|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 06 2012 06:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 06:37 frontliner2 wrote:On August 04 2012 15:43 zalz wrote:On August 04 2012 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Libya's become liberal? That's why the Libyan government instituted Sharia back in October and with Islamists such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG being big players in Libya, and who provided a good amount of the leadership of the revolution as well. AQIM made big news just recently too in some other African country. Libya also had the highest per capita of foreign fighters in Iraq apparently. And the foreign fighters in Iraq weren't like the local resistance. Their goal wasn't to free the country, it was to terrorize and spread their backward beliefs and politics, whether from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran ,etc. They said they would like to install Sharia, but they are on the transitional government, which thus far hasn't done much Sharia enforcing of any kind. Meanwhile, in the elections, the Libyans elected a liberal group over an Islamist one. So, once they are given the control over the country, I wouldn't be too negative about their chances. If you haven't noticed, the US has been involved in the Mideast since those nations gained political independence, not since 9/11. Even as early as '53, we engineered a royal clusterfuck in Iran as far as huge things go. There is a substantial difference between having CIA agents and diplomats in a region, and having troops on active duty there. Yeah, the US has always been involved in the middle-east, but not to this degree, where we actively have to build bridges between Sunnis and Shias if we want any kind of stability. Pre-occupation we could have left the Sunnis and Shias to go at each others throat and nobody would argue that we had an obligation to stop them. With troops there, the thing becomes a great deal more difficult to ignore. Iraq? Deliberately turning one of the better developing countries into a terrible shithole through sanctions on everything (and this is even before the Iraq War) when all the US and ours pals (made things a lot easier in the UN to get our way with the USSR on the brink of collapse) needed to do was put sanctions on arms/weapons is not lending a helping hand. That's simply brutality and destruction, even genocide if we are also to consider Holodomor to be genocide, against a growing country we and the Israelis did not like (the Israelis did bomb them in '82 as well in fact) and wanted out of the Mideastern scene. I can't say too much about Libya since it hasn't been on the news everyday for the past 8 years, but apparently living conditions have dropped quite a bit, not to mention the implementation of Sharia makes things a thousand times worse in its own right. Yeah, deliberately turning the prosperous Iraq into a shithole. I wonder why we did that. Ooh yeah, I remember, cause they couldn't stop invading everything and everyone that happened to show their back to Iraq. Don't try and make them into anything they weren't. Their internal policies were atrocious, one of the worst human rights records you can imagine, and their foreign policy was surprisingly medieval in its goals. Or should the US have shrugged and let them annex Kuwait? I really hate Mubarak especially since he was just our bitch and basically was a sellout on the Egyptian people in many ways, but if you're saying a secular leader who kept the peace with Israel is better than batshit insane fanatical Muslim Brotherhood who are trying to set up Sharia and now have 8 million Egyptian Christians living in fear, and having the Israelis on edge is a good thing, then I don't know what to say dude, because as bad as Mubarak was, he is highly preferable to Islamofascists. Especially in a country like Egypt. You have to let these people and their systems fail. If you don't let them see why Islamism is shit in practice, they will keep idealizing it forever. Another thing: The military still holds the real power in Egypt, not the Islamists. This isn't something obscure either, which surprises me a bit that you didn't know this. This is the only good thing going for Egypt right now. If the Muslim Brotherhood actually held the power, Egypt would already have Sharia, the Copts would be persecuted, and there'd be some kind of shitstorm with Israel. Who ever said that I didn't know this? Considering they operate the majority of the economy, it would indeed be somewhat hard to miss. But again, if the military just goes back to Mubarak days, you get the same mess all over again. People won't be permitted to be politically active, so they will gather in their mosques every friday and discuss politics there. Politics in a mosque tend to be rather Islamist in nature. Keeping them down is what is causing them to latch onto Islamism, the only political alternative they dare to speak about. You know what else? Egypt is the biggest media center in the arab world. If the Muslim Brotherhood had true power, and was filling the entertainment/media industry with their Islamist shit, trust me, it would have some influence on those few regions left in the Mideast that are still secular. The military rule isn't popular, but yes, it could be much worse than that. The biggest mistake of the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations was keeping a leash on the MB rather than simply wiping them out, but I guess they naively didn't anticipate that the order would be overthrown. Again, the problem is that by keeping these people down, they aren't given any alternative than Islamism. These dictatorial governments ban political gatherings, and really just gatherings of any kind, but the only gathering they can't ban, are religious gatherings. If the US banned all political and other gatherings, the only place people could meet in groups would be sunday morning at church. Given time, the Egyptian people will learn that Islamism is a dead-end and they will vote for other candidates. Besides, Muslims are waaaay to loyal to Islam and thus Islamism (the purest political form of Islam). is that why islamists lost in libya? cant get elected in malaysia or indonesia? or even in pakistan?
