liberals" is ridiculous. Surely they're aware that he's an authoritarian leader whose regime has imprisoned opposition leaders, murdered journalists, and persecuted gays, right?

Oh he is no angel like. Im sure he has ordered people to be killed and had peopels finger nails pulled out on command.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Wednesday 18 September 2013, 12:44:03 PM
propaganda goes on and on and .....

`Syria has handed over to Russia evidence proving that foreign-backed militants were behind a recent chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry official says. “This evidence must be analyzed,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, after receiving the evidence from Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on Tuesday. On Monday, the United Nations issued a report by UN investigators which said sarin nerve agent was used in the Damascus suburbs attack, without indicating who launched the attack. Earlier on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the report on the August 21 chemical weapons attack, which allegedly killed hundreds of people, had produced no evidence that Syrian troops carried out the attack and that Russia believed the foreign-backed militants were behind it.  Lavrov stated that the UN report proved that chemical weapons had been used, but it failed to answer a number of questions Moscow had asked such as whether the weapons were produced in a factory or they were homemade`

back and forward
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Thursday 26 September 2013, 10:27:53 PM
Russia agreed a Security Council resolution with America. From BBC news.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: womblemaster on Monday 7 October 2013, 02:12:19 PM
slightly rambling but kinda explains the historic roots of the syria conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03d0d5d/The_Ottomans_Europes_Muslim_Emperors_Episode_1/
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Thursday 27 February 2014, 10:21:04 AM
This picture is he being shared all over the world right now, People queuing up for Food over there, looks like a scene from the Apocalypse

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhcJBAHCAAAL_mp.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dinho lad on Thursday 27 February 2014, 12:09:25 PM
 :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Belfast Mags on Thursday 27 February 2014, 12:15:37 PM
f***ing hell  :(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Thursday 27 February 2014, 12:20:19 PM
Aid is distributed at the Yarmouk camp in Damascus, where the UN says people have been reduced to eating animal feed. Since the photograph was taken, aid has ceased to be delivered because of security concerns.

:undecided:
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Neil on Thursday 27 February 2014, 12:23:05 PM
This picture is he being shared all over the world right now, People queuing up for Food over there, looks like a scene from the Apocalypse

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhcJBAHCAAAL_mp.jpg:large)

:(
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Dave on Thursday 27 February 2014, 12:23:19 PM
Photo is a month old btw, not that that has much relevance.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 27 February 2014, 01:01:16 PM
ISIS-made car bomb, with bocce ball sized ball bearings.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhd3qzyCYAARLgp.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: Doctor Zaius on Thursday 27 February 2014, 02:40:10 PM
Fuuuuck, both pictures man.
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: TheHoob on Thursday 27 February 2014, 05:30:29 PM
:jesuswept:
Title: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Rob W on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:14:41 PM
Is a strong leader who is sound on the Islamist and the causes of Islamists

Pity we hanged him....................
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: ManDoon on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:17:21 PM
What Iraq wants, what Iraq needs, whatever makes it happy, sets it free. And I'm thanking you for knowing exactly, what Iraq wants, what Iraq needs.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: B-more Mag on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:32:45 PM
Is white people staying out of its f***ing business.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: thomas on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:34:04 PM
haha naw dogg, we part of a global community these days
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: thomas on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:35:40 PM
everybody's business is everybody elses
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:38:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7c1TnrUR6U

Awfully nice of those Kurdish soldiers
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Ian W on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:42:41 PM
A representative democratic government with respect for the rule of law and human rights?
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:44:22 PM
...is to be partitioned, as it never should have existed in its current form.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: B-more Mag on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:51:39 PM
A representative democratic government with respect for the rule of law and human rights?

:memelol:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 14 June 2014, 02:57:26 PM
...is Five Guys.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Hanshithispantz on Saturday 14 June 2014, 03:00:22 PM
A shoulder to cry on.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Saturday 14 June 2014, 03:12:14 PM
What Iraq wants, what Iraq needs, whatever makes it happy, sets it free. And I'm thanking you for knowing exactly, what Iraq wants, what Iraq needs.

:lol:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Saturday 14 June 2014, 04:01:47 PM
This has all kicked off just as I'm reading a great book called 'A line in the sand', about British and French interference in the middle east. We've been such dicks and should definitely keep our noses out. However, let's not forget Saddam was a massive dick.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Cajun on Sunday 15 June 2014, 07:09:57 AM
Shola Ameobi.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: WarrenBartonCentrePartin on Sunday 15 June 2014, 09:58:15 AM
is a good lick of paint.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Sunday 15 June 2014, 11:29:54 AM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: George Bailey on Sunday 15 June 2014, 01:20:53 PM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Is what humanity needs. cos if we don't we are dooomed.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Raconteur on Sunday 15 June 2014, 01:40:20 PM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Is what humanity needs. cos if we don't we are dooomed.
As Rob says in the OP - Hussein was possibly the most secular leader in the region. Religion isn't the problem, it's being used as a reason for conflict but the issues go so much deeper than how you pray or who you pray to...
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: George Bailey on Sunday 15 June 2014, 01:55:05 PM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Is what humanity needs. cos if we don't we are dooomed.
As Rob says in the OP - Hussein was possibly the most secular leader in the region. Religion isn't the problem, it's being used as a reason for conflict but the issues go so much deeper than how you pray or who you pray to...

Religion is the biggest problem for mankind imo. Our reliance and stubborn clinging to myths and legends, leading to the ability for those in power to use it to continually divide us, control us, is what willl destroy us as a species imo.
imo its what will ultimatley lead or play the catalyst/spark to our destruction and demise.

As for Iraq, I agree a very complex isssue with many factors, religion being only one. My point was more a general belief i have in how mankind will either survive, grow and flourish or destroy itself.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Raconteur on Sunday 15 June 2014, 02:02:50 PM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Is what humanity needs. cos if we don't we are dooomed.
As Rob says in the OP - Hussein was possibly the most secular leader in the region. Religion isn't the problem, it's being used as a reason for conflict but the issues go so much deeper than how you pray or who you pray to...

Religion is the biggest problem for mankind imo. Our reliance and stubborn clinging to myths and legends, leading to the ability for those in power to use it to continually divide us, control us, is what willl destroy us as a species imo.
imo its what will ultimatley lead or play the catalyst/spark to our destruction and demise.

As for Iraq, I agree a very complex isssue with many factors, religion being only one. My point was more a general belief i have in how mankind will either survive, grow and flourish or destroy itself.

Ironically, a religious figure (i.e. the Pope) recently came out and criticised what I believe "what will ultimatley lead or play the catalyst/spark to our destruction and demise" - the unchecked rise of capitalism. Indeed, one might suggest the current war in Iraq had as its root cause the desire of Hussein to acquire Kuwaiti oil, and the USA's desire to secure access to Kuwaiti oil.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: George Bailey on Sunday 15 June 2014, 02:13:59 PM
To sack religion off once and for all.
Is what humanity needs. cos if we don't we are dooomed.
As Rob says in the OP - Hussein was possibly the most secular leader in the region. Religion isn't the problem, it's being used as a reason for conflict but the issues go so much deeper than how you pray or who you pray to...

Religion is the biggest problem for mankind imo. Our reliance and stubborn clinging to myths and legends, leading to the ability for those in power to use it to continually divide us, control us, is what willl destroy us as a species imo.
imo its what will ultimatley lead or play the catalyst/spark to our destruction and demise.

As for Iraq, I agree a very complex isssue with many factors, religion being only one. My point was more a general belief i have in how mankind will either survive, grow and flourish or destroy itself.

Ironically, a religious figure (i.e. the Pope) recently came out and criticised what I believe "what will ultimatley lead or play the catalyst/spark to our destruction and demise" - the unchecked rise of capitalism. Indeed, one might suggest the current war in Iraq had as its root cause the desire of Hussein to acquire Kuwaiti oil, and the USA's desire to secure access to Kuwaiti oil.
Won't get an arguement from me on the role of capitalism in the fetor(sp) on mankinds development.

For me religious states, and religion being a central component of the control structures of the new wave of states in the middle east is just another part of it all. Just like the catholic church, which is tied root and branch to capitailst nations.

Capitalism is no longer progressive for mankind in any form. Globalisation is merely a new guise of imperialism without boots on the ground (the difference being the multi nationals are not just one nation based).

For me, we are just not developing as a species in the social and political sphere as quickly as we are scientifically/technically, and the clinging to ridiculous superstitions, insidiuosly used as a control mechanism by all power elites, wheter capitalist in the purest sense or quasi religious regimes, is what wil be a major factor in the next 50- 100 yrs.

I think we will fail personally, and don't see mankind surviving in the 'long term'.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Geordie Ahmed on Sunday 15 June 2014, 02:23:03 PM
Get rid of religion and man kind will still do shitty things, greed is the issue
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Sunday 15 June 2014, 04:57:36 PM
http://lostislamichistory.com/the-roots-of-iraqs-sectarian-division/
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Mike on Sunday 15 June 2014, 05:47:41 PM
Is white people staying out of its f***ing business.

Should I just lock this now, then?
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Sunday 15 June 2014, 06:17:34 PM
Break Iraq up and allow the different groups to govern themselves.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Troll on Sunday 15 June 2014, 07:06:51 PM
Get rid of religion and man kind will still do shitty things, greed is the issue

If only all the problems in the world could be blamed on a single issue.  Religion is a factor, greed is a factor, there are many, many more.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: biggs on Sunday 15 June 2014, 09:12:56 PM
Break Iraq up and allow the different groups to govern themselves.
tbh look at Sudan now its mental there even after the split ,massive terrorist training camps in Iraq for all comers next
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Sunday 15 June 2014, 09:28:47 PM
Religion's obviously part of it, but the legacy of British and French colonialism, artificial borders and then American neo-colonialism are a huge part.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: The Prophet on Sunday 15 June 2014, 10:30:38 PM
Is a strong leader who is sound on the Islamist and the causes of Islamists

Pity we hanged him....................

Such bollocks.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 15 June 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Religious obviously part of it, but the legacy of British and French colonialism, artificial borders and then American neo-colonialism are a huge part.

:thup:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 15 June 2014, 11:18:33 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqM541yIYAEuoNu.jpg)
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: The Prophet on Sunday 15 June 2014, 11:58:36 PM
I didn't agree with the Iraq War or Blair's justification of it but try telling SunnI Muslims and Kurds they'd be better off under that genocidal lunatic.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Monday 16 June 2014, 08:25:56 AM
Even though i'm in the region and following the news i have no f***ing idea what is going on in Iraq or what ISIS is all about, they are sunni extremist and most sunni extremist have a strong anti-Assad feeling, however they did not fire one bullet towards Assad or his troops, now they are running riot in Iraq and it seems quite odd to me the methods they are using, something about all of this doesn't add up.


And Tony Blair is a f***ing w*****.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 09:55:43 AM
On newsnight last night they were talking about using Iran and Assad's forces to fight Isis...its a complete mess.  Well done the west.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Lotus on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 12:24:54 PM
I didn't agree with the Iraq War or Blair's justification of it but try telling SunnI Muslims and Kurds they'd be better off under that genocidal lunatic.

??? Saddam Hussain WAS a Sunni muslim....
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 02:48:43 PM
only on high days and holy days tho' - bit like Western leaders around the Christmas Tree..............
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Ronaldo on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 04:20:28 PM
On newsnight last night they were talking about using Iran and Assad's forces to fight Isis...its a complete mess.  Well done the west.  :facepalm:

It's foolish to blame the West. Ultimately these countries consume themselves and promote extremism with or without Western intervention.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 04:57:13 PM
On newsnight last night they were talking about using Iran and Assad's forces to fight Isis...its a complete mess.  Well done the west.  :facepalm:

It's foolish to blame the West. Ultimately these countries consume themselves and promote extremism with or without Western intervention.

Hard to say since there hasn't really been a period without western intervention in modern history. They've got to take some responsibility, but you can certainly blame the west too.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 04:59:02 PM
On newsnight last night they were talking about using Iran and Assad's forces to fight Isis...its a complete mess.  Well done the west.  :facepalm:

It's foolish to blame the West. Ultimately these countries consume themselves and promote extremism with or without Western intervention.

Its not that foolish, The West going in and booting out Sadam on a whim of WMD and terroism, totally disabised the whole country and the region itself.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Ronaldo on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 05:04:06 PM
The county was already disabled going by everything I've read and been told by those who were over there.

Look at Syria.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: B-more Mag on Wednesday 18 June 2014, 05:10:42 PM
I'd be inclined to resist intervention to the greatest extent we reasonably can. Doing that is a bit unfair because we've helped create the current crisis, but I can't get past the fact that we're just not good at effecting long-lasting positive change through intervention (at least not without a long-term military presence). Plus, whatever we do to intervene is only going to fire up the Islamic extremists. I think we have to accept the very real possibility of an Islamist state. It's not in our short-term best interest, but in the long-term I think it's better for us to just let whatever plays out play out. Unfortunately, that means standing by while a lot of really bad things happen to people in the region, but it's time for us to end the charade that we do things for humanitarian reasons anyway.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Thursday 19 June 2014, 07:22:16 AM
The county was already disabled going by everything I've read and been told by those who were over there.

Look at Syria.

Yeah, but that's also related to the west. Before the 2003 war we were there for the first Gulf War in the early 90s, in the 80s we were supporting Saddam against Iran, for most of the first half of the century we were directly occupying and controlling Iraq through the 'British mandate', then trying to control the oil when we weren't. Not to mention overthrowing neighbouring Iran's elected government in the 50s, which also affects Iraq - you can't really remove Iraq's modern history from western interference.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: kingkerouac on Thursday 19 June 2014, 07:49:55 AM
More funds spent on investing in renewable energy, ending our reliance on fossil fuels, particularly oil, and then these countries will cease to be as important to us and these 'Saudi-funded' terrorists will find that they have nothing to bargain with, or at least nothing that the West will be interested in.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 19 June 2014, 08:38:25 AM
Mad as bottle of chips if you think the west's meddling hasn't caused at least "some" of the issues in that region.

The west has constantly been meddling.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Lotus on Thursday 19 June 2014, 09:22:12 AM
The county was already disabled going by everything I've read and been told by those who were over there.

Look at Syria.

Yeah, but that's also related to the west. Before the 2003 war we were there for the first Gulf War in the early 90s, in the 80s we were supporting Saddam against Iran, for most of the first half of the century we were directly occupying and controlling Iraq through the 'British mandate', then trying to control the oil when we weren't. Not to mention overthrowing neighbouring Iran's elected government in the 50s, which also affects Iraq - you can't really remove Iraq's modern history from western interference.

Very much this and more. 'The West's' intervention has been calculated to distabilise the region. That's how powerful nations work, always has been, probably always will be. To think or suggest that the state of these countries isn't related to policies from Western Govts is naiviety bordering on a child like understanding of the world and it's machinations.
I'm not morally outraged by it because it seems to be how things are. Big people f**k with little people. Especially if there's money in it. 
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 19 June 2014, 09:30:33 AM
Keep the peoples of the middle east fighting, dont let them unite, steal the oil from the under their noses.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Rob W on Thursday 26 June 2014, 04:09:41 PM
at $100 a barrel its hardly stealing it..................
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Friday 27 June 2014, 11:09:37 AM
bloke sitting opposite me just took a job there, seems pretty relaxed about it for some reason

presume he's just thinking of the f***ing fortune they're paying him
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Rob W on Monday 7 July 2014, 04:05:14 PM
might be OK in Kurdistan or  basra - anywhere else.....................  :fool: :fool:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 8 July 2014, 01:02:33 AM
The county was already disabled going by everything I've read and been told by those who were over there.

Look at Syria.

Yeah, but that's also related to the west. Before the 2003 war we were there for the first Gulf War in the early 90s, in the 80s we were supporting Saddam against Iran, for most of the first half of the century we were directly occupying and controlling Iraq through the 'British mandate', then trying to control the oil when we weren't. Not to mention overthrowing neighbouring Iran's elected government in the 50s, which also affects Iraq - you can't really remove Iraq's modern history from western interference.

Very much this and more. 'The West's' intervention has been calculated to distabilise the region. That's how powerful nations work, always has been, probably always will be. To think or suggest that the state of these countries isn't related to policies from Western Govts is naiviety bordering on a child like understanding of the world and it's machinations.
I'm not morally outraged by it because it seems to be how things are. Big people f**k with little people. Especially if there's money in it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 13 July 2014, 10:11:48 AM
yeah...well.....  I think that's now buried...............
Title: Re: Syria
Post by: alexthegreat on Tuesday 22 July 2014, 11:12:37 PM
I think there's two independent questions which have somehow become conflated into one.

Did forces loyal to Assad carry out the chemical weapons attack?

Should a chemical weapons attack by the regime of this type be countered with military force from western powers?

If you say no to the latter, you're probably going to say no to the former, and vice-versa.  Possibly if you don't want military action anyway, it's more soothing to your conscience to believe that it wouldn't be striking the right persons anyway, and if you're keen on military action, certainty of justification eases any worries you might have.

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe Russia's assertions (both the ones they make from a political perspective, and the more outlandish ones they put out through the Kremlin's media wing, RT) that rebels got hold of chemical weapons and instead of fighting the regime with them they managed to toddle off to a government held area to assault one of their own strongholds that the Syrian Army had been attempting to take.  Especially given that Assad refused to let weapons inspectors in for five days, during which time he bombed the s*** out of the evidence (why would you do that if they could find evidence the rebels had committed harakiri to make him look bad?). 

Of course even if that is the case and the US are right (and I do believe Obama and John Kerry genuine believe chemical weapons were used by the regime), it's possible they're exaggerating evidence because they just don't have it.  The suggestion that Mossad intercepted calls from the regime admitting guilt, for instance, seems a little too convenient to me.

