|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 27 2013 00:41 BillGates wrote:
What happened was Al-Qaeda groups from Libya came into Syria and started blowing up buildings, burning Churches and Assad after a month of destruction put troops on the street to protect the Syrian people and that is when the big fighting broke out.
As you all remember Al-Qaeda was funded and supported in Libya by the USA and NATO and basically fought side by side. So Al-Qaeda spewed over to Syria and now the West, NATO are once again funding and supporting Al-Qaeda groups trying to bring down Assad and his legitimate government that won the elections last year.
Do you have any sources for that?
Because I doubt Israel would just accept that the west is helping muslim extremists to overthrow dictators right in their neighborhood
|
On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus.
Has the US invaded Syria?
|
On April 27 2013 04:16 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. Has the US invaded Syria?
Did you actually watch the clip?
|
On April 27 2013 04:12 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 00:41 BillGates wrote:
What happened was Al-Qaeda groups from Libya came into Syria and started blowing up buildings, burning Churches and Assad after a month of destruction put troops on the street to protect the Syrian people and that is when the big fighting broke out.
As you all remember Al-Qaeda was funded and supported in Libya by the USA and NATO and basically fought side by side. So Al-Qaeda spewed over to Syria and now the West, NATO are once again funding and supporting Al-Qaeda groups trying to bring down Assad and his legitimate government that won the elections last year.
Do you have any sources for that? Because I doubt Israel would just accept that the west is helping muslim extremists to overthrow dictators right in their neighborhood
Israel is supporting the plan, because according to Jpost, Haaretz, etc... the officials there are corrupt as well and have ties to the same military industrial complex, but more so they believe by putting in radical Islamist Al-Qaeda groups into these 7 countries they would present less of a threat to Israel as that would cause in fighting in these countries and massive death on their own, so they would be weakened to really threaten Israel, unlike if they have prosper countries with good military.
|
The locations of the claims of chemical weapons use lead me to believe they were used purposefully with the intent to win ground on the battlefield.
Locations: Homs city, Otaybah in Rif Dimashq, Khan al-Assal in Aleppo.
All of the uses came at a time the regime was hard pressed. They were engaged in offensives to clear out Homs, weren't making it, then suddenly chemical weapons claims. In Otaybah the government was trying to recapture the town to choke off the supply of arms to the Ghouta rebels and secure Damascus International. Fighting for several weeks with lots of casualties, then, suddenly, claims of chemical artillery shells being fired. Khan al-Assal, rebels pressed to capture a heavily defended government arms depot, fighting for weeks with hundreds of casualties on both sides, then chemical weapons claims.
The common factor in the areas where rebels claim they were used is they were heavily fought over, strategically important locations for both sides. They are not being used (IF THEY ARE, IF) to massacre huge numbers of civilians. They appear to be delivered by artillery shell and used precisely in areas where there is heavy fighting going on of high strategic importance.
I would not be surprised if the government was trying to use nerve gas/chemical weapons in a limited way to influence key battlefields while hoping the use was low enough that it wouldnt trigger massive foreign intervention.
|
On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus.
My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation.
|
On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation.
I think that's more because they're an Arab nation, they're 31st in the world according to the Wikipedia, 200,000 barrels a day behind 30. Australia?!
|
|
|
If there is a war then hopefully Obama/Hagel will demand not only Europe carry it's weight(Italy, England, France) but also the Saudi's, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE contribute.
|
On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation.
aint there quite some oil in the golan heights region, a part of syria that has been conquered by israel since this conflict started?
|
On April 27 2013 11:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation. I think that's more because they're an Arab nation, they're 31st in the world according to the Wikipedia, 200,000 barrels a day behind 30. Australia?!
Oh shit, detective ElemBlues exposing me. I concede. Please have mercy ![[image loading]](http://www.chatslang.com/images/shortcuts/twitch/admins/biblethump.png)
|
On April 27 2013 12:27 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 11:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation. I think that's more because they're an Arab nation, they're 31st in the world according to the Wikipedia, 200,000 barrels a day behind 30. Australia?! Oh shit, detective ElemBlues exposing me. I concede. Please have mercy
That's up to the Emperor.
Israel is supporting the plan, because according to Jpost, Haaretz, etc... the officials there are corrupt as well and have ties to the same military industrial complex, but more so they believe by putting in radical Islamist Al-Qaeda groups into these 7 countries they would present less of a threat to Israel as that would cause in fighting in these countries and massive death on their own, so they would be weakened to really threaten Israel, unlike if they have prosper countries with good military.