This is why instituting Sharia (in Oct.) was one of the new Libyan government's primary actions, and why AQIM and LIFG were among the main leadership of the revolution? This is why a (former) Islamic terror group is the primary party in Iraq, why Hezbollah is rapidly gaining power in Lebanon, why all the Gulf Arab countries are ruled by Islamofascist regimes, why Iran, once the most secular country in ... most of Asia is now an Islamofascist state, why Islamists dominate the Egyptian govt. (and are gaining more and more power over the military), and much more? Brah. You gotta be kidding me.
Seriously, the only largely secular regimes/societies remaining in the Mideast/N. Africa are in Turkey, Israel, Syria, and Tunisia, and I'm not entirely sure about Israel or Tunisia. 35 years ago, obviously it was a much different story in the Mideast.
|
Turkish armed forces have launched artillery attacks against Syria in response to a Syrian mortar strike, which has killed five members of the same family in southeastern Turkey.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said the attacks, carried out following radar tracking, were within the rules of engagement.
Western officials, from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO secretary-general, to Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, have condemned the attack that struck a house in the southeastern border town of Akcakale.
Clinton said the White House was "outraged" by the "very dangerous situation" created by the attack.
Witnesses said policemen have also been injured in the shelling, which originated only kilometres away from the Syrian border.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish foreign minister, briefed Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, on the situation shortly word of the attack reached Ankara.
Martin Nesirky, spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, issued a statement in response to the attack saying: "the secretary-general expressed his condolences at the tragic loss of life and encouraged the Minister to keep open all channels of communication with the Syrian authorities with a view to lessening any tension that could build up as a result of the incident".
Source
|
On October 04 2012 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Turkish armed forces have launched artillery attacks against Syria in response to a Syrian mortar strike, which has killed five members of the same family in southeastern Turkey.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said the attacks, carried out following radar tracking, were within the rules of engagement.
Western officials, from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO secretary-general, to Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, have condemned the attack that struck a house in the southeastern border town of Akcakale.
Clinton said the White House was "outraged" by the "very dangerous situation" created by the attack.
Witnesses said policemen have also been injured in the shelling, which originated only kilometres away from the Syrian border.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish foreign minister, briefed Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, on the situation shortly word of the attack reached Ankara.
Martin Nesirky, spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, issued a statement in response to the attack saying: "the secretary-general expressed his condolences at the tragic loss of life and encouraged the Minister to keep open all channels of communication with the Syrian authorities with a view to lessening any tension that could build up as a result of the incident". Source
"within the rules of the engagement"? what's that supposed to mean? which rules?
|
Turkey and Turkish forces were fired upon thus had the right to return fire. Especially since they were in their own territory.
|
On October 04 2012 04:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Turkey and Turkish forces were fired upon thus had the right to return fire. Especially since they were in their own territory.
Yes, I get the point, I'm just curious if there's a "rule" that says if you are striked you can strike back. I find it funny that Erdogan tries to legitimize retaliation vis-a-vis international rules.
|
after the jet incident turkish government declared that turkish military is allowed to retaliate any agression from syria. thats the rule you ask.
|
On October 04 2012 05:34 huun wrote:after the jet incident turkish government declared that turkish military is allowed to retaliate any agression from syria. thats the rule you ask.
Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. Still, it's pretty stupid if the Turkish government declares what the Turkish military is allowed to do don't you think? This is an international issue. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument. I just wonder if there's a supranational treaty that says if you are striked, you can strike back.
|
On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:34 huun wrote:after the jet incident turkish government declared that turkish military is allowed to retaliate any agression from syria. thats the rule you ask. Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. Still, it's pretty stupid if the Turkish government declares what the Turkish military is allowed to do don't you think? This is an international issue. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument. I just wonder if there's a supranational treaty that says if you are striked, you can strike back.
Article 51 of the UN Charta grants all member states a right to self-defense if they are attacked.
|
On October 04 2012 05:22 Derrida wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 04:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Turkey and Turkish forces were fired upon thus had the right to return fire. Especially since they were in their own territory. Yes, I get the point, I'm just curious if there's a "rule" that says if you are striked you can strike back. I find it funny that Erdogan tries to legitimize retaliation vis-a-vis international rules.
I assumed it was some nato rule of retaliation, regarding suppressing enemy battaries. considering target was civilians.
anyway, I would prefer they did no counter battery fire, minimizing any chance of escalation.
|
On April 25 2011 23:35 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 22:53 Body_Shield wrote:
It would be nice for these ruling parties and such to realize that it's better for them in the long run to cut their losses and basically do what the protesters ask. Then they stand a much greater chance of retaining or returning to power later on. Well not necessarily, 1. if they immediately do all that the protesters ask, then protest becomes the most effective way to get things, leading to a potential for true mob rule. 2. if they immediately did all of what the protesters asked, in many cases they would effectively remove the government, leading to a situation that would be worse for their country. However, I agree, in general they should do most of what the protesters are asking, because that does allow them to be seen as enlightened/serving the people.
There is certainly a line between appeasement and compromise. If history has taught us anything is that often times the latter is the better option.
|
On October 04 2012 05:49 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:On October 04 2012 05:34 huun wrote:after the jet incident turkish government declared that turkish military is allowed to retaliate any agression from syria. thats the rule you ask. Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. Still, it's pretty stupid if the Turkish government declares what the Turkish military is allowed to do don't you think? This is an international issue. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument. I just wonder if there's a supranational treaty that says if you are striked, you can strike back. Article 51 of the UN Charta grants all member states a right to self-defense if they are attacked.
Ah ok, I just checked and you're correct. Thanks.
|
On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:
Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil.
An attack against an (a national / army) aircraft in international airspace has pretty much the same type of applicable law or consequences (not literally but regarding outcome) according to international law.
in example: a U.S. flagged destroyer ship on international water is considered as U.S. soil for that particular destroyer.
|
On October 04 2012 05:58 Kroml wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:
Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. An attack against an (a national / army) aircraft in international airspace has pretty much the same type of applicable law or consequences (not literally but regarding outcome) according to international law. in example: a U.S. flagged destroyer ship on international water is considered as U.S. soil for that particular destroyer.
I thought there's no official confirmation on if the jet was shot down in international airspace or within Syrian airspace? It's more of a "he says-she says" type of deal.
|
On September 30 2012 04:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 06:46 Sub40APM wrote:On August 06 2012 06:37 frontliner2 wrote:On August 04 2012 15:43 zalz wrote:On August 04 2012 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Libya's become liberal? That's why the Libyan government instituted Sharia back in October and with Islamists such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG being big players in Libya, and who provided a good amount of the leadership of the revolution as well. AQIM made big news just recently too in some other African country. Libya also had the highest per capita of foreign fighters in Iraq apparently. And the foreign fighters in Iraq weren't like the local resistance. Their goal wasn't to free the country, it was to terrorize and spread their backward beliefs and politics, whether from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran ,etc. They said they would like to install Sharia, but they are on the transitional government, which thus far hasn't done much Sharia enforcing of any kind. Meanwhile, in the elections, the Libyans elected a liberal group over an Islamist one. So, once they are given the control over the country, I wouldn't be too negative about their chances. If you haven't noticed, the US has been involved in the Mideast since those nations gained political independence, not since 9/11. Even as early as '53, we engineered a royal clusterfuck in Iran as far as huge things go. There is a substantial difference between having CIA agents and diplomats in a region, and having troops on active duty there. Yeah, the US has always been involved in the middle-east, but not to this degree, where we actively have to build bridges between Sunnis