It's all understandable, given the clusterfuck in Iraq, but I think there's a danger of assuming because our own government isn't that trustworthy, the opposite must be the truth - ignoring the fact that this 'truth' is being spoken by governments, regimes, politicans and companies who are at least as shady and have their own vested interests.  How people can write off all western journalism as 'propaganda' and then accept everything RT, which doesn't even attempt to hide the fact it's a paid for mouthpiece of the Russian government, as fact is beyond me.  And there's a danger of painting the Syrian regime forces as the good guys.  People immediately tried to blame the recent attack where a Syrian jet dropped napalm, causing horrific injuries to civilians, on the rebels.  Only one side in this conflict has jets, but people were frantically grasping around and making assumptions like "The rebels must have hijacked the jet."  It's not Battlefield 3, you can't just run through a chainlink fence, hop in a cockpit, fly off, bomb some of your own supporters, jump out and fire a bazooka at a tank on your way down.  It takes hours to get a jet into the air and a whole infrastructure behind it to even start the engine.  "They must have done it with mortars and waited for a jet to be overhead"  Again, napalm can't be fired from mortars outside of Worms Armageddon.

As for if it justifies military action... Discounting all else I'd say probably.  In reality, would it make the situation better for the people in Syria or in the West?  Probably not.


I've noticed some comments elsewhere on the board about the media reporting from Ukraine recently. I thought this was an interesting post from 11 months ago. The west were looking to launch strikes in Syria because of the alleged gas attack on his own people. Putin was opposed to action and Russian media put forward a completely different version of events. There's an obvious parallel between then and now.

I wouldnt like to lump myself in with the tinfoil hat brigade but I honestly don't think any media sources can particularly be trusted.

It's noticable that since Cameron lost the vote on action in Syria (very narrowly iirc) that suddenly no one gives a f*** about the place anymore - it's barely in the news and just doesn't appear to be on the agenda. 1 week ago Assad was sworn in for a third term, 2 weeks ago the UN voted to send aid to 1.5 million people. Granted there are major events taking place elsewhere but I still would have thought this would warrant more prominence given we were on the brink of bombing the place less than 12 months ago.

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight - it's also striking how the "rebels" were characterised. I remember Galloway raising concerns about backing forces that included a fighter who ate the liver of one of his victims, as well as questioning the logic of assisting Al Qaeda. The phrase I recall the mainstream press using a number of times was that the rebels contained "strains of al qaeda fighters". The implication being that this could be overlooked in light of Assad's crimes against his own people.

What was never, ever pointed out was that the "rebels" included a group of psychopaths who were mere months away from declaring their own state straddling half of Syria and Iraq (something they have achieved without the assistance of strikes against Assad). I find it impossible to believe that we could have had so little access to information on the true state of the opposition to Assad. And yet Cameron actually wanted us to carry out air strikes that would help these people, and he wanted to do so on what now looks to me to be an extremely flimsy pretext. The true picture of the rebels in Syria was never presented to the public.

Syria is no longer on the agenda though - instead the world's leaders are blundering around somewhere else, and as before the various media organizations fall into line and spout the party line. In my view it's the Russians with their story about the phantom jet that look more ridiculous this time, but it's not as if our press is really any better.

Here's a story from 3 days ago which the BBC didnt feel was worth reporting on it's website, despite 270 deaths:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/islamic-state-fighters-seize-syria-gas-field-2014717134148345789.html
Quote

Fighters from the Islamic State group killed 270 soldiers, guards and staff when they captured a Syrian gas field earlier this week in the bloodiest clashes between the al-Qaeda splinter group and President Bashar al-Assad's forces, a monitoring group said.

The fighters seized the Shaer gas field in the desert east of the ancient site of Palmyra on Thursday.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights had earlier reported 90 deaths, but upped the toll on Saturday.

The Observatory, which monitors violence in Syria through a network of sources in the country on both sides, quoted "trusted sources" as saying that the Islamic State had "killed and executed" 270 people during the assault.
Spotlight
In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria

It said at least 40 fighters of the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, were killed in the offensive.

It was not immediately possible to verify the report. Syrian state media made no mention of the attack.

"Since the beginning of the year there have been clashes between the Islamic State and the regime in some areas, but these are the largest," the Observatory's director Rami Abdel Rahman said.

Gruesome footage apparently recorded by the fighters at the gas field and distributed online showed dozens of bodies, some of them mutilated, strewn across a desert landscape.

Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 8 August 2014, 03:51:36 AM
Obama authorizes air strikes against ISIS to protect American military personnel in Kurdistan and Yazidi refugees under siege in the mountains
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 8 August 2014, 04:17:26 AM
The United States is Dr. f***ing Frankenstein in that it created the conditions for this horrible monster to be born. 

To the Bush Doctrine pushers, and the Pax Americana cheerleaders, well done you f***ing odious, despicable pricks  :angry:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 8 August 2014, 08:59:08 AM
Sad but true.  In saying that, I do take a slight bit of comfort that we're doing something.  On the other hand, it's proving Tony Blair was f***ing right a couple of months back...
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 13 August 2014, 05:30:09 PM
U.S. weighing massive airlift to get the Yazidi refugees out of the mountains and to safety.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/13/could-marines-evacuate-iraqi-civilians-from-iraqs-mount-sinjar/
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Dave on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:47:08 AM
So someone with a British accent has beheaded an American journalist and posted the video online. :undecided:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:10:51 AM
So someone with a British accent has beheaded an American journalist and posted the video online. :undecided:

Seems that way.

 :weep:
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 12:41:13 PM
A pathetic coward to whom I wish illness & death.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 12:48:14 PM
So someone with a British accent has beheaded an American journalist and posted the video online. :undecided:

I'm sure there's a connection that many of them who, at the least run their "media wing", are big Liverpool fans.  Not an indictment on the scousers at all, for the record, but more that this ISIS lot are full to the brim with young, energetic British youth.  It'll get very bad here if they manage to attack anywhere in the UK.  For better or worse, they seem to be more focused on the US, but that'll no doubt change when our moron PM flings in our forces to Iraq or elsewhere. 
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 12:48:35 PM
Is it confirmed though? the journalist's name and identity, seems like a s*** load of dodgy content coming out from ISIS every week. and mostly turns out to be fabricated. hopefully this will be one of them.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 12:56:07 PM
Think it's pretty certain.  They beheaded some poor b******, nothing fake about it.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Newcastle Fan on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 01:04:19 PM
Think it's pretty certain.  They beheaded some poor b******, nothing fake about it.

f*** sake man.. :(
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Ronaldo on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 06:08:15 PM
I've seen the video. It's horrific.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 09:09:12 PM
To see Steve in that f***ing orange jumpsuit and the shaved head...f***ing hell.  When I was hanging out with him, he had something of a mullet which was somehow endearing.  Great journalist, and a guy with nuts of steel.  I hope one day we can have those beers.  We had some shitty Libyan moonshine together, and talked about it.

f***ing Cheney in 1994.  These assholes knew the score, and couldn't give two s***s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY)

Having said that, these ISIS thugs need to be wiped out to the very last man. 
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Stifleaay on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 09:39:17 PM
I said on another forum the other day that we as a country in my view only have 2 options.


1. Do nothing, pull all of our troops out of Iraq, send no aid and send no weapons.

2. Occupy Iraq in the long term, and by long term I mean 20-50 years. We will need time to develop a democratic political system, increase the quality and availability of health care and education. In a few generations time people's views will change and groups like ISIS will not be able to form in great numbers and little resistance.

With option 1 we are risking ISIS gaining more power and invading neighbouring countries, and gaining access to even more deadly and powerful weapons.

With option 2 we will need not only a large amount of soldiers living in Iraq, but also when the country in more relatively safe we will need to send over health care professionals, teachers, etc. With option 2 we would have to effectively colonise Iraq. Once the oil and the immediate danger is over, will we have the support from the US, will our own government support it, will we be able to fund it.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: OpenC on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:20:40 PM
No middle ground at all?  Annex like part of the empire (but, you know, in a patriarchal and just-trying-to-help-chaps-don't-you-worry-we've-got-this-society-thing-all-worked-out way, like we tried with India back in the day) or just leave them to get on with it?

There are other options :)  Problem is, of course, that just like your two, none of them feel like particularly good ones.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:28:17 PM
There is no resolution but time.  It's going to be right f***ed for awhile.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: OpenC on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:30:13 PM
There is no resolution but time.  It's going to be right f***ed for awhile.

I suspect that this is, sadly, absolutely the case.
Title: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: Belfast Mags on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:30:44 PM
I guess they are going to get their own thread at some point, might as well be now given recent events.
I know there are several threads going about the middle east (which include ISIS) but I'm interested specifically in these guys and what their objectives are, and indeed if they have any chance of success.
Know next to nothing about them tbh, would welcome any background to them etc.
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:45:10 PM
Iraq, Syria, Libya, UK, US, Russia, Canada (seriously?), Gaza, now this?  Not sure. :lol:
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: Froggy on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:47:02 PM
:booboo:
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:48:28 PM
Never mind they're a creation of the West.  I think we stop splintering the discussion so much, ja?
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:48:47 PM
Too many rebrands for my liking. Sack the marketing department.
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:49:47 PM
they are an off branch of al Qaeda in Iraq.  The modern version of Attila and his Huns.  They practice an extreme form of Salafism (which is pretty extreme to begin with).  They have adopted punishments from the ancient world, but their movement is an extremely modern one, with modern interpretations of Shuria.  For instance, they believe that any mosque that has tombs in it should be destroyed, because it poses a risk that people will worship the saints within.  IS also believe in the destruction of history, to wipe out any monument that could be seen as something to be worshipped.  In Libya, the Salafists have destroyed Sufi shrines, and have tried to destroy the Roman ruins in Sabratha.  They also desecrated the WWII Commonwealth cemetery in Benghazi.  IS is much much worse.  al Qaeda has even disowned them.

As much as the US is responsible for the conditions created for IS to thrive, they are the worst type of vicious gangsters imaginable.  And somebody is funding them.  All speculation, but Qatar has been very involved in putting their pieces on the Risk board since before the Arab Spring began.  Whispers among many journalist friends that elements in Qatar are their main financial backers. 
Title: Re: Islamic State (formerly ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:50:29 PM
I think they should be called The Assholes Formerly Known as ISIS
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:52:27 PM
and it pains me to say this.  I have worked so hard after the last 3 years to build bridges, and the assholes on all sides are tearing them down :(  I picked what feels to be a very pointless endeavor, since it's not exactly paying me either.
Title: Re: What Iraq needs.......
Post by: Stifleaay on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 10:54:12 PM
No middle ground at all?  Annex like part of the empire (but, you know, in a patriarchal and just-trying-to-help-chaps-don't-you-worry-we've-got-this-society-thing-all-worked-out way, like we tried with India back in the day) or just leave them to get on with it?

There are other options :)  Problem is, of course, that just like your two, none of them feel like particularly good ones.
If you annex a part of Iraq then all you will get is people who feel they have had a part of their country taken away from them trying to take it back vs the people who have just gained a new country for themselves. It's been suggested to do this to create Kurdistan, all it will do is create another war and another reason for a war.

Right now there does not appear to be much of a middle ground. If you don't do anything then you will allow an extremist group (one that was deemed too extreme for the Taliban) to have their own country and with it a whole lot more power with a lot of people being killed and living in oppression with a risk to it's neighbouring countries.

If you do stay in the country then you have to have the forces there to be able to right ISIS and to keep them from rising again. We have already been in Iraq for 10 years, in that time we have already tried to install a democracy and as soon as we leave ISIS came in. If 10 years of occupation and training Iraqi forces couldn't stop ISIS from pretty much waltzing in then only another 10 years or so isn't going to help.

Title: Re: ISIS & What Iraq needs...
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:00:20 PM
They weren't exactly deemed too extreme for Taliban.   They have very little relation, except that they both practice an extreme form of assholism, and agree with some Salafist principles.

If you mean al Qaeda, yes, al Qaeda essentially disowned them. 

We did not try to install an actual democracy in Iraq, Stifler.  The occupation was a classic smash and grab with the facsimile of nation building.  We helped prop up a pliant thug who further eroded the glue that was holding together tenuously by proscribing any Ba'athist (even low level officials), and isolating Sunnis. 
Title: Re: ISIS & What Iraq needs...
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:00:58 PM
by combining the threads, are you saying that Iraq needs ISIS now? 
Title: Re: ISIS & What Iraq needs...
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:02:13 PM
Open to more appropriate names.
Title: Re: ISIS & What Iraq needs...
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:03:04 PM
Iraq and IS
Title: Re: ISIS & What Iraq needs...
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:13:35 PM
The plan all along was to break down Syria and Iraq into little micro states and support the ones left with the assets we covet (OIL) ie Kurds etc...This way they no longer have influence in the arena or are big enough to threaten Israel.

Secondly a perpetual war can be kept ongoing between the various factions which will continue to be in flux with elements migrating from side to side depending on cash, religious/tribal loyalties and incentives (see most of Africa). The West hasn't got things wrong it was intended this way...See Iraq, Libya and soon Syria.

Big Oil will continue to syphon off all the profits and micro states/tribal bantustans have scant ability to negotiate price. This will go on till the oil runs out or becomes to expensive to process/drill for....
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:17:21 PM
Not certain if I agree with that, Parky.  Big Oil is not benefitting at all from the state of Libya right now.  Low level violence with pliant despots would appear to suit them better.  On the other hand, the MB in Qatar have a shedload of money, and have seen the perfect opportunity to really assert themselves on the Risk board.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:18:40 PM
Iraq and IS

PINAC.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:22:48 PM
Not certain if I agree with that, Parky.  Big Oil is not benefitting at all from the state of Libya right now.  Low level violence with pliant despots would appear to suit them better.  On the other hand, the MB in Qatar have a shedload of money, and have seen the perfect opportunity to really assert themselves on the Risk board.

Partly agree on Libya. Slightly different scenario in that Gadaffi was planning a water pipeline a gold based quasi African currency and intervening in proxy wars in Africa. He was also a cheerleader for selling oil for gold rather than dollars...There was only so much they could take...:lol:

Israel will expand in the next decade and start to take much needed water from the Tigris.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:27:26 PM
Evidence on the ground suggest differently in Libya's case.  Not 100% discounting it, but it was pretty apparent to me that the revolution was started by a bunch of angry protesters, not Western intervention.  They specifically picked February 17th, because of the massacre of protesters that occurred in Benghazi on that day in 2006.  When live ammunition was fired, that was it.  The people went nuts.  Gaddafi pressed down hard on his people, and occasionally they rose up in Benghazi during his 42 years of rule. 

The West have done some horrible things, but they cannot be blamed for every little event that occurs.  I don't buy a lot of these arguments because they tend to ignore the millions of variables that go into tampering.  And for an Illuminati type group to be behind everything and get events to go how it wants seems pretty far fetched, considering most boards can't on agree where to go to lunch.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:35:43 PM
Evidence on the ground suggest differently in Libya's case.  Not 100% discounting it, but it was pretty apparent to me that the revolution was started by a bunch of angry protesters, not Western intervention.  They specifically picked February 17th, because of the massacre of protesters that occurred in Benghazi on that day in 2006.  When live ammunition was fired, that was it.  The people went nuts.  Gaddafi pressed down hard on his people, and occasionally they rose up in Benghazi during his 42 years of rule. 

The West have done some horrible things, but they cannot be blamed for every little event that occurs.  I don't buy a lot of these arguments because they tend to ignore the millions of variables that go into tampering.  And for an Illuminati type group to be behind everything and get events to go how it wants seems pretty far fetched, considering most boards can't on agree where to go to lunch.

I'm not as up on Libya as you are and would always bow to your knowledge. Gadaffi had to go at some point if Libya was to develop into a more modern model.

The PNAC (Project for a new American century) is on pdf on the interweb. Download it and have a read. Everything in it has happened.
You'll come across familiar names ie Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 20 August 2014, 11:38:58 PM
I know about it and read it.  Not everything has happened how they said it would.  Their hubris was such that they assumed that this s*** could be controlled, much like the colonial powers in the past 150 years thought they could control things.  It's only a modification of Pax Britannica.  The writers didn't have the intellectual capacity, awareness or understanding of historical forces to see where such policies become unmanageable.  You give these f***ers too much credit.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:30:55 PM
So reports are out that my friend Steve was killed.  f***ing murderous b******s.  I hope each and everyone of these f***s is wiped off the face of the earth.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Mike on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:31:27 PM
Thought of you when I saw the news. Sorry for your loss, Quakes.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Pixelphish on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:36:06 PM
So reports are out that my friend Steve was killed.  f***ing murderous b******s.  I hope each and everyone of these f***s is wiped off the face of the earth.

I'm truly sorry Quakes.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: JS on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:38:59 PM
This is f***ing awful. I'm also very sorry to read that he was your friend Quakes :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:43:27 PM
f*** these disgusting pricks.  I don't care what conditions were set forth in their lives to reach out to this f***ed up group that would feel comfortable in the company of the Huns.  And I know my feelings of hopelessness and rage are speaking for me, but I really would like to see each and everyone of IS and its members disappeared. 
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: ED209 on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:53:13 PM
20 Black Hawk helicopters allegedly en route to ISIS area at this moment.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Kanji on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:54:33 PM
Thought of you when I saw the news. Sorry for your loss, Quakes.

Sick to my stomach that this has happened again, I'm with you, I hope they are f***ing destroyed swiftly.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:55:41 PM
Thanks for the thoughts.  Devastated for his parents.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Kanji on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 07:58:46 PM
Thanks for the thoughts.  Devastated for his parents.

Again, as you know, I went to UCF and of course didn't know Steven, but it's already hitting hard here in Orlando :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 08:01:07 PM
The guy was a lot of fun.  When a mutual Libyan friend was p*ssed off at me, Steve acted as a mediator and reasoned him through.  He ultimately convinced him that there was no reason to be angry with me.  We were supposed to have beers when he got back from Syria :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Dave on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 08:36:32 PM
Thought of you when I saw the news. Sorry for your loss, Quakes.