Why would Israel want to replace stable governments that haven't attacked it in decades because that's srs war bsns with a bunch of anarchic failed states where terrorists run free?
Why would Israel want to turn these 7 countries into 7 Lebanons?
|
On April 27 2013 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 12:27 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 11:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation. I think that's more because they're an Arab nation, they're 31st in the world according to the Wikipedia, 200,000 barrels a day behind 30. Australia?! Oh shit, detective ElemBlues exposing me. I concede. Please have mercy That's up to the Emperor. Show nested quote +Israel is supporting the plan, because according to Jpost, Haaretz, etc... the officials there are corrupt as well and have ties to the same military industrial complex, but more so they believe by putting in radical Islamist Al-Qaeda groups into these 7 countries they would present less of a threat to Israel as that would cause in fighting in these countries and massive death on their own, so they would be weakened to really threaten Israel, unlike if they have prosper countries with good military. Why would Israel want to replace stable governments that haven't attacked it in decades because that's srs war bsns with a bunch of anarchic failed states where terrorists run free? Why would Israel want to turn these 7 countries into 7 Lebanons?
The thinking there is they would present small pockets of threat with suicide bombers, occasional mortar attacks, but it would not be a big threat that can come from an army.
But that said the Israeli government is very corrupt and part of the same military industrial complex, in fact former top Mossad officials have come out public and criticized the government for going along with it. One was the intelligence agency former leader and he said that Iran doesn't have a nuke and are far away from it, but even if they had a nuke it wouldn't be existential threat and that Israel should be against the plan to attack them.
So its not like its all decided, but elements of the government with ties to the military industrial complex are pushing for the plan to go through and as you can see the first reports came from Israel about chemical weapons, which leads me to believe its false and even if chemicals were used it was on the side of Al-Qaeda who as you remember stole all the weapons, including chemical weapons from Qaddafi's military bases.
|
The thinking there is they would present small pockets of threat with suicide bombers, occasional mortar attacks, but it would not be a big threat that can come from an army.
Israel freaks out over fifth-rate homemade rockets getting shot out of Gaza.
Israel does not fear Arab armies. Except Syria and it's occupied right now isn't it.
But that said the Israeli government is very corrupt and part of the same military industrial complex, in fact former top Mossad officials have come out public and criticized the government for going along with it. One was the intelligence agency former leader and he said that Iran doesn't have a nuke and are far away from it, but even if they had a nuke it wouldn't be existential threat and that Israel should be against the plan to attack them.
That's a sharp difference of opinion not proof of a military-industrial conspiracy.
So its not like its all decided, but elements of the government with ties to the military industrial complex are pushing for the plan to go through and as you can see the first reports came from Israel about chemical weapons, which leads me to believe its false and even if chemicals were used it was on the side of Al-Qaeda who as you remember stole all the weapons, including chemical weapons from Qaddafi's military bases.
I don't think we should intervene unless chemical weapons are used on a large scale or in a systematic nature instead of these seemingly sporadic uses that don't appear to be part of a policy on either side.
|
On April 27 2013 12:24 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation. aint there quite some oil in the golan heights region, a part of syria that has been conquered by israel since this conflict started?
I distinctly remember reading that Israel might have fairly significant energy reserves if they start fracking. Combined with what's off their coast (some of it shared with the Gaza strip - what a mess that's going to be...), they could potentially become a significant energy producer, especially if some other countries run dry in the next decade or so. Can't be bothered to find the article I read, but have a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_economy#Energy.
I don't remember if the Golan Heights were included in that estimate, though. They might have been...
|
On April 27 2013 11:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If there is a war then hopefully Obama/Hagel will demand not only Europe carry it's weight(Italy, England, France) but also the Saudi's, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE contribute.
Nobody wants to do the dirty work. If it comes to war, most of it will be done either by someone who wants to do this the most or someone who had to cave in to do it because they were in a weak position politically.
|
Israel2209 Posts
On April 27 2013 12:24 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 09:04 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 27 2013 03:53 Shiragaku wrote:On April 27 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Amazing that Wesley Clark was once considered a dark horse in some circles to win the Democratic candidacy for president in 2004. He's a left-wing Alex Jones with a better resumé and a suit.
