On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: It seems that the 11th Division of the FSA has changed bands to the Al Nusra front, this is a pretty damn big blow to the FS Army
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: it is a testament of the incompetence the western powers have had in this conflict and how they have behaved these last two years.
Well...what do you suggest be done then? Even the idea of aiding the the "good" rebels publicly either turns you into the bad guy or evil imperialist so you can't fault or say that the West has been incompetent thus far. Especially considering no one seems to want intervention of any sort happening.
Can't say no to intervening and then at the same time say we aren't doing enough.
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: It seems that the 11th Division of the FSA has changed bands to the Al Nusra front, this is a pretty damn big blow to the FS Army
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: it is a testament of the incompetence the western powers have had in this conflict and how they have behaved these last two years.
Well...what do you suggest be done then? Even the idea of aiding the the "good" rebels publicly either turns you into the bad guy or evil imperialist so you can't fault or say that the West has been incompetent thus far. Especially considering no one seems to want intervention of any sort happening.
Can't say no to intervening and then at the same time say we aren't doing enough.
Of course it was bound to happen, the rebels haven't been getting the proper help since well never, and the only ones with the training and weapons is Al Nusra, it has been just lately that the non radical strands of the FSA have been getting real external support, but the damage it is done for the most part, Al Nusra has expanded his influence in the FSA too much, and the fact that the USA won't attack Assad and just take away his toys instead may have been the straw that broke the camel.
What should have been done was to force Assad into listening to the will of his own people, so he should step down or face international/NATO help towards the Rebels, but alas it is a "little" too late for that. The thing is that i can't emphasize how much the USA fucked this up with the CW deal, now they can't invade no matter what happens inside Syria, Assad could napalm the country to ashes and the USA would not be able to do shit (I'm not being literal here duh), not only that they didn't even demanded Assad to step down from power to be judged in a international court by his crimes against humanity/war crimes but they didn't established a no-fly zone in the country (if that can't be called incompetent i can't imagine what meaning that word has to you).
So what should be done? with that CW accord nothing much can be done, but to "ask kindly" (i'm serious here) to Assad to step down from power, meanwhile you do as much as possible to arm and train those non extremist soldiers in the FSA, even if that means having to catch up with Al Nusra, while you let ISIS and Al Nusra fight each other (even if is not a "real" fight/battle like atm) and in the meantime you try to make your forces look like a beacon of light to the minorities and sunni population in general as much as possible (IE Good training for the troops), that way you try to gain as much ground and minds as possible, but now there isn't an "easy way" left, all those where trow down the window unless Assad uses CW again, and that just won't happen.
Also i supported the Invasion all the way (you can see it in almost all my previous posts), i always have, well not ALWAYS, since it would have been retarded to invade a country when there wasn't a civil war with more that 100.000 deads going on, but i supported the idea of doing a full scale invasion to Syria and getting Assad jailed while kicking Al Nusra/ISIS out of the damn country, OR forcing Assad into an international court to face his jail time.
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: It seems that the 11th Division of the FSA has changed bands to the Al Nusra front, this is a pretty damn big blow to the FS Army
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: it is a testament of the incompetence the western powers have had in this conflict and how they have behaved these last two years.
Well...what do you suggest be done then? Even the idea of aiding the the "good" rebels publicly either turns you into the bad guy or evil imperialist so you can't fault or say that the West has been incompetent thus far. Especially considering no one seems to want intervention of any sort happening.
Can't say no to intervening and then at the same time say we aren't doing enough.
Of course it was bound to happen, the rebels haven't been getting the proper help since well never, and the only ones with the training and weapons is Al Nusra, it has been just lately that the non radical strands of the FSA have been getting real external support, but the damage it is done for the most part, Al Nusra has expanded his influence in the FSA too much, and the fact that the USA won't attack Assad and just take away his toys instead may have been the straw that broke the camel.
What should have been done was to force Assad into listening to the will of his own people, so he should step down or face international/NATO help towards the Rebels, but alas it is a "little" too late for that. The thing is that i can't emphasize how much the USA fucked this up with the CW deal, now they can't invade no matter what happens inside Syria, Assad could napalm the country to ashes and the USA would not be able to do shit (I'm not being literal here duh), not only that they didn't even demanded Assad to step down from power to be judged in a international court by his crimes against humanity/war crimes but they didn't established a no-fly zone in the country (if that can't be called incompetent i can't imagine what meaning that word has to you).
So what should be done? with that CW accord nothing much can be done, but to "ask kindly" (i'm serious here) to Assad to step down from power, meanwhile you do as much as possible to arm and train those non extremist soldiers in the FSA, even if that means having to catch up with Al Nusra, while you let ISIS and Al Nusra fight each other (even if is not a "real" fight/battle like atm) and in the meantime you try to make your forces look like a beacon of light to the minorities and sunni population in general as much as possible (IE Good training for the troops), that way you try to gain as much ground and minds as possible, but now there isn't an "easy way" left, all those where trow down the window unless Assad uses CW again, and that just won't happen.
Also i supported the Invasion all the way (you can see it in almost all my previous posts), i always have, well not ALWAYS, since it would have been retarded to invade a country when there wasn't a civil war with more that 100.000 deads going on, but i supported the idea of doing a full scale invasion to Syria and getting Assad jailed while kicking Al Nusra/ISIS out of the damn country, OR forcing Assad into an international court to face his jail time.
That's because you fail to understand the complexity of the situation. There isn't evil Assad vs Syria's citizens, stop thinking of it like that. There's multiple parties involved which each want a share of the pie and Assad has a lot of public support.
War is not a game dude, how could you support intervention like that? On what basis, the one with stronger fist decides who's good and who's not?
On September 21 2013 03:23 Warlock40 wrote: But Iran has never been a part of any military conflict with Israel, right?
Iran funds Hezbollah who are active enemies of Israel. Also the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel was an enemy of Islam. The next Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei said in 2008 that 'we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' So it is the official policy of Iran to be enemies of Israel.
Both states are actively hostile to each other, albeit not engaged in a open shooting war. That is probably just due to geographical seperation though. They are fighting a proxy war though, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. Both nations are undertaking covert operations against each other, such as assassinations and cyber-warfare attacks. There is a very real danger of a Nuclear strike between the two, if Iran succeeds in obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
On September 21 2013 03:23 Warlock40 wrote: But Iran has never been a part of any military conflict with Israel, right?
Iran funds Hezbollah who are active enemies of Israel. Also the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel was an enemy of Islam. The next Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei said in 2008 that 'we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' So it is the official policy of Iran to be enemies of Israel.
Both states are actively hostile to each other, albeit not engaged in a open shooting war. That is probably just due to geographical seperation though. They are fighting a proxy war though, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. Both nations are undertaking covert operations against each other, such as assassinations and cyber-warfare attacks. There is a very real danger of a Nuclear strike between the two, if Iran succeeds in obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Israel already has nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the NPT.
On September 21 2013 03:23 Warlock40 wrote: But Iran has never been a part of any military conflict with Israel, right?
Iran funds Hezbollah who are active enemies of Israel. Also the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel was an enemy of Islam. The next Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei said in 2008 that 'we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' So it is the official policy of Iran to be enemies of Israel.
Both states are actively hostile to each other, albeit not engaged in a open shooting war. That is probably just due to geographical seperation though. They are fighting a proxy war though, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. Both nations are undertaking covert operations against each other, such as assassinations and cyber-warfare attacks. There is a very real danger of a Nuclear strike between the two, if Iran succeeds in obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Israel already has nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the NPT.
True. However it is also true that Israel has not nuked any of it's neighbours who are it's avowed enemies. With the current state of the relationship between the Israeli and Iranian regimes, there is an escalating danger of a nuclear strike occuring as Iran gains the capability of Nuclear Weapons. This could be an Iranian strike on Israel once they have the means to do so, or it could be an Israeli strike on Iran because they fear a strike from Iran.
All this recent issue over Chemical weapons makes some forget that Nukes are a MUCH bigger danger to us all. There is a book out this month that I am planning to read. It looks to make a convincing case for Nuclear disarmament by reporting on the numerous close-shaves that the US has had over the past half-century, in very narrowly avoiding the accidental detonation of nuclear weapons!
On September 21 2013 03:23 Warlock40 wrote: But Iran has never been a part of any military conflict with Israel, right?
Iran funds Hezbollah who are active enemies of Israel. Also the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel was an enemy of Islam. The next Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei said in 2008 that 'we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' So it is the official policy of Iran to be enemies of Israel.