and Shias if we want any kind of stability. Pre-occupation we could have left the Sunnis and Shias to go at each others throat and nobody would argue that we had an obligation to stop them. With troops there, the thing becomes a great deal more difficult to ignore. Iraq? Deliberately turning one of the better developing countries into a terrible shithole through sanctions on everything (and this is even before the Iraq War) when all the US and ours pals (made things a lot easier in the UN to get our way with the USSR on the brink of collapse) needed to do was put sanctions on arms/weapons is not lending a helping hand. That's simply brutality and destruction, even genocide if we are also to consider Holodomor to be genocide, against a growing country we and the Israelis did not like (the Israelis did bomb them in '82 as well in fact) and wanted out of the Mideastern scene. I can't say too much about Libya since it hasn't been on the news everyday for the past 8 years, but apparently living conditions have dropped quite a bit, not to mention the implementation of Sharia makes things a thousand times worse in its own right. Yeah, deliberately turning the prosperous Iraq into a shithole. I wonder why we did that. Ooh yeah, I remember, cause they couldn't stop invading everything and everyone that happened to show their back to Iraq. Don't try and make them into anything they weren't. Their internal policies were atrocious, one of the worst human rights records you can imagine, and their foreign policy was surprisingly medieval in its goals. Or should the US have shrugged and let them annex Kuwait? I really hate Mubarak especially since he was just our bitch and basically was a sellout on the Egyptian people in many ways, but if you're saying a secular leader who kept the peace with Israel is better than batshit insane fanatical Muslim Brotherhood who are trying to set up Sharia and now have 8 million Egyptian Christians living in fear, and having the Israelis on edge is a good thing, then I don't know what to say dude, because as bad as Mubarak was, he is highly preferable to Islamofascists. Especially in a country like Egypt. You have to let these people and their systems fail. If you don't let them see why Islamism is shit in practice, they will keep idealizing it forever. Another thing: The military still holds the real power in Egypt, not the Islamists. This isn't something obscure either, which surprises me a bit that you didn't know this. This is the only good thing going for Egypt right now. If the Muslim Brotherhood actually held the power, Egypt would already have Sharia, the Copts would be persecuted, and there'd be some kind of shitstorm with Israel. Who ever said that I didn't know this? Considering they operate the majority of the economy, it would indeed be somewhat hard to miss. But again, if the military just goes back to Mubarak days, you get the same mess all over again. People won't be permitted to be politically active, so they will gather in their mosques every friday and discuss politics there. Politics in a mosque tend to be rather Islamist in nature. Keeping them down is what is causing them to latch onto Islamism, the only political alternative they dare to speak about. You know what else? Egypt is the biggest media center in the arab world. If the Muslim Brotherhood had true power, and was filling the entertainment/media industry with their Islamist shit, trust me, it would have some influence on those few regions left in the Mideast that are still secular. The military rule isn't popular, but yes, it could be much worse than that. The biggest mistake of the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak administrations was keeping a leash on the MB rather than simply wiping them out, but I guess they naively didn't anticipate that the order would be overthrown. Again, the problem is that by keeping these people down, they aren't given any alternative than Islamism. These dictatorial governments ban political gatherings, and really just gatherings of any kind, but the only gathering they can't ban, are religious gatherings. If the US banned all political and other gatherings, the only place people could meet in groups would be sunday morning at church. Given time, the Egyptian people will learn that Islamism is a dead-end and they will vote for other candidates. Besides, Muslims are waaaay to loyal to Islam and thus Islamism (the purest political form of Islam). is that why islamists lost in libya? cant get elected in malaysia or indonesia? or even in pakistan? This is why instituting Sharia (in Oct.) was one of the new Libyan government's primary actions, and why AQIM and LIFG were among the main leadership of the revolution? This is why a (former) Islamic terror group is the primary party in Iraq, why Hezbollah is rapidly gaining power in Lebanon, why all the Gulf Arab countries are ruled by Islamofascist regimes, why Iran, once the most secular country in ... most of Asia is now an Islamofascist state, why Islamists dominate the Egyptian govt. (and are gaining more and more power over the military), and much more? Brah. You gotta be kidding me. Seriously, the only largely secular regimes/societies remaining in the Mideast/N. Africa are in Turkey, Israel, Syria, and Tunisia, and I'm not entirely sure about Israel or Tunisia. 35 years ago, obviously it was a much different story in the Mideast.