There is a slight problem with the conspiracy-mongerer's timeline, namely that the Assad government had already killed hundreds of innocent protesters and had already put Homs under siege for months before the first terror bombings began. Welsey Clark does have a good point, the presence of oil has created huge huge interest. There is a reason why Syria is in the light much more so than say Burma. There is no presence of oil in Syria. Syria does not have an oil-based economy because there's only tiny deposits of oil there. Wesley Clark is a doofus. My bad, I assumed there was a lot of oil since they are an OPEC nation. aint there quite some oil in the golan heights region, a part of syria that has been conquered by israel since this conflict started?
1) There is no oil in the Golan Heights. (They've been trying to find some for years, no one has found any in a marketable quantity.)
2) Israel conquered the Golan Heights in 1967, during the Six Day War.
|
I can't condemn chemical weapons without being a hypocrite. Vietnam easily surpasses every other war combined in terms of incendiary and chemical weapon usage. However, I'm less fond of Islamic terrorists than I am of secular dictatorships, although I really hate both. Still, what we see here is extremely limited tactical usage of such weapons, which is expected. Syria is not currently at war with other nations or has other emergencies that it needs to quickly and effectively crush this Islamic revolt.
Still, sadly, chemical weapons will be used by those who have them, and the thing is, there was no bigger occasion of emergency to use it than when you're fighting a country with 4 times the population (at the time) while dealing with large-scale domestic insurrections from Kurdish nationalists and Shi'a Islamic extremists (see Iran-Iraq War; note the Iranians had chemical weapons too), even then restraint was taken. Khomeini doesn't get as much attention as bin Laden, but he was literally the most batshit insane Islamic extremist in modern history, one could even say the father of modern Islamic terrorism and extremism, as was used against Iraq before and during the war.
If say in some crazy hypotheical situation the USA bordered China, went to war with China, and most people in Texas decided it was going to kill US civilians and military, the war is in deadlock for more than half of it, well, the US is going to deal with it quickly. We're certainly not going to high-five violent insurrectionists as they go along murdering and destroying domestically. Hell, the infinite napalm and chem weapons against the Viets aside, we even used sarin on defecting solders in Vietnam. It wasn't like the US was in danger of no longer existing during the Vietnam War, either, that it had to use chemical weapons against the NVA/VC.
In any case, Iranian capitulation in '88 should have been followed with the removal of the Islamic regime in Iran.
Of course, no one had the foresight to see 25 years in the future, but the continued existence of Islamist bulwarks like Iran and Saudi Arabia are the primary reasons and influences for the dramatic increase in Islamism in Mideastern regimes, including in Iraq ironically, and even Lebanon. Basically, the Mideast is fucked, and unfortunately, our support for Islamic terrorists, from bin Laden and Afghani mujahideen in the 80s to various groups in the present, is just making things more and more fucked.
Ironically enough, the US's support for these Islamic rebellions is making things a lot tougher for Israel. The Israelis are shitting bricks over the developments in the past couple years (and I don't blame them), especially Islamic seizure of Egyptian government. I just don't see why the hell we support these Islamic revolts when the only outcome is going to be an extremist Islamic dictatorship that's a lot worse than the preceding regime. It's just silly.
|
On April 27 2013 11:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If there is a war then hopefully Obama/Hagel will demand not only Europe carry it's weight(Italy, England, France) but also the Saudi's, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE contribute.
If there's a war in Syria then Europe carrying it's weight will be the least of your worries, and allowing the rest of the Middle East to contribute is precisely a recipe for disaster! Assad has made himself clear that any foreign intervention in Syria will force him to release his chemical stockpile. This would destabilize the entire Middle East and no doubt trigger a larger war between Israel and Iran if we allow every neighboring nation or those in relative proximity to join in.
Doesn't help either that politicians such as John McCain are chomping at the bit to start a war in Syria. Granted, he's not in the position to decide whether or not we intervene, but with more and more evidence coming to light that chemical weapons have in fact been used in Syria (whether the government or FSA are responsible is still unknown), it has made me very worried about how this situation will look in six months to a year. Things need to de-escalate now or else our worst-case scenario will become a likely probability.
|
I hope the US isn't stupid enough to get militarily involved in Syria. It's dumb enough already for a lot of the international community to be supporting the rebels. The media is so one-sided against the regime when in fact the country would be significantly worse off with the Muslim extremists taking control. Do you know how many Syrian Christians and others would be tortured and killed if that happens? Neither side good, but imo the rebels are worse; there's way too many terrorists and support for terrorism within their ranks.
Btw, thank the Gods John McCain isn't president right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