Both states are actively hostile to each other, albeit not engaged in a open shooting war. That is probably just due to geographical seperation though. They are fighting a proxy war though, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. Both nations are undertaking covert operations against each other, such as assassinations and cyber-warfare attacks. There is a very real danger of a Nuclear strike between the two, if Iran succeeds in obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Israel already has nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the NPT.
True. However it is also true that Israel has not nuked any of it's neighbours who are it's avowed enemies. With the current state of the relationship between the Israeli and Iranian regimes, there is an escalating danger of a nuclear strike occuring as Iran gains the capability of Nuclear Weapons. This could be an Iranian strike on Israel once they have the means to do so, or it could be an Israeli strike on Iran because they fear a strike from Iran.
All this recent issue over Chemical weapons makes some forget that Nukes are a MUCH bigger danger to us all. There is a book out this month that I am planning to read. It looks to make a convincing case for Nuclear disarmament by reporting on the numerous close-shaves that the US has had over the past half-century, in very narrowly avoiding the accidental detonation of nuclear weapons!
That logic is flawed in such great ways that explaining no longer helps. Basically what you said is: Iran must not get nuclear weapons because the Israel might feel threaten and will use their undeclared nuclear stockpile on them.
On September 21 2013 03:23 Warlock40 wrote: But Iran has never been a part of any military conflict with Israel, right?
Iran funds Hezbollah who are active enemies of Israel. Also the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel was an enemy of Islam. The next Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei said in 2008 that 'we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' So it is the official policy of Iran to be enemies of Israel.
Both states are actively hostile to each other, albeit not engaged in a open shooting war. That is probably just due to geographical seperation though. They are fighting a proxy war though, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. Both nations are undertaking covert operations against each other, such as assassinations and cyber-warfare attacks. There is a very real danger of a Nuclear strike between the two, if Iran succeeds in obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Israel already has nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the NPT.
True. However it is also true that Israel has not nuked any of it's neighbours who are it's avowed enemies. With the current state of the relationship between the Israeli and Iranian regimes, there is an escalating danger of a nuclear strike occuring as Iran gains the capability of Nuclear Weapons. This could be an Iranian strike on Israel once they have the means to do so, or it could be an Israeli strike on Iran because they fear a strike from Iran.
All this recent issue over Chemical weapons makes some forget that Nukes are a MUCH bigger danger to us all. There is a book out this month that I am planning to read. It looks to make a convincing case for Nuclear disarmament by reporting on the numerous close-shaves that the US has had over the past half-century, in very narrowly avoiding the accidental detonation of nuclear weapons!
That logic is flawed in such great ways that explaining no longer helps. Basically what you said is: Iran must not get nuclear weapons because the Israel might feel threaten and will use their undeclared nuclear stockpile on them.
What do you mean explaining no longer helps? I don't require any explanation from you about anything whatsoever. I don't get my knowledge about the world from people on TL.
It would be helpful if you actually did not try and twist what I said. I said that there is an increased possibility of a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran if they appear to be about to obtain nuclear capability. In the same way there is a possibility of an Iranian strike on Israel, once this become achievable. So the situation where Iran gets nuclear weapons makes a nuclear exchange more likely. I did not say Iran must not get Nuclear weapons. I said them nearing the status of obtaining nuclear weapons escalates the danger of a nuclear exchange.
Israel is not currently a country that sits idly by and allows Iran (or it's neighbours) to threaten it. It actively launches covert operations, air-strikes and assassinations against it's enemies. It is certainly striving to slow down Iran's efforts to achieve Nuclear weapons. A nuclear strike by Israel is probably a last resort, but I doubt it is off the table as an option. It depends how threatened Israel feels.
The problem is, Iran is looking to get the weapon because Israel has it and need to be on par. We all know by now laws and international treaties are useless unless you have the bomb, otherwise you're open for attack.
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: It seems that the 11th Division of the FSA has changed bands to the Al Nusra front, this is a pretty damn big blow to the FS Army
On September 21 2013 04:13 Uvantak wrote: it is a testament of the incompetence the western powers have had in this conflict and how they have behaved these last two years.
Well...what do you suggest be done then? Even the idea of aiding the the "good" rebels publicly either turns you into the bad guy or evil imperialist so you can't fault or say that the West has been incompetent thus far. Especially considering no one seems to want intervention of any sort happening.
Can't say no to intervening and then at the same time say we aren't doing enough.
Of course it was bound to happen, the rebels haven't been getting the proper help since well never, and the only ones with the training and weapons is Al Nusra, it has been just lately that the non radical strands of the FSA have been getting real external support, but the damage it is done for the most part, Al Nusra has expanded his influence in the FSA too much, and the fact that the USA won't attack Assad and just take away his toys instead may have been the straw that broke the camel.
What should have been done was to force Assad into listening to the will of his own people, so he should step down or face international/NATO help towards the Rebels, but alas it is a "little" too late for that. The thing is that i can't emphasize how much the USA fucked this up with the CW deal, now they can't invade no matter what happens inside Syria, Assad could napalm the country to ashes and the USA would not be able to do shit (I'm not being literal here duh), not only that they didn't even demanded Assad to step down from power to be judged in a international court by his crimes against humanity/war crimes but they didn't established a no-fly zone in the country (if that can't be called incompetent i can't imagine what meaning that word has to you).
So what should be done? with that CW accord nothing much can be done, but to "ask kindly" (i'm serious here) to Assad to step down from power, meanwhile you do as much as possible to arm and train those non extremist soldiers in the FSA, even if that means having to catch up with Al Nusra, while you let ISIS and Al Nusra fight each other (even if is not a "real" fight/battle like atm) and in the meantime you try to make your forces look like a beacon of light to the minorities and sunni population in general as much as possible (IE Good training for the troops), that way you try to gain as much ground and minds as possible, but now there isn't an "easy way" left, all those where trow down the window unless Assad uses CW again, and that just won't happen.
Also i supported the Invasion all the way (you can see it in almost all my previous posts), i always have, well not ALWAYS, since it would have been retarded to invade a country when there wasn't a civil war with more that 100.000 deads going on, but i supported the idea of doing a full scale invasion to Syria and getting Assad jailed while kicking Al Nusra/ISIS out of the damn country, OR forcing Assad into an international court to face his jail time.
That's because you fail to understand the complexity of the situation. There isn't evil Assad vs Syria's citizens, stop thinking of it like that. There's multiple parties involved which each want a share of the pie and Assad has a lot of public support.
Of course it is not that easy, if i took the time to write about every single faction and what every faction wants i could he hours on end, that's why i write the way i write since it allows me to explain points without having to go neck deep into it or start doing quotes to myself across half the thread.
Assad has "lot's" of support (or at least he says he has) because of the extremist groups inside the rebel coalition and the propaganda directed towards the international community, since he wants to be seen like he's fighting against terrorists (and he kind of is for that matter) instead of a coalition of paramilitary forces that used to be civilians, also if it wasn't for Al Nusra his war crimes and extremism a considerable extra portion of the population would be lined up with the FSA (minorities mostly) now days the very same way it was when this conflict started, and to finalize this small rumble you can't say he has/had high public support because we don't have believable data that tell us that.
On September 23 2013 21:06 Pika Chu wrote: War is not a game dude, how could you support intervention like that? On what basis, the one with stronger fist decides who's good and who's not?
My basis is the +100.000 deaths that this civilian war has claimed, that is my basis, and as you can tell this basis translates quite well to situations like rwanda or cambodia where western powers countries should/could have stopped these massacres (not so much in cambodia tho), also as i have said previously atm not much can be made in the current situation, it is just too late for a full scale invasion/intervention, even if this war ends today the future conflict of Al Nusra fighting ISIS while fighting the new Syrian Army will keep claiming lives, and in the remote situation where Assad wins the rebels will start using suicide bombers/car bombs, so there's no easy way out of this.
The FSA has no power, and only continues to operate because their command structure and bases of operation are shielded by the Turks. Notice how the only relevant news you hear concerning FSA activity relates to operations near the Turkish border? They are irrelevant in the rest of Syria.
I guess Assad's principal sources of support are his own Alawite community, who compose approximately 10% of Syria's population, and have occupied the summit of political power in Syria during his rule. In addition, Syriac Christians who compose about 10% of the population are presumably sympathetic to Assad, who has protected them against Rebel attacks, and is supplying the Christian communities with weapons and training.
However, it's probably safe to assume that there are more against him than for him, since the Sunnis comprise 75% of Syria's population, and Assad's attempts to channel Syrian nationalism as a cohesive force appear to be faltering before the sectarian feelings of the moment.
My basis is the +100.000 deaths that this civilian war has claimed, that is my basis, and as you can tell this basis translates quite well to situations like rwanda or cambodia where western powers countries should/could have stopped these massacres (not so much in cambodia tho), also as i have said previously atm not much can be made in the current situation, it is just too late for a full scale invasion/intervention, even if this war ends today the future conflict of Al Nusra fighting ISIS while fighting the new Syrian Army will keep claiming lives, and in the remote situation where Assad wins the rebels will start using suicide bombers/car bombs, so there's no easy way out of this.
There's a historical lesson there: all great powers, including our own democracies, are capable of sacrificing whole nations (and their populations of course) for their own strategic interests. Which is why the default position for moral citizens should be to argue for non-intervention and only make exceptions in rare and clear-cut cases. Rwanda probably would have been one of them. Syria isn't.
BREAKING: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirms that Russia and the United States have reached an agreement on a UN resolution on Syria's chemical weapons.
Powerful Syrian rebel groups threaten al-Qaeda linked militants Several powerful Syrian rebel groups on Thursday demanded al Qaeda-linked militants and a rival rebel faction stop fighting and called on the hardline Islamists to withdraw their forces within 48 hours, a statement said.
The al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seized Azaz, about 5 km (3 miles) from the frontier with Turkey, last month and has repeatedly clashed with the local Northern Storm brigade since then.
A previous attempt by rebel groups to broker a truce between the two sides did not hold.
13 Syrian rebel groups, on the northern front, form a coalition, break away from FSA and reject Syrian National Coalition Thousands of Syrian rebels have broken with the Western-backed coalition and called for a new Islamist front, undermining international efforts to build up a pro-Western military force to replace President Bashar al-Assad.
Ever more divided on a battlefield where Assad's better armed troops have been gaining ground, allies of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) were among 13 disparate rebel factions to disown the exile leadership and build an Islamic alliance that includes the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, commanders said on Tuesday.
Details of the numbers of fighters involved and of how they would cooperate remained unclear. But, in an online video, a leader of the Islamist Tawheed Brigade said the bloc rejected the authority of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) and the Western- and Saudi-backed exile administration of Ahmad Tumeh.
The most hardline Islamist militant faction, al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which has brought growing numbers of foreign jihadists into Syria, was not a signatory to the new pact. It was unclear, however, whether it had rejected involvement or had not been invited to join.
The 13 groups signed a statement calling for the opposition to Assad to be reorganized under an Islamic framework and to be run only by groups fighting inside Syria. Signatories range from hardliners like the Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham to more moderate groups such as the Tawheed Brigade and Islam Brigade.
43 rebel groups outside Damascus join forces; new name Army of Islam (different from above) 43 rebel groups in Syria have joined forces just outside of the capital city Damascus and have named themselves the ‘Army of Islam’. This move is set to become the strongest opposition movement in the country, and will rival the gradually waning internationally recognized opposition force, the Free Syrian Army. The group will be leader by the head commander of the Liwa al-Islam brigade, Zahran Alloush. However, the biggest Islamist group, Al-Nusra, did not join the new coalition. This comes at a time when the Free Syrian Army is trying to revive itself after internal disagreements lead to some commanders disassociating themselves from the group.
ANKARA: Turkey’s Parliament voted Thursday to extend by a year a mandate authorizing the deployment of troops to Syria if needed after the government said the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad posed a threat to Turkey.
Turkey, one of Assad’s fiercest critics, has advocated military intervention in Syria and has grown frustrated over what it sees as Western indecisiveness.
“The present risk and threats have not decreased; on the contrary, they have increased,” Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz told Parliament before the vote.
While it has the second-largest military land force in NATO, Turkey would be unlikely to act alone in any military operation, with public opinion largely against intervention.
The motion, put forward by the ruling AK Party, which has a strong parliamentary majority, had been widely expected to pass despite stiff resistance from opposition parties. The current mandate expires Friday.
On October 04 2013 23:18 hooahah wrote: Putin nominated for a Noble Peace Prize...what a joke
Plenty of people are nominated every year. The prize is a joke, but the nomination process is not at fault:
Qualified Nominators
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories: • Members of national assemblies and governments of states • Members of international courts • University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes • Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize • Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize • Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) • Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee
EPT