Sadly, the changes that Ataturk brought to Turkey are slowly being abolished...
|
On October 04 2012 06:04 Derrida wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 05:58 Kroml wrote:On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:
Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. An attack against an (a national / army) aircraft in international airspace has pretty much the same type of applicable law or consequences (not literally but regarding outcome) according to international law. in example: a U.S. flagged destroyer ship on international water is considered as U.S. soil for that particular destroyer. I thought there's no official confirmation on if the jet was shot down in international airspace or within Syrian airspace? It's more of a "he says-she says" type of deal.
no there was a confirmation
|
On October 04 2012 06:10 Kroml wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 06:04 Derrida wrote:On October 04 2012 05:58 Kroml wrote:On October 04 2012 05:38 Derrida wrote:
Yes I know about the jet incident. But that's very different since it wasn't on Turkish soil. An attack against an (a national / army) aircraft in international airspace has pretty much the same type of applicable law or consequences (not literally but regarding outcome) according to international law. in example: a U.S. flagged destroyer ship on international water is considered as U.S. soil for that particular destroyer. I thought there's no official confirmation on if the jet was shot down in international airspace or within Syrian airspace? It's more of a "he says-she says" type of deal. no there was a confirmation
source?
|
On October 04 2012 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Turkish armed forces have launched artillery attacks against Syria in response to a Syrian mortar strike, which has killed five members of the same family in southeastern Turkey.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said the attacks, carried out following radar tracking, were within the rules of engagement.
Western officials, from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO secretary-general, to Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, have condemned the attack that struck a house in the southeastern border town of Akcakale.
Clinton said the White House was "outraged" by the "very dangerous situation" created by the attack.
Witnesses said policemen have also been injured in the shelling, which originated only kilometres away from the Syrian border.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish foreign minister, briefed Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, on the situation shortly word of the attack reached Ankara.
Martin Nesirky, spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, issued a statement in response to the attack saying: "the secretary-general expressed his condolences at the tragic loss of life and encouraged the Minister to keep open all channels of communication with the Syrian authorities with a view to lessening any tension that could build up as a result of the incident". Source
It would not surprise me the slightest bit if NATO promoted this attack as a justification for western "intervention" of Syria. They've been fishing around in search of a solid excuse/false flag attempt for months now, while the funded & western-supplied rebels spearhead this operation in the meantme.
|
To make things clear, I just wanna respond to the people who mix Free Syrian Army, terrorism and radical islamism.
After reading many documents about radical islam and fondamentalists groups, I came to know that :
The ideology of Al-Qaeda and terrorists groups is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_jihadismsalafist jihadism
There are three sorts of salafis :
- The apolitical salafis who considers that participating to the democracy is an act of disbelief and want to implement Sharia Laws only by preaching and without the use of violence
- The political salafis : as opposed to the apolitical salafis, they are convinced that they can implement Sharia law through democracy by winning the election (like the political party An-Noor in Egypt)
- The jihadi salafis : they reject all form of democracy and modernism and they are convinced that making war with the West and the "apostate arab regimes" and defeating them is the real way to implement sharia law
Note that the salafis don't care about national flags, the only flag that is important to them is the http://a10.idata.over-blog.com/630x470-000000/2/14/76/95/fonds-d-ecran/shahada.jpgblack flag. The flag may be with a white background and black letters.
Also note that the salafis jihadi groups are ONLY composed of people who have the same salafi jihadi ideology
The FSA is essentially composed of normal muslims but theres also some salafists in their ranks, its a group of people who own different ideologies and are fighting under the syrian flag and for one unique goal which is to defend the syrian people and free them from the oppression of the Nusayri regime.
So if the FSA is not really linked to terrorism, who are the terrorists then ?
It appears that there's a new salafi jihadi group who has been created last year, and this group is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front_to_Protect_the_LevantAl-Nusrah Front and as you can see on wiki this group is fighting under the black flag, they are linked to Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda itself is sendin his men from all around the world to fight in Syria. But their goal isn't only to defeat Assad, after defeating Assad they will try to implement sharia law by force in Syria.
When doing my research I realized how the salafi jihadis are a great danger for this society, as their number increase considerably, they are ready to lose their life for a conflct they consider to be a war between true and false and they are a huge threat to the west.
|
|
|
http://live.wsj.com/#!31539A63-6993-48D3-92F5-C4D44B3DDA42
This is just before the president debate but if you tune in now Syria just shelled Turkey (NATO NATION). This seems... odd that Syria would bother doing this, now Nato has free will to enter? I dunno it's just another fishy thing going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