Same. :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:00:25 PM
So reports are out that my friend Steve was killed.  f***ing murderous b******s.  I hope each and everyone of these f***s is wiped off the face of the earth.

Damn, man. Terribly sorry to hear this. My thoughts are with you.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Wullie on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:01:12 PM
That's awful man. :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:05:00 PM
One thing that perhaps angers me the most is that loads of these guys are British, French, Belgian, Canadian, American nationals. Born and/or raised in the West, many in comfortable middle-class homes.

We can debate the reasons for the rise of ISIS and the West's policies in that part of the world, but at the end of the day: if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. I have no problem with these people being blown into nothingness.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:06:25 PM
I also think ISIS is trying very hard to goad the U.S. into a deeper role in the conflict.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ronaldo on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:06:45 PM
The sad thing is, doing the right thing and conducting air strikes as a matter of urgency is partially politically unfeasible thanks the 'it's not our problem' arseholes in the Commons.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:12:23 PM
our governments helped create the conditions for this mess.  We sure as damn well clean the s*** up.  Have a serious self reflection of our shitty policies, but after we clean up this menace with ruthlessness.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:13:08 PM
Sad thing is though it is now a Gordion Knot to untangle this mess.  Damned if we do.  Damed if we don't.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:14:35 PM
I also think ISIS is trying very hard to goad the U.S. into a deeper role in the conflict.

I do too.  But Dr. Frankenstein has a responsibility to sort out the monster.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:16:01 PM
Anyway, I am tired of this madness.  If ever there was an illustration at how futile my work is...
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:23:16 PM
Anyway, I am tired of this madness.  If ever there was an illustration at how futile my work is...

  :(
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:42:38 PM
f***ing Facebook friends calling this s*** staged :( They don't even realize the lengths of their own callousness in their attempts to grasp at every conspiracy.  It's f***ing disgusting.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: leffe186 on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 09:55:33 PM
f***ing Facebook friends calling this s*** staged :( They don't even realize the lengths of their own callousness in their attempts to grasp at every conspiracy.  It's f***ing disgusting.

Like I've said before, someone needs to make these c***s go and spout their bullshit to the families involved. They clearly have no idea of the awfulness of what they are doing.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 10:15:02 PM
Exactly, leffe.  They are now of accusing me of being part of the doctoring.  Because I have Producer of 180 Films listed on my Facebook page.  Utterly insensitive c***s.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Kanji on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 10:28:57 PM
Tell them to f*** off man
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 10:32:22 PM
I did.  All of them saying, "your supposed friend".  f***ing heartless c***s.  Not surprisingly, their views are in line with the Infowars legion.  I f***ing really have nothing but utter contempt for them now.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 10:35:30 PM
Am getting much more sympathy from my Muslim friends who are well aware of the threat that IS poses.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: LV on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 11:42:14 PM
Am getting much more sympathy from my Muslim friends who are well aware of the threat that IS poses.

You must fear for Libya the way it's going out there too. 
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 11:45:51 PM
It's in a shitty state, but my friends are getting by in Benghazi.  A lot of 64-calorie ISIS motherfuckers there though.  Cut from the same cloth.  Thugs and bullies wrapped in ideology.  They and their supporters make up less than 5% of the Libyan population, but they are well-funded and well-armed.   
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: jdckelly on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 11:50:06 PM
f***, sorry to hear that Quakes.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: LV on Tuesday 2 September 2014, 11:53:06 PM
It's in a shitty state, but my friends are getting by in Benghazi.  A lot of 64-calorie ISIS motherfuckers there though.  Cut from the same cloth.  Thugs and bullies wrapped in ideology.  They and their supporters make up less than 5% of the Libyan population, but they are well-funded and well-armed.   

Well-funded and well-armed organisations tend to prove pretty attractive to people though when they start making gains and look like they are winning. Not sure if that lot who took Tripoli recently are ISIS affiliated or not but it's not good news anyway as their ideology is not far off unless I'm mistaken.

Edit - totally forgot to say I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. There are no words to describe these monsters.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:11:24 AM
Thanks to all of you :(

Not sure if they are officially affiliated with ISIS.  No evidence that they are, apart from Libyan fighters coming back form Syria to fight Haftar's Libyan National Army, as he calls it.   But their world views often parallel those of ISIS.  It's all attached to extreme Salafism, which has its roots in Saudi Arabia, and has been spreading its tentacles like The Thing since the Arab Spring.  Salafism is such a rigid interpretation of Islam that 97% of Muslims can't stand it, and fear Salafists as much as anybody else.  Those assholes have been destroying shrines all over the place.  Just two years ago, they went on a rampage in the Roman ruins of Sabratha, until the town folk attacked them and violently forced them out.    Hezbollah has fought against them many times to protect Shia shrines. 

They are not only attacking people of all creeds.  They are attacking the very monuments that define the history of human civilization.  Crimes against history if there ever were.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: bulivye on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 01:08:51 AM
am so very sorry to hear of how personal of a loss this is for you QM. you have my heartfelt sympathy as does Steve's family & other friends.  i sincerely hope that he & all of the victims of these monsters are avenged. 
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Belfast Mags on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 01:15:45 AM
 :( just seen this on the news and thought of QM instantly.
Really sorry for you man, don't know what else to say. Gutted for you.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: cubaricho on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 02:48:11 AM
Big vigil going to happen on campus in the next days from the looks of it. I missed being in classes with Steven by just a few months. I feel like it would've been an honor to know him. If I have the night off I'm going to head over to campus and join in.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: oldtype on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 03:38:58 AM
Just been watching the coverage of this on the news. Such a horrible situation.

My most sincere condolences QM. Can't imagine how it must feel to lose a friend like that.

Motherfuckers could use a good bombing.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: cubaricho on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 03:41:29 AM
If I didn't think it would make things worse I would make that place a f***ing glass parking lot. Considering my own profession, that (with a few things going my way) could be me over there too.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: oldtype on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 03:43:18 AM
If I didn't think it would make things worse I would make that place a f***ing glass parking lot. Considering my own profession, that (with a few things going my way) could be me over there too.

I know these issues are complex and involve a lot of shades of gray, but some things feel so unequivocally evil you just want them hammered into oblivion.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: LV on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 07:53:26 AM
If I didn't think it would make things worse I would make that place a f***ing glass parking lot. Considering my own profession, that (with a few things going my way) could be me over there too.

I know these issues are complex and involve a lot of shades of gray, but some things feel so unequivocally evil you just want them hammered into oblivion.

Don't think there are many shades of grey involved when they are beheading 12 year old boys in front of their families, killing old people and women for not doing exactly what they want, making slaves out of young girls not to mention executing innocent men in their hundreds.

Anyone who knows about Islam knows that what they are doing is against Islam but unfortunately the fact that they are creating this 'perfect' Islamic Caliphate/State is very attractive to a lot of muslims to the point that they can overlook the atrocities committed to create it.

What staggers me is the amount of people here in the UK that can overlook this evil and be supportive of it. They need to learn more about their own religion.

In Islam if you kill one human being, Allah sees it as if you have killed the whole human race. In Islam if you come across an unarmed man on the battlefield who is not raising his hand against you you must escort him from the battlefield to a place of safety. In Islam, if a muslim and a fellow muslim fight each other, they are no longer seen as muslim. And that's just a start.

These guys are just picking and choosing what they want to take from Islam and a lot of them just seem to care about becoming Shaheed (a martyr) in order to be guaranteed a place in heaven and forgetting that if they get killed they'll have to stand in front of Allah and account for what they have done when they sawed of that young kids head with a knife because some bloke told them that it's what Allah wants.

I'm not religious myself but if I was and someone told me I had to guess whether these guys were on the side of God or the side of Satan then it would be a total no-brainer to me. It's pure evil.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: kingkerouac on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:04:53 AM
If I didn't think it would make things worse I would make that place a f***ing glass parking lot. Considering my own profession, that (with a few things going my way) could be me over there too.

I know these issues are complex and involve a lot of shades of gray, but some things feel so unequivocally evil you just want them hammered into oblivion.

Don't think there are many shades of grey involved when they are beheading 12 year old boys in front of their families, killing old people and women for not doing exactly what they want, making slaves out of young girls not to mention executing innocent men in their hundreds.

Anyone who knows about Islam knows that what they are doing is against Islam but unfortunately the fact that they are creating this 'perfect' Islamic Caliphate/State is very attractive to a lot of muslims to the point that they can overlook the atrocities committed to create it.

What staggers me is the amount of people here in the UK that can overlook this evil and be supportive of it. They need to learn more about their own religion.

In Islam if you kill one human being, Allah sees it as if you have killed the whole human race. In Islam if you come across an unarmed man on the battlefield who is not raising his hand against you you must escort him from the battlefield to a place of safety. In Islam, if a muslim and a fellow muslim fight each other, they are no longer seen as muslim. And that's just a start.

These guys are just picking and choosing what they want to take from Islam and a lot of them just seem to care about becoming Shaheed (a martyr) in order to be guaranteed a place in heaven and forgetting that if they get killed they'll have to stand in front of Allah and account for what they have done when they sawed of that young kids head with a knife because some bloke told them that it's what Allah wants.

I'm not religious myself but if I was and someone told me I had to guess whether these guys were on the side of God or the side of Satan then it would be a total no-brainer to me. It's pure evil.

No, they're insane. Clearly.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:10:07 AM
the thing with islam, and of course it's not really islam but those using it for their ends, is that it just seems so out of time now beheading people, subjugating women, butchering those who don't conform etc.

christianity and everyone else (more less) seems to have gotten that s*** out of their systems ages ago and unfortunately the only ones committing these type of barbaric acts seem to tie themselves with islam

there's no logical answer to this other than wipe them out 'cause they'll never stop

not that there's nothing barbaric about butchering people with drone strikes and such of course
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Miercoles on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:50:01 AM
christianity and everyone else (more less) seems to have gotten that s*** out of their systems ages ago and unfortunately the only ones committing these type of barbaric acts seem to tie themselves with islam

Except for that whole aiding and abetting massive amounts of child rape part, sure.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:51:05 AM
Sure, aside from that
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 09:51:31 AM
Why aren't the Muslim leaders & their cohorts not falling over each other to condemn this illegal state & the violence it perpetrates?

I haven't seen any mass protests, high profile demonstrations by the dozen at all.

They`re relative tacit reaction to all of this speaks volumes & can be interpreted as a grave portent for what this country has coming to it.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 09:52:34 AM
You could argue that normal Muslims around the world shouldn't be expected to comment on the actions of non-associated mentals. I mean, do we expect that of other groups?
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 09:53:13 AM
don't know, because it doesn't threaten their oil money at the moment probably
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:06:01 AM
The Muslim community (from a mainstream media perspective)in the main, seem quick to be on the march when some cartoon appears on the back of some Dutch rag no ones ever heard of, so why not now?

Its in their own interests to stand up & fight against this kind of madness surely? 

Edit: I hope I`m not coming across as some small minded, bigoted Billy England, but if someone was acting the utter c*** in my name & doing their level best to advertise it to the world I wouldn't just be shrugging my shoulders etc.   
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:11:28 AM
The Muslim community (from a mainstream media perspective)in the main, seem quick to be on the march when some cartoon appears on the back of some Dutch rag no ones ever heard of, so why not now?

Its in their own interests to stand up & fight against this kind of madness surely? 

I don't think they are to be honest, it's more the extreme/vocal end that react publically.

I see what people are getting at with stuff like this, but it seems a bit fanciful for me that the 'Muslim community' has a single voice or a way/will to speak up against stuff like this. Sure, a few high-up religious figures could comment, but would they get any coverage? Maybe they've been saying things already, I don't know.

Also, I assume most Muslims would argue that the actions of extremists and politically-motivated guerrilla armies like ISIS have absolutely nothing to do with them. They just happen to profess the same faith.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:15:43 AM
The Muslim community (from a mainstream media perspective)in the main, seem quick to be on the march when some cartoon appears on the back of some Dutch rag no ones ever heard of, so why not now?

Its in their own interests to stand up & fight against this kind of madness surely? 

I don't think they are to be honest, it's more the extreme/vocal end that react publically.

I see what people are getting at with stuff like this, but it seems a bit fanciful for me that the 'Muslim community' has a single voice or a way/will to speak up against stuff like this. Sure, a few high-up religious figures could comment, but would they get any coverage? Maybe they've been saying things already, I don't know.

Also, I assume most Muslims would argue that the actions of extremists and politically-motivated guerrilla armies like ISIS have absolutely nothing to do with them. They just happen to profess the same faith.

This is entirely the point.

If someone is acting the utter t*** in your name surely you'd feel compelled to stand up & put the record straight (In the most robust terms available) ?   
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:19:59 AM
But my whole point is that they aren't associated at all. Why should a Muslim in England feel the need, or be expected, to protest or speak out against something been done by another 'Muslim' somewhere else in the world. Do we expect that of other groups? Sure, if it was their government or their official church, but just people who also profess to be Muslim?

To me that's an example of the mistaken way in which we tend to lump together people who are different to us in a way we don't with people we understand better.

I mean, I would expect that if you spoke to a Muslim in Britain they would tell you all things like 'ISIS are giving all Muslims a bad name' etc. And they would be worried about the effect back home. I just think expecting any kind of collective public response is a bit much.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:56:21 AM
In politics (Intrinsically entwined with religion) Public image is everything.

Whilst reports chronicle the mobilisation of over 500 (Known) "British citizens" to "fight" in the middle east, there remains a need for a response (from the Muslim community) in order to either align or distance themselves from these kind of actions.



Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Kaizero on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 10:59:26 AM
We've had mass muslim protests in Norway with the main Imams doing speeches about ISIS not following Islam, but the devil. All in the government attended one of these events as well as the leaders of the other "major" faiths in Norway.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 11:08:47 AM
Interesting, obviously it's good if people speak out against these things. I just dislike the way it's somehow expected of Muslims.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 11:18:10 AM
British imams just issued a fatwa against ISIS.  There has been plenty of condemnation in the American Muslim community as well.  I probably have 1500 Muslim Facebook friends, and they were actually the first ones to decry ISIS, and the murders of James Foley and Steve.  They are well aware of the threat.  Most Muslims detest them and are absolutely terrified of them, and for good reason.

Many of the silent Muslim leaders, however, are hedging their bets, and have shown a staggering level of cowardice on many issues, just as the Catholic leaders have shown a stunning level of cowardice when it comes to the child rape scandals. 

I'd also point out the sheer brutality of certain Christians in places like Uganda as well.  All cut from the same cloth.  But you see groups like ISIS manifest on this level because of the sheer hubris and cynicism of the many global players involved.  Geopolitical maneuvering of the US, Russia, UK, France, Qatar, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al has allowed this beast to grow.  In an ideal world, these players, particularly the US and Russia would realize how much they f***ed up this region, and find sustainable policies, but both suffer from the same short term mentality of smash and grab, and let future generations sort this s*** out.  But first this beast really has to be stopped.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 11:21:08 AM
isn't the point that you'd expect other leading states in the region to have an involvement and try to calm s*** down instead of the yankee devils telling the world how to live?  rather than spontaneous protests from random muslim people
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 11:24:47 AM
Interesting, obviously it's good if people speak out against these things. I just dislike the way it's somehow expected of Muslims.

If some bunch of feckless, fanatical cowards were behaving in a similar manner & had aligned themselves to you & your beliefs would you feel the need to stand up & speak out? protest? declare they in no way represented you or Your values?

You would probably consider it unfair for you to have to do so but that isn't the point
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 11:37:57 AM
We have a fair few of those in the US who have hijacked Christianity.  Some have killed abortion clinic doctors.  Most Christians don't feel the need to protest this, even if they have obvious disgust toward these actions.  I've heard enough say that those f***ers don't represent them.  And I certainly won't blame every Christian that doesn't speak up.  Nor will I vilify every Jew who doesn't go out and protest against the brutality of the IDF.

You're putting an onus on people who just want to get on with their lives.  If it doesn't directly effect people, you can't everyone of them to stand up and protest because a few madmen are barbarically killing and maiming in their name.  There are around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and you are apparently giving them an implicit either-or choice of saying "Either speak out, or you are one of them."  I completely agree with Ian W on this one.

Anyway, I've had heard enough rage from my Muslim friends to get a pretty clear idea that they detest these f***ers, my Libyan ones especially so, since they deal with the low-calorie version of these assholes.  I've heard more urgent calls for the destruction of ISIS from them over anybody else.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:06:08 PM
We have a fair few of those in the US who have hijacked Christianity.  Some have killed abortion clinic doctors.  Most Christians don't feel the need to protest this, even if they have obvious disgust toward these actions.  I've heard enough say that those f***ers don't represent them.  And I certainly won't blame every Christian that doesn't speak up.  Nor will I vilify every Jew who doesn't go out and protest against the brutality of the IDF.

You're putting an onus on people who just want to get on with their lives.  If it doesn't directly effect people, you can't everyone of them to stand up and protest because a few madmen are barbarically killing and maiming in their name.  There are around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and you are apparently giving them an implicit either-or choice of saying "Either speak out, or you are one of them."  I completely agree with Ian W on this one.

Anyway, I've had heard enough rage from my Muslim friends to get a pretty clear idea that they detest these f***ers, my Libyan ones especially so, since they deal with the low-calorie version of these assholes.  I've heard more urgent calls for the destruction of ISIS from them over anybody else.

The atrocities these people are perpetrating in the name of "Islam" are as divisive as they are repellent. This is an unfortunate & inconvenient consequence for the Muslim community as it will serve to further polarise those communities that already are in dire need of integration & feed the bigots that see them as a threat.

I am not arguing that they need to provide a robust response to these developments because they are somehow complicit in them, more so that they must be seen as victims (By consequence) or there will be many people in this country who will be prepared to have a field day & see them as one of the same
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:16:20 PM
Interesting, obviously it's good if people speak out against these things. I just dislike the way it's somehow expected of Muslims.

If some bunch of feckless, fanatical cowards were behaving in a similar manner & had aligned themselves to you & your beliefs would you feel the need to stand up & speak out? protest? declare they in no way represented you or Your values?

You would probably consider it unfair for you to have to do so but that isn't the point


Depends on what you mean by 'align themselves to you' really, that's the crux of my point. I do, for example, feel ashamed of NUFC fans who sing racists songs etc. I just think it's overburdening innocent and unconnected people to expect some kind of collective response from them when they're only a community in the very loosest sense of the word.

If we are worried about the people who will lump all Muslims together and criticise them, then it's that attitude we need to combat.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: brummie on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:20:31 PM
These beheadings are horrendous, but the entirety of western relations with the middle east is absolutely ridiculed with hypocrisy.

So, we will be (understandably) reviled by these beheadings, whilst happily selling weapons (anything from fighter planes to crowd control equipment) to a truly disgusting regime like Saudi Arabia - one which frequently carries out beheadings. We'll think about an alliance with the Syrian regime if it helps combat ISIS, this months after declaring the same regime to be horrible beyond belief.

We and the US will not doing anything to stop Israel systematically murdering innocent people in Gaza, in fact, the US will carry on sending them money regardless, but a couple of journalists get murdered in cold blood and it's the number one news item. How many muslims have ISIS killed? How many muslims, right now, are fighting ISIS day to day?

The fact that so many people in this country are happy to demonise the muslim community for these nut jobs just adds ignorance to the hypocrisy.

Honestly, there are some pretty hideous things going on in the middle east at the moment, of which these executions are the latest, but you do have to wonder whether at times we are our own worse enemy.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:23:25 PM
That contradiction is everywhere TBH, somehow human beings have the ability to categorise lives into the more and less important. I suppose it's evolutionary, we have to value the people we identify with and who are closest to us.

I'm not a massive fan of Kanye but his "314 soldiers died in Iraq, 509 died in Chicago" line is very telling IMO.

At the same time though, pragmatically foreign affairs does mean allying yourself with people you dislike, then changing your mind a year or two later.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Heake on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 12:28:43 PM
A few good men in the most powerful positions in this world would go a long way to sorting the worlds problems.

Too many Knaves & unprincipled cowards sitting in too many seats of power.

At least we`ve got NUFC to cheer us up though

 :pardsgrin:

Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 06:38:57 PM
All we need to do is prove the obvious link between Ashley and ISIS.  Maybe their fatigues and balaclavas have the Sports Direct brand on them.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 07:07:39 PM
Anyway, I've had heard enough rage from my Muslim friends to get a pretty clear idea that they detest these f***ers, my Libyan ones especially so, since they deal with the low-calorie version of these assholes.  I've heard more urgent calls for the destruction of ISIS from them over anybody else.

I can corroborate this.  My Muslim colleagues (mainly Saudi, Kuwaiti and Libyan) all feel the same way and are pretty worried about the situation considering some of their countries border Iraq
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 07:09:17 PM
The thing is, why should Muslims have to denounce ISIS when they're its biggest victims?
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 07:13:21 PM
Because they know fine well they'll get tarred with the same brush. It's a shitty situation and I suppose they shouldn't have to but that's not how it is
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 07:13:42 PM
Muslims should denounce ISIS as much as we should denounce the great atrocities committed by our own nations. I have denounced the United States many times, but I don't exactly judge other Americans based on if they are denouncing United States foreign policy or not. Some people would rather block all of this s*** out and get on with their lives in their own little spheres of existence. And honestly, I don't exactly blame them. Seeing these geopolitical fault lines split and suck thousands down into their crevasses is f***ing depressing, and makes me want to film nature documentaries instead.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: BONTEMPI on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:26:29 PM
Doesn't matter what nation or religion you are from, a c*** is a c***.  We need to wipe these lot off the face of the earth asap.  Trouble is the aftermath, can we really expect these nations to form democratic governments that caters for all minorities after the f*** up in Iraq? You'd be back to square one again in no time.

What is the answer? Western controlled regional governors to ingrain a solid infrastructure over a far longer period of time? Or do we leave it, and let it slip back to the corruption and dictatorships of the past.

All I do know is religion has a lot to answer for, but the lust for power and control in humans is the greater evil.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Belfast Mags on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:26:40 PM
These beheadings are horrendous, but the entirety of western relations with the middle east is absolutely ridiculed with hypocrisy.

So, we will be (understandably) reviled by these beheadings, whilst happily selling weapons (anything from fighter planes to crowd control equipment) to a truly disgusting regime like Saudi Arabia - one which frequently carries out beheadings. We'll think about an alliance with the Syrian regime if it helps combat ISIS, this months after declaring the same regime to be horrible beyond belief.

We and the US will not doing anything to stop Israel systematically murdering innocent people in Gaza, in fact, the US will carry on sending them money regardless, but a couple of journalists get murdered in cold blood and it's the number one news item. How many muslims have ISIS killed? How many muslims, right now, are fighting ISIS day to day?

The fact that so many people in this country are happy to demonise the muslim community for these nut jobs just adds ignorance to the hypocrisy.

Honestly, there are some pretty hideous things going on in the middle east at the moment, of which these executions are the latest, but you do have to wonder whether at times we are our own worse enemy.

:thup: excellent post
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 3 September 2014, 08:32:07 PM
Well said, brummie.  Beyond all this s*** though, I just miss a really decent guy and a good journalist, and am disgusted that I have to defend Steve and his family from these Alex Jones nutjobs.  No f***ing empathy  :(

Steve would have wholeheartedly agreed with your post, btw
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 4 September 2014, 01:59:46 PM
Ah, man, we were only talking of this at the start of this thread.  Sorry about the loss, and it's heartbreaking to see how all sides use this death to score points, from your IF Legion to the political establishment, nobody really comes out of it the better.  I've had bitter arguments with the other half over this, and your connection, as she was another that just went with "probably staged *shrug*".

He/we deserve better.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 4 September 2014, 03:57:08 PM
This is true, BlufPurdi.  In their finger pointing, people forget that a decent guy, and a great voice for the world of journalism, lost his life.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Haz on Thursday 4 September 2014, 04:19:55 PM
Regardless of their ideology or 'religion'  these guys are not going to negotiate.  They frighten true muslims to death because of their 'end of days' caliphate driven Jihad.  There is no wiggle room with them.  They are going to have to be exterminated.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 4 September 2014, 04:25:16 PM
I have to admit, I AM reluctant to send, yet again, Western forces in.  In saying that, I think the West was rightly stopped from starting a war against Syria (for all intents and purposes, fighting alongside ISIS then ISIL or whatever).  That was a right decision, but by no means can we just sit it out each time.  It's high time we used some of our allies in the region, but I doubt their loyalties.  They've been armed enough though. 
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Haz on Thursday 4 September 2014, 05:28:38 PM
In conjunction with Air strikes (ongoing) it would seem the Kurds and Peshmurga are providing very effective boots on ground and curtailing ISIS movements.  But the Arab states, primarily Saudi,  have to step up to the plate.  USAF is going to have to strike ISIS in Syria to 'cut the head off the snake'.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:16:44 AM
Watching the Vice News videos on Iraq (not the IS ones though they are equally as good), the situtation is far more complex than most people seem to think. The Kurds are making big moves to take over certain cities, combined with their involvement in retaking the Mosul dam. I can't see how the current state of Iraq will still exist as it is when all of this is over, saying that it was invented by drawing some arbitrary lines on a map so maybe some new states to reflect the different groups wouldn't be a bad thing?

This is the first of the videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RojiK_l45hY
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: TruToon94 on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:42:18 AM
If ISIS can provide a stable government then we need to suck it up and let the natural victors of the post-Hussein world win the war they've rightfully won. Having multitudes of different factions like in Libya is a disaster. ISIS may just be the best of a bad bunch.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Rosenrot on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:43:59 AM
If ISIS can provide a stable government then we need to suck it up and let the natural victors of the post-Hussein world win the war they've rightfully won. Having multitudes of different factions like in Libya is a disaster. ISIS may just be the best of a bad bunch.

 :idiot2:
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Troll on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:51:50 AM
If ISIS can provide a stable government then we need to suck it up and let the natural victors of the post-Hussein world win the war they've rightfully won. Having multitudes of different factions like in Libya is a disaster. ISIS may just be the best of a bad bunch.

Yeah, as soon as they've finished their genocide of Shias and Kurds they'll just sit back and rule their territory in peace.  Definitely won't try and expand and take other areas.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Wow.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: TruToon94 on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:54:46 AM
If ISIS can provide a stable government then we need to suck it up and let the natural victors of the post-Hussein world win the war they've rightfully won. Having multitudes of different factions like in Libya is a disaster. ISIS may just be the best of a bad bunch.

