Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 383

On December 14 2016 01:38 LegalLord wrote:

Well I'm glad you gave such deep reasoning for saying that it's bullshit that isn't just a one-liner.

Sure, there are no "good guys" in this conflict, and yes, there are problems with Hezbollah and even Assad that would be unacceptable if it weren't true that everyone is a shitty actor. And yet I'm not the screaming "omg rusha is bombing THE GOOD GUYS not the ISIS OMG WTF ABUSE." The "moderate rebels" are just another problematic faction like any other, and they just happen to have a tendency to fold into Islamist groups as they have in the past.

Calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is definitely contentious though. I won't make the case either way here.

On December 14 2016 01:52 Wrath wrote:
Assad is a "secular" dictator that belongs to a minority that allied itself with Shiite and having their support to fight with him as long as he swear loyalty to Khaminai. The so called "Secular Syrian Arabian Army" is not secular, not Syrian and not Arabian. It is formed mostly of Iranian and the refugee Afghan and Pakistan there and Yemen and Lebanon Shiia. This "Secular" army is a pure sectarian army in fact.

Syria already conscripts its men at age 18 into the army. Before the war, service would last for two years but now many conscripts say they have served for several years, with no sign of being discharged.

Military analysts say the Syrian army's pre-war numbers were about 300,000 personnel, but its current size after almost six years of conflict is not known.

Young men are known to desert the army, leave the country, or pay bribes to avoid being drafted.

Syria's forces are bolstered by Iranian troops, Iran-backed militias, and fighters from Lebanon's Shia-Muslim Hezbollah group, as well as Russian air power.

People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed. If that happens they are willing to drop down their weapons and stop the fight.

On December 14 2016 01:52 Wrath wrote:
wrong also. syrians elected Assad as president in 2014.

On December 14 2016 02:32 xM(Z wrote:
that is totally wrong also. yes there are iranian shia forces and iranian backed Hezbollah fighting in Syria but Assad has mainly a conscription-based armed force(some(?) of the men were conscripted against their will, especially when things were bad for Assad; early on in the war they went unpaid and were overworked). it's alleged that ~80.000 alawites died for Assad.

for more read: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/syria-seeks-volunteers-support-army-successes-161122160216259.html

Edit: wrong also. syrians elected Assad as president in 2014.

On December 14 2016 02:52 xM(Z wrote:
what's your point?, when involving dictators, everything is rigged?.
add proof or wear a tinfoil hat.

@Acrofales: without even trying to comment on your point(because it's a he said she said kind of thing) there's still a long way to go from that to People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed.

that is totally wrong also. yes there are iranian shia forces and iranian backed Hezbollah fighting in Syria but Assad has mainly a conscription-based armed force(some(?) of the men were conscripted against their will, especially when things were bad for Assad; early on in the war they went unpaid and were overworked). it's alleged that ~80.000 alawites died for Assad.

On December 14 2016 02:12 zatic wrote:

Then call it like it is. There is no "moderate opposition". True. Everyone picked their sectarian extremists to support, including Russia. The bullshit part is claiming the Russian position is in any way better than the West's. They are doing exactly what they are accusing the US of (supporting terrorists).

But Assad preempted that discussion by refusing constitutional change and elections, and instead driving tanks into protests.

On December 14 2016 03:18 Salazarz wrote:


That's an incredibly ignorant claim to make. Ambiguity of the 'moderate' rebels and their ties with AQ / IS etc aside, you can't just go and support a rebellion in a foreign country because you don't like their government. Half the world is ruled by dictators and shitty regimes, many of them far more dangerous and far less legitimate than that of Assad's. And yes, Russia is in Syria solely to protect their geopolitical interests, not because they are 'the good guys' or something -- but they are protecting their geopolitical interests in accordance with the international law in spite of whatever accusations MSM hurls at them, while USA & friends are violating god knows how many conventions with their continued presence there. Russia isn't in the right because Assad is 'better' than the people USA is supporting or something; Russia is in the right because they are on the right side of the law in Syria, while NATO is not.



The whole topic of Assad supposedly 'crushing peaceful protests' is highly contested, btw. Like, the original reason for NATO coalition's entry into Syrian civil war has been proven to be a false flag already (gas attacks against civilians).

On December 14 2016 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Because might make right? Because simply massacring your own civilians is lawful in Assads eyes makes them the legitimate government? That is basically the crux of your argument. Russia isn't in the right any more than Assad is in the right.

On December 14 2016 03:26 xM(Z wrote:
@Wrath: you're missing the context here. in early days, after the war started, Assad army was hit by massive desertions. from generals to regular foot soldiers, numbers given were in the tens of thousands.
so now you're in a war, facing a massive sunni desertion; what do you do?; you conscript loyalists(people from your own sect, people you know they'll die for you) because you're forced to, because you can't afford more desertions.
conscripting alawites was a do or die scenario.

On December 14 2016 04:19 Wrath wrote:


The question is, WHY DID IT EVEN BREAK INTO A WAR?

It is not what to do when you are alwaite and facing massive sunni desertion. It is why did we even got here? It all started with a boy writing on the wall "You are next Assad". The boy got caught and tortured. The people rioted in Dar'a against what happened. The authority there who had connections with Assad insulted them and forced them out. That is how it started. If Assad had some IQ, just punishing the responsible for that and people would have went back to homes. But his stupidity allowed the situation to escalate to this point.

On December 14 2016 04:40 Wrath wrote:
True,

But I don't think they all came together, I mean, if Assad just punished the responsible for Dar'a incident, things would not have escalated that much.

Anyway off topic. Am I the only one having the footer of the page aligned to the left instead of center?

. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances.