On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote: So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate. This was pure example of white washing a totally failed policy that caused thousands of deaths around the globe. People were saying exactly the same things when Baghdad being bombed down until these years that even republicans unwillingly admit we destroyed Iraq. Dont take my post offensive, i believe up to 10-15 years we will be writing similar things for Syria too, by the time we wont feel remorse or responsible for.
More accurate cover would be "The West realized Arab people are seeking their deserved rights and about to bring down their design, so they faked a role with their aid and shaped everything in a way that arab people will only blame the puppets not the puppeteers.This fake role reveals itself as EU countries relentlessly try to evade immigrants but their gun-aid numbers are above thousands. I mean come on, they let France to kill Qaddafi and bring down Libya, it could be again a coalition or US only, but there is clear imperialistic humiliation in it. What were they trying to remind? Why Turkey was headquarters for Syrian opposition for like 6-7 years already before they decided to switch armed struggle. This whole new allied vs axis game over Arab lands expanded badly and hurt civilians in great numbers as British imperialism stepping down and their design collapses.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world, then jump to Saudi Imperialism what openly aims to kill non-sunnis and Iran, hurting again Arab world. Then US imperialism vs Russian and all of these combining into side effects what we call today as ISIS or AL QAEDA or Taliban etc, any religious militia. Then new imperials appeared thanks to their imperialistic goals stack with bigger imperials, Turkey and Iran. Turkey was hostile to Syria historically and because of Syrian support to PKK. Iran filled the gap in Iraq when US left and took-over. The more USA drops bombs to Arab land, the more Turkish construction companies get money rich. Iran backed central Iraq, Turkey backed Northern Iraq. Iran backed Assad, Turkey backed opposition. West couldn't kill Assad because Russia, China, Iran said they are serious about him. They openly declared any military attempt that directly targeting Assad will be countered. His army was never that powerful, it would take only 2 hours to reach Damascus indeed. When Syrian revolt ends, new government will be either Russian sided or Western sided. It seems impossible without Baathism so they need to divide Syria like Iraq to keep their interest alive and fed. Allied Kurds and Arabs are a go. At this point Turks are pissed off, when Merkel tried to take control of Ukrainian crisis US was pissed off. When Obama had a deal with Iran, Saudis and Israel were pissed off. You cant satisfy everyone in this game while you end up in bed with almost all of them. Absurd and shameful..
I liked your analysis of the situation but i would like to know more about this
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate.
The information i have found so far, and some present on this thread since 2011 when the crysis started and we started posting here point to the regime army starting killing peaceful protesters. You can check a link i posted one page ago with videos from 2011 that document what happened, there is also now deceased prominient Iranian Commander that said that the crysis begun when the syrian army started shooting civilians.
On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote: So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate. This was pure example of white washing a totally failed policy that caused thousands of deaths around the globe. People were saying exactly the same things when Baghdad being bombed down until these years that even republicans unwillingly admit we destroyed Iraq. Dont take my post offensive, i believe up to 10-15 years we will be writing similar things for Syria too, by the time we wont feel remorse or responsible for.
More accurate cover would be "The West realized Arab people are seeking their deserved rights and about to bring down their design, so they faked a role with their aid and shaped everything in a way that arab people will only blame the puppets not the puppeteers.This fake role reveals itself as EU countries relentlessly try to evade immigrants but their gun-aid numbers are above thousands. I mean come on, they let France to kill Qaddafi and bring down Libya, it could be again a coalition or US only, but there is clear imperialistic humiliation in it. What were they trying to remind? Why Turkey was headquarters for Syrian opposition for like 6-7 years already before they decided to switch armed struggle. This whole new allied vs axis game over Arab lands expanded badly and hurt civilians in great numbers as British imperialism stepping down and their design collapses.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world, then jump to Saudi Imperialism what openly aims to kill non-sunnis and Iran, hurting again Arab world. Then US imperialism vs Russian and all of these combining into side effects what we call today as ISIS or AL QAEDA or Taliban etc, any religious militia. Then new imperials appeared thanks to their imperialistic goals stack with bigger imperials, Turkey and Iran. Turkey was hostile to Syria historically and because of Syrian support to PKK. Iran filled the gap in Iraq when US left and took-over. The more USA drops bombs to Arab land, the more Turkish construction companies get money rich. Iran backed central Iraq, Turkey backed Northern Iraq. Iran backed Assad, Turkey backed opposition. West couldn't kill Assad because Russia, China, Iran said they are serious about him. They openly declared any military attempt that directly targeting Assad will be countered. His army was never that powerful, it would take only 2 hours to reach Damascus indeed. When Syrian revolt ends, new government will be either Russian sided or Western sided. It seems impossible without Baathism so they need to divide Syria like Iraq to keep their interest alive and fed. Allied Kurds and Arabs are a go. At this point Turks are pissed off, when Merkel tried to take control of Ukrainian crisis US was pissed off. When Obama had a deal with Iran, Saudis and Israel were pissed off. You cant satisfy everyone in this game while you end up in bed with almost all of them. Absurd and shameful..
You read my post as whitewashing and excusing Western policy? Well, I don't really know how to respond to that.
On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote: So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate. This was pure example of white washing a totally failed policy that caused thousands of deaths around the globe. People were saying exactly the same things when Baghdad being bombed down until these years that even republicans unwillingly admit we destroyed Iraq. Dont take my post offensive, i believe up to 10-15 years we will be writing similar things for Syria too, by the time we wont feel remorse or responsible for.
More accurate cover would be "The West realized Arab people are seeking their deserved rights and about to bring down their design, so they faked a role with their aid and shaped everything in a way that arab people will only blame the puppets not the puppeteers.This fake role reveals itself as EU countries relentlessly try to evade immigrants but their gun-aid numbers are above thousands. I mean come on, they let France to kill Qaddafi and bring down Libya, it could be again a coalition or US only, but there is clear imperialistic humiliation in it. What were they trying to remind? Why Turkey was headquarters for Syrian opposition for like 6-7 years already before they decided to switch armed struggle. This whole new allied vs axis game over Arab lands expanded badly and hurt civilians in great numbers as British imperialism stepping down and their design collapses.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world, then jump to Saudi Imperialism what openly aims to kill non-sunnis and Iran, hurting again Arab world. Then US imperialism vs Russian and all of these combining into side effects what we call today as ISIS or AL QAEDA or Taliban etc, any religious militia. Then new imperials appeared thanks to their imperialistic goals stack with bigger imperials, Turkey and Iran. Turkey was hostile to Syria historically and because of Syrian support to PKK. Iran filled the gap in Iraq when US left and took-over. The more USA drops bombs to Arab land, the more Turkish construction companies get money rich. Iran backed central Iraq, Turkey backed Northern Iraq. Iran backed Assad, Turkey backed opposition. West couldn't kill Assad because Russia, China, Iran said they are serious about him. They openly declared any military attempt that directly targeting Assad will be countered. His army was never that powerful, it would take only 2 hours to reach Damascus indeed. When Syrian revolt ends, new government will be either Russian sided or Western sided. It seems impossible without Baathism so they need to divide Syria like Iraq to keep their interest alive and fed. Allied Kurds and Arabs are a go. At this point Turks are pissed off, when Merkel tried to take control of Ukrainian crisis US was pissed off. When Obama had a deal with Iran, Saudis and Israel were pissed off. You cant satisfy everyone in this game while you end up in bed with almost all of them. Absurd and shameful..
You read my post as whitewashing and excusing Western policy? Well, I don't really know how to respond to that.
I am not sure I agree with lastpuritan's interpretation of your post.
Also there is no way to convince people in this region of the world to "blame the puppets not the puppeteers", the image of the West and Israel has long gone down the drain there.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world
Why not start earlier? There is no doubt that the Britain and France didn't exactly leave the middle east well prepared for the future, but there are other parts of the former Ottoman Empire untouched by colonialism like the Balkans that didn't exactly fare much better. The end of the Ottoman Empire was inevitable, too.- Empires like that are just not sustainable anymore.