Yeah, as soon as they've finished their genocide of Shias and Kurds they'll just sit back and rule their territory in peace.  Definitely won't try and expand and take other areas.

Okay so we defeat ISIS. Then what? Who comes in charge? It'll just be a different bunch of guys with the same objectives.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Troll on Friday 5 September 2014, 11:58:59 AM
f***ing hell.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: TruToon94 on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:02:53 PM
f***ing hell.

It's the question nobody want to answer seemingly. I also think it's a bit odd that nobody wants to mention the so called Democratic Government had policies marginalizing the Sunni's. Fact is stability is better than absolute chaos. 
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:03:02 PM
Call me old fashioned but I like the idea of stable states where people from different backgrounds can live in peace, rather than letting the strongest or most extreme group exterminate everyone else.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Toondave on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:05:05 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Ian W on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:06:49 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

I don't believe that for a second.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:11:19 PM
If ISIS can provide a stable government then we need to suck it up and let the natural victors of the post-Hussein world win the war they've rightfully won. Having multitudes of different factions like in Libya is a disaster. ISIS may just be the best of a bad bunch.

Yeah, as soon as they've finished their genocide of Shias and Kurds they'll just sit back and rule their territory in peace.  Definitely won't try and expand and take other areas.

Okay so we defeat ISIS. Then what? Who comes in charge? It'll just be a different bunch of guys with the same objectives.

You think everyone who's been in charge of, or will be in charge of middle eastern countries has the same objectives as Islamic State?
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: TruToon94 on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:15:14 PM
Call me old fashioned but I like the idea of stable states where people from different backgrounds can live in peace, rather than letting the strongest or most extreme group exterminate everyone else.

Sadly that's not the way it works over there. Predominantly tribal societies don't have the concept of nationhood. In fact they largely feel disconnected from any central power as long as it doesn't interfere in their daily lives and that's why it's so easy for Coups to occur as all a rebel needs to do is to separate the power of the state from its main decision makers due to the importance of centralism. That's why after the first few democratic elections, almost immediately the Sunni's were being discriminated against by law makers.

The only ways to ever ensure such a state in a tribal society as you would like is the American Way (kill all the natives and support mass immigration) the expensive way (spend billion and billions for at least a hundred years to ensure that by the third generation concepts like freedom of religion exist) or the Empire way (annex a nation and force them to come to your ways). I don't support any of these.

I'm open to ideas of the ideas of how you would implement a peaceful state to such a place with realistic solutions.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Toondave on Friday 5 September 2014, 12:15:18 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

I don't believe that for a second.

The closest the Middle East has come to a tolerant society since mohamet is the Mongols/ilkhanate. Other than that they've never missed a chance to off each other.

What indicators are there that this will change in the next 100 years?
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Troll on Friday 5 September 2014, 01:39:31 PM
f***ing hell.

It's the question nobody want to answer seemingly. I also think it's a bit odd that nobody wants to mention the so called Democratic Government had policies marginalizing the Sunni's. Fact is stability is better than absolute chaos. 

Your question is why don't we let them continue murdering everyone who thinks differently to them, and continue to grow; just in case someone else comes along afterwards.  No-one wants to answer your question because it's an absolutely horrible way to think.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: B-more Mag on Friday 5 September 2014, 01:40:38 PM
f***ing hell.

It's the question nobody want to answer seemingly. I also think it's a bit odd that nobody wants to mention the so called Democratic Government had policies marginalizing the Sunni's. Fact is stability is better than absolute chaos. 

Your question is why don't we let them continue murdering everyone who thinks differently to them, and continue to grow; just in case someone else comes along afterwards.  No-one wants to answer your question because it's an absolutely horrible way to think.

Boko Haram.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 5 September 2014, 01:51:43 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

Patently untrue.  Before the rise of Zionism, Palestine had a mostly Muslim population, but Christians and Jews found peace there as well.  In fact, while the pogroms were raging all over Europe, Jews were still finding refuge in the MENA region.

No side should take 100% of the blame for this mess, but many of the modern Western states should take the lion's share.  It's time for the Western states to admit their wrongdoing and reevaluate their policies.  That said, IS will just get worse and worse.  They are already showing an incapability of ruling in places like Mosul, where people are fighting back on a low level.  Their form of brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like Gandhi.

But the truth of the matter is, there is no featherbed way out of this f***ing mess.  The damage is so deep, and every decision will temporarily make matters much worse.  As I said earlier, only time will sort this s*** out.  I still believe wholeheartedly that ISIS needs to be stopped, but it's time to bring the hammer down on the Saudis and force them to break that 250 year treaty with the Salfis.  Further, Qatar should not go unpunished for its meddling either.  Once this is sorted, then Britain, France, Russia, and most of all the United States can go f*** themselves.  The Cold War citadels are dissolved.  Acknowledge the crimes committed over the last 100 years and move on.  This of course will not happen, and s*** is only going to get geometrically worse.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 5 September 2014, 01:53:50 PM
f***ing hell.

It's the question nobody want to answer seemingly. I also think it's a bit odd that nobody wants to mention the so called Democratic Government had policies marginalizing the Sunni's. Fact is stability is better than absolute chaos. 

Your question is why don't we let them continue murdering everyone who thinks differently to them, and continue to grow; just in case someone else comes along afterwards.  No-one wants to answer your question because it's an absolutely horrible way to think.


ISIS has said as much that there goal doesn't stop with the MENA region.  They want to dominate the world.  These motherfuckers are the Huns 2.0.  No diplomacy at all with them.  And to think along those lines is very Chamberlainesque.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 5 September 2014, 02:01:45 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

I don't believe that for a second.

The closest the Middle East has come to a tolerant society since mohamet is the Mongols/ilkhanate. Other than that they've never missed a chance to off each other.

What indicators are there that this will change in the next 100 years?

I am sorry, but that is horse s***.  Jews and Christians were found relative protection within Islamic societies ranging from the Moors to the Ottomans.  I found a strong level of tolerance with the vast majority of Libyans I encountered as well.  It was not a perfectly tolerant grouping of societies, but the tolerance was on a much much greater level than you would find in Europe in 1900.  Much of the intolerance is a new phenomenon and stems indirectly from the Balfour Declaration, and the Allies' reneged promises of WWI and WWII.  Revisionist history with a distinctly Orientalist slant is not helping matters, and is still embedded in so many Westerners.  First step in attempting to clean this Gordion Knot up should be to man up and acknowledge the blame that we in the West should well take for greedily f***ing up the remains of a really f***ed up Ottoman Empire.  But at the same time, to sit back and ignore it like many far lefties would have us do would be an even greater madness, and puts many groups from Yazidis to Kurds to Christians to Muslims in a great jeopardy that was in essence carelessly created by us.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: Toondave on Friday 5 September 2014, 02:04:27 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

I don't believe that for a second.

The closest the Middle East has come to a tolerant society since mohamet is the Mongols/ilkhanate. Other than that they've never missed a chance to off each other.

What indicators are there that this will change in the next 100 years?

I am sorry, but that is horse s***.  Jews and Christians were found relative protection within Islamic societies ranging from the Moors to the Ottomans.  I found a strong level of tolerance with the vast majority of Libyans I encountered as well.  Much of the intolerance stems indirectly from the Balfour Declaration, and the Allies' reneged promises of WWI and WWII.  Revisionist history with an distinctly Orientalist slant is not helping matters, and is still embedded in so many Westerners.  First step in attempting to clean this Gordion Knot up should be to man up and acknowledge the blame that we in the West should well take for greedily f***ing up the remains of a really f***ed up Ottoman Empire.  But at the same time, to sit back and ignore it like many far lefties would have us do would be an even greater madness, and puts many groups from Yazidis to Kurds to Christians to Muslims in a great jeopardy that was in essence carelessly created by us.

Jews and Christians were given protection? Ottomans applied dhimmi status to anyone and everyone.
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: thomas on Friday 5 September 2014, 02:05:45 PM
gimme dat caliphate
Title: Re: Iraq & Islamic State (ISIS)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 5 September 2014, 02:09:49 PM
I don't think you can make a middle eastern state where people from all different backgrounds can live in peace. They don't really go in for that kinda thing.

I don't believe that for a second.

The closest the Middle East has come to a tolerant society since mohamet is the Mongols/ilkhanate. Other than that they've never missed a chance to off each other.

What indicators are there that this will change in the next 100 years?

I am sorry, but that is horse s***.  Jews and Christians were found relative protection within Islamic societies ranging from the Moors to the Ottomans.  I found a strong level of tolerance with the vast majority of Libyans I encountered as well.  Much of the intolerance stems indirectly from the Balfour Declaration, and the Allies' reneged promises of WWI and WWII.  Revisionist history with an distinctly Orientalist slant is not helping matters, and is still embedded in so many Westerners.  First step in attempting to clean this Gordion Knot up should be to man up and acknowledge the blame that we in the West should well take for greedily f***ing up the remains of a really f***ed up Ottoman Empire.  But at the same time, to sit back and ignore it like many far lefties would have us do would be a