|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 15 2018 11:23 AssyrianKing wrote:
I personally hope Assad stays, or atleast inviduals from his sect have control. I've been told that Alawite muslims are secular minded & quite tolerant of other religions in Syria, which is why almost every single other religious group supports him. It would be a disaster for other religious groups in the population if any of the opposition parties took control.
A good example is Mohamed Morsi & Egypt. As soon as he and the muslim brotherhood came into power it was a nightmare for Coptic Christians. Over 100 churches were attacked and half of them burnt down. Kidnapping of christian women is epidemic happening in the country. The scariest part was, The Musim Brotherhood started forming false accustations of Christians which led to violence against them. El-sisi came and removed the muslim brotherhood.
People are always screaming opposition! opposition! opposition! But none of you even realise the reprucussions it would have. Christians from Iraq loved and hated Saddam Hussain. Yes he was a power hungry asshole, but he kept the population under control and did not tolerate sectarianism, something which the future government has failed in doing. In 2003 Iraq had 1.5 million Assyrians, that number has now decreased to less than 300,000 and is only decreasing.
This is the same argument that the US has been using to keep dictators in power from the cold war on. The problem is, even after all the good points that you've brought up that I totally agree with, at the end of the day Assad is still a repressive dictator that doesn't gain his power from the will of his people. The arab summer has shown that one day the people will always cry out for freedom, it is inevitable that assad and his family will one day lose power. He will probably survive this civil war but one day another will come if he doesn't transition like the monarchs of old europe.
|
That report was all it took for Macron to agree to invade another country? How about actual proof? Like samples from dead bodies or the ground?
We truly live in a post-factual society. Why are they taking the statements of activist organizations who openly oppose Assad as facts?
This is a great symptom of what is wrong with this world. In Syria, it's the US that decides which accounts are credible, and then everybody just listens and believes to the accepted and true sources.
This is not some huge conspiracy. It's just moronic blind faith/submission to US political authority.
When the Syrian UN representative was about to speak his mind to the council, days ago, the americans just left. They act like bullies, and they show no respect whatsoever for the counsil or the sovereignty of other nations. USA has become the global judge, jury and executioner, and Russia and China, and a few other smaller countries are the only ones who have got the balls to stand up against them.
+ Show Spoiler +
This man claims to be one of the doctors on one of the videos. I can't tell for certain that it's really him, but it looks like it, and he gives a really convincing case for what actually went on. But even without his testimony, it looks staged to me.
Douma revolution, who was behind that video, also released two videos from an apartment where there were a lot of dead corpses. This could have been staged as well, although it certainly looks real. But the OPCW need to try and locate those bodies, if they are indeed dead. If it is as they claim, finding the bodies should be a piece of cake.
+ Show Spoiler +
And here's a video that shows a rehearsal staging a chemical attack. Look at the flags! Al Nusra and FSA. The FSA are the so-called moderate rebels that USA and numerous other countries have openly funded and supplied with weapons.
|
On April 15 2018 12:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 11:23 AssyrianKing wrote:
I personally hope Assad stays, or atleast inviduals from his sect have control. I've been told that Alawite muslims are secular minded & quite tolerant of other religions in Syria, which is why almost every single other religious group supports him. It would be a disaster for other religious groups in the population if any of the opposition parties took control.
A good example is Mohamed Morsi & Egypt. As soon as he and the muslim brotherhood came into power it was a nightmare for Coptic Christians. Over 100 churches were attacked and half of them burnt down. Kidnapping of christian women is epidemic happening in the country. The scariest part was, The Musim Brotherhood started forming false accustations of Christians which led to violence against them. El-sisi came and removed the muslim brotherhood.
People are always screaming opposition! opposition! opposition! But none of you even realise the reprucussions it would have. Christians from Iraq loved and hated Saddam Hussain. Yes he was a power hungry asshole, but he kept the population under control and did not tolerate sectarianism, something which the future government has failed in doing. In 2003 Iraq had 1.5 million Assyrians, that number has now decreased to less than 300,000 and is only decreasing. This is the same argument that the US has been using to keep dictators in power from the cold war on. The problem is, even after all the good points that you've brought up that I totally agree with, at the end of the day Assad is still a repressive dictator that doesn't gain his power from the will of his people. The arab summer has shown that one day the people will always cry out for freedom, it is inevitable that assad and his family will one day lose power. He will probably survive this civil war but one day another will come if he doesn't transition like the monarchs of old europe.
What dictators? I think you've got that argument in reverse. They have gotten rid of pretty much all of them, and it's only gotten worse.