On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote: So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate. This was pure example of white washing a totally failed policy that caused thousands of deaths around the globe. People were saying exactly the same things when Baghdad being bombed down until these years that even republicans unwillingly admit we destroyed Iraq. Dont take my post offensive, i believe up to 10-15 years we will be writing similar things for Syria too, by the time we wont feel remorse or responsible for.
More accurate cover would be "The West realized Arab people are seeking their deserved rights and about to bring down their design, so they faked a role with their aid and shaped everything in a way that arab people will only blame the puppets not the puppeteers.This fake role reveals itself as EU countries relentlessly try to evade immigrants but their gun-aid numbers are above thousands. I mean come on, they let France to kill Qaddafi and bring down Libya, it could be again a coalition or US only, but there is clear imperialistic humiliation in it. What were they trying to remind? Why Turkey was headquarters for Syrian opposition for like 6-7 years already before they decided to switch armed struggle. This whole new allied vs axis game over Arab lands expanded badly and hurt civilians in great numbers as British imperialism stepping down and their design collapses.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world, then jump to Saudi Imperialism what openly aims to kill non-sunnis and Iran, hurting again Arab world. Then US imperialism vs Russian and all of these combining into side effects what we call today as ISIS or AL QAEDA or Taliban etc, any religious militia. Then new imperials appeared thanks to their imperialistic goals stack with bigger imperials, Turkey and Iran. Turkey was hostile to Syria historically and because of Syrian support to PKK. Iran filled the gap in Iraq when US left and took-over. The more USA drops bombs to Arab land, the more Turkish construction companies get money rich. Iran backed central Iraq, Turkey backed Northern Iraq. Iran backed Assad, Turkey backed opposition. West couldn't kill Assad because Russia, China, Iran said they are serious about him. They openly declared any military attempt that directly targeting Assad will be countered. His army was never that powerful, it would take only 2 hours to reach Damascus indeed. When Syrian revolt ends, new government will be either Russian sided or Western sided. It seems impossible without Baathism so they need to divide Syria like Iraq to keep their interest alive and fed. Allied Kurds and Arabs are a go. At this point Turks are pissed off, when Merkel tried to take control of Ukrainian crisis US was pissed off. When Obama had a deal with Iran, Saudis and Israel were pissed off. You cant satisfy everyone in this game while you end up in bed with almost all of them. Absurd and shameful..
I liked your analysis of the situation but i would like to know more about this
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate.
The information i have found so far, and some present on this thread since 2011 when the crysis started and we started posting here point to the regime army starting killing peaceful protesters. You can check a link i posted one page ago with videos from 2011 that document what happened, there is also now deceased prominient Iranian Commander that said that the crysis begun when the syrian army started shooting civilians.
When Syria stood its position with Iran a group of insurgents coming from Turkey attacked Jisr ash-Shugur, killing 120 regime forces, tearing their bodies apart and throwing them to the streets, rivers. http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Jisr_Al-Shughour_massacre Please read it.
I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents” – Jesuit priest Father Frans Van der Lugt, January 2012, Homs Syria
“The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning.” – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011, Ankara Turkey
Following these attacks Gulf capital got in Syria and create its political wings as they rain money to Ikhwan partisans. People were ultra poor in Syria after state withdrew its agricultural support policies, they migrated to cities, ending up with new suburbs that full of unemployed people tend to be more and more islamic day by day, mid class was almost destroyed while state was trying to satisfy Neoliberals (it was also state controlled neo-liberalism that made Assads cousin Mahlum rich)
I still dont believe early protests were not entirely about Assad, they wanted to establish caliphate, exterminate siihites. Please watch:
On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote: So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
You seem to disregard there have been attacks to regime forces before famous Assad gunning down civilians things escalate. This was pure example of white washing a totally failed policy that caused thousands of deaths around the globe. People were saying exactly the same things when Baghdad being bombed down until these years that even republicans unwillingly admit we destroyed Iraq. Dont take my post offensive, i believe up to 10-15 years we will be writing similar things for Syria too, by the time we wont feel remorse or responsible for.
More accurate cover would be "The West realized Arab people are seeking their deserved rights and about to bring down their design, so they faked a role with their aid and shaped everything in a way that arab people will only blame the puppets not the puppeteers.This fake role reveals itself as EU countries relentlessly try to evade immigrants but their gun-aid numbers are above thousands. I mean come on, they let France to kill Qaddafi and bring down Libya, it could be again a coalition or US only, but there is clear imperialistic humiliation in it. What were they trying to remind? Why Turkey was headquarters for Syrian opposition for like 6-7 years already before they decided to switch armed struggle. This whole new allied vs axis game over Arab lands expanded badly and hurt civilians in great numbers as British imperialism stepping down and their design collapses.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world, then jump to Saudi Imperialism what openly aims to kill non-sunnis and Iran, hurting again Arab world. Then US imperialism vs Russian and all of these combining into side effects what we call today as ISIS or AL QAEDA or Taliban etc, any religious militia. Then new imperials appeared thanks to their imperialistic goals stack with bigger imperials, Turkey and Iran. Turkey was hostile to Syria historically and because of Syrian support to PKK. Iran filled the gap in Iraq when US left and took-over. The more USA drops bombs to Arab land, the more Turkish construction companies get money rich. Iran backed central Iraq, Turkey backed Northern Iraq. Iran backed Assad, Turkey backed opposition. West couldn't kill Assad because Russia, China, Iran said they are serious about him. They openly declared any military attempt that directly targeting Assad will be countered. His army was never that powerful, it would take only 2 hours to reach Damascus indeed. When Syrian revolt ends, new government will be either Russian sided or Western sided. It seems impossible without Baathism so they need to divide Syria like Iraq to keep their interest alive and fed. Allied Kurds and Arabs are a go. At this point Turks are pissed off, when Merkel tried to take control of Ukrainian crisis US was pissed off. When Obama had a deal with Iran, Saudis and Israel were pissed off. You cant satisfy everyone in this game while you end up in bed with almost all of them. Absurd and shameful..
You read my post as whitewashing and excusing Western policy? Well, I don't really know how to respond to that.
I am not sure I agree with lastpuritan's interpretation of your post.
Also there is no way to convince people in this region of the world to "blame the puppets not the puppeteers", the image of the West and Israel has long gone down the drain there.
So for a paper, i would start with British&French imperialism and its damage to Arab world
Why not start earlier? There is no doubt that the Britain and France didn't exactly leave the middle east well prepared for the future, but there are other parts of the former Ottoman Empire untouched by colonialism like the Balkans that didn't exactly fare much better. The end of the Ottoman Empire was inevitable, too.- Empires like that are just not sustainable anymore.
In order to get a better result out of that we need to check Ottoman Empires taxing policies and congress type, there was a huge rise of Pan Turkism and Wahhabi - Pan Arabism (funded by west to weaken Turkish caliphs force over Arab man-power) clashing with each other. But mainly pan-turkism -what actually drives Turkey for like 80 years while West thinks its Islamism. I didn't include that since they got rid of Ottomans and formed new governments funded by Brits. Why they decided to fight Brits, why they did not like their new borders etc had very little to do with Ottomans by that time.
Also there is no way to convince people in this region of the world to "blame the puppets not the puppeteers", the image of the West and Israel has long gone down the drain there.
They hate Israel since the day 1, but Kurds and FSA are pro-west atm, right?
Thanks for your reply, i started reading the first article from the wiki and noticed that the website is very biased and i wonder who created it.
They have some curious phrases like
One big lie of the Kiev junta and Washington concerning the "Russian" BUK alleged to have shot down MH 17 is busted by the very soldier who manned the battery seen in the photos used by Kiev and Washington.
Everything the opposition says is marked as "alleged" and everything else doesn't seem to receive the same scrutiny. I mean do you have any other sources? I don't trust globalreserach as well, they were the ones saying that assad doesn't use barrel bombs and claiming that the rebels were the ones using them. But if you have any sources other than globalresearch, that wiki page that seems to be edited by some random guy with a bias toward the regime... and ofc rt.
I couldn't find any pages in English, they are mostly Arabic. Its very hard to tell who attacked first or who was the perpetrator at the very beginning but i trust Professor Jeremy Salt. We cant track most of the clashes since those people already died during other battles and people who witnessed those events are either biased or have limited info.
On November 19 2015 05:29 lastpuritan wrote: I couldn't find any pages in English, they are mostly Arabic. Its very hard to tell who attacked first or who was the perpetrator at the very beginning but i trust Professor Jeremy Salt. We cant track most of the clashes since those people already died during another battle and people who witnessed those events are either biased or have limited info.
Thanks i have read some articles and saved the page anyway thanks for the info.
François Hollande will plead with Barack Obama to show greater urgency in the fight against Islamic State when the presidents meet in Washington next week, warning of a state of emergency in Europe.
French officials have been careful not to openly criticise the US’s strategy in Syria and Iraq but believe Obama must be made aware of the extent of the refugee crisis it has caused, a European diplomat said on Wednesday.
“The message that we want to send to the Americans is simply that the crisis is destabilising Europe,” said the diplomat, who did not wish to be named. “The problem is that the attacks in Paris and the refugee crisis show that we don’t have time. There is an emergency.”
Noting the debate raging among governments over how to handle the biggest movement of people to Europe since the second world war, he added: “It’s the foreign fighters but it’s also the migrants crisis which is dividing the Europeans, destabilising the continent, so we have to act quickly, telling the US administration the core interests of the Europeans, your best allies, are at stake.”
As Paris reels from the terrorist attacks that killed 129 people last week, Hollande will try to impress on Obama that there is a need to act now and the world cannot afford to wait for a war of attrition that might take two years. Some insiders believe that America has been slow to appreciate the effects of millions of refugees pouring out of Syria, partly because the US is an ocean away and far less vulnerable.
On November 20 2015 06:10 Simberto wrote: I am pretty sure french surrender jokes stopped being funny about 10 years ago.
They're still funny, especially knowing about France's war history.
But seriously speaking, the name "Just Terror" is amazing. It's nothing but terror, but a fair terror. It condense both the juvenile and nihilist desire to destroy everything, dominate, play the rambo, and the revolt against the misery of man. Those ISIS guys....
The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Case in point as to why half-assed efforts can spectacularly backfire.
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Lol wat? First off what did the EU do in Syria? And how would not doing that whatever have achieved the impossible and stopped the Syrian civil war?
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Lol wat? First off what did the EU do in Syria? And how would not doing that whatever have achieved the impossible and stopped the Syrian civil war?
Not arming islamic rebels/bribing army units would have helped end this civil war pretty quickly.
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Lol wat? First off what did the EU do in Syria? And how would not doing that whatever have achieved the impossible and stopped the Syrian civil war?
Not arming islamic rebels/bribing army units would have helped end this civil war pretty quickly.
A large (if not larger) part of that was done by America so why the blame on the EU for the syrian crisis?
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Lol wat? First off what did the EU do in Syria? And how would not doing that whatever have achieved the impossible and stopped the Syrian civil war?
Not arming islamic rebels/bribing army units would have helped end this civil war pretty quickly.
I vividly remember our great media presenting us the FSA as moderate rebels who need and deserve western support. They quickly changed their tune after a liveleak video of the FSA commander Chalid al Hamad popped up in which he cut out the heart of a dead regime soldier and ate it under frantic allah akbaring of his men. This made them stop their propaganda for around a year, unfortunately the damage was done by then, the nutjobs were armed and ready to turn Syria into rubble.
Nowadays we are back at the same fairytale. In our media the FSA are the moderates again. They eventually got a bit more media savy by now.and don't put videos of their crazyness on the internet for everybody to see.
On November 20 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote: The EU needs to grow some balls and take care of its own problems. If the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War is such a big problem, then they should do something about it.
Funny how if they didn't feel they had the need to do something in the first place there wouldn't even be a refugee problem now.
Lol wat? First off what did the EU do in Syria? And how would not doing that whatever have achieved the impossible and stopped the Syrian civil war?
Not arming islamic rebels/bribing army units would have helped end this civil war pretty quickly.
A large (if not larger) part of that was done by America so why the blame on the EU for the syrian crisis?
Just because someone else did even worse doesn't mean that you don't share a part of the blame.
EPT