This is a proxy war, not a civil war. Saudi money and IS from Iraq leaking into Syria. What a surprise that it ended up as a civil war! Noone will deny that there are genuine oppositional forces in Syria, as in any country, but it's disingenious to claim that the syrians are against him. Just look up footage of actual syrian citizens, in warzones or cities and you'll see that Assad have a very strong support. His major opposition comes from all the foreign interests. Assad was able to stay afloat for 4 years without any allies beyond Iran, despite the Saudi sphere and USA and allies working against him. Then Russia stepped in. The Kurd controlled northern territories will most likely become independent though.
Does these ppl look like they're being oppressed by a ruthless dictator, waiting for someone to save them?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 15 2018 13:53 L1ghtning wrote:Does these ppl look like they're being oppressed by a ruthless dictator, waiting for someone to save them? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbbTWPZPciQ
Cheering crowds, even sincere ones, for dictators who perpetrated abuses upon their own people are hardly unknown throughout history. I'm not an expert on the subject and I don't know just how bad Assad is, but I don't think this is nearly as convincing an argument as you seem to think it is.
|
On April 15 2018 13:53 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 12:55 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2018 11:23 AssyrianKing wrote:
I personally hope Assad stays, or atleast inviduals from his sect have control. I've been told that Alawite muslims are secular minded & quite tolerant of other religions in Syria, which is why almost every single other religious group supports him. It would be a disaster for other religious groups in the population if any of the opposition parties took control.
A good example is Mohamed Morsi & Egypt. As soon as he and the muslim brotherhood came into power it was a nightmare for Coptic Christians. Over 100 churches were attacked and half of them burnt down. Kidnapping of christian women is epidemic happening in the country. The scariest part was, The Musim Brotherhood started forming false accustations of Christians which led to violence against them. El-sisi came and removed the muslim brotherhood.
People are always screaming opposition! opposition! opposition! But none of you even realise the reprucussions it would have. Christians from Iraq loved and hated Saddam Hussain. Yes he was a power hungry asshole, but he kept the population under control and did not tolerate sectarianism, something which the future government has failed in doing. In 2003 Iraq had 1.5 million Assyrians, that number has now decreased to less than 300,000 and is only decreasing. This is the same argument that the US has been using to keep dictators in power from the cold war on. The problem is, even after all the good points that you've brought up that I totally agree with, at the end of the day Assad is still a repressive dictator that doesn't gain his power from the will of his people. The arab summer has shown that one day the people will always cry out for freedom, it is inevitable that assad and his family will one day lose power. He will probably survive this civil war but one day another will come if he doesn't transition like the monarchs of old europe. What dictators? I think you've got that argument in reverse. They have gotten rid of pretty much all of them, and it's only gotten worse. This is a proxy war, not a civil war. Saudi money and IS from Iraq leaking into Syria. What a surprise that it ended up as a civil war! Noone will deny that there are genuine oppositional forces in Syria, as in any country, but it's disingenious to claim that the syrians are against him. Just look up footage of actual syrian citizens, in warzones or cities and you'll see that Assad have a very strong support. His major opposition comes from all the foreign interests. Assad was able to stay afloat for 4 years without any allies beyond Iran, despite the Saudi sphere and USA and allies working against him. Then Russia stepped in. The Kurd controlled northern territories will most likely become independent though. Does these ppl look like they're being oppressed by a ruthless dictator, waiting for someone to save them? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbbTWPZPciQ
I mean by now people will surely choose the status quo of Assad above whatever the rebel factions currently have become, a simple choice for order above chaos, they want the war to end and to return to living their lives. There is nothing wrong with that. But this whole notion that Assad was only fighting foreign forces is crazy talk. You think all those people fled the country because it was so nice to be there? No he was killing them with military force.
|
In reply to fueledupandreadytogo.
U ever seen any of the " peacefull protests of the arab spring? " i'm sure alot of the general population ran because of them.
They didnt want woman teaching in school. They didnt wante any moderrn things going on .
They wanted to behead everybody that preached for a progressive syria .
All those protestors turrned terrorists and got help from external forces the old baath party of iraq aka ISIS
|
On April 15 2018 13:02 L1ghtning wrote:That report was all it took for Macron to agree to invade another country? How about actual proof? Like samples from dead bodies or the ground?
The US claim to have lab analysis of samples that support this. I don't know how true that is and I don't see the harm in publishing lab data, it's not gonna help anyone make more such weapons. But I think we can agree that for the public that wouldn't be considered clear proof either, it can just as easily be dismissed as made up.
An OPCW team arrived in Syria yesterday to collect their own evidence, there's a valid criticism to be made here that the military response didn't wait for the OPCW's report. On the other hand I see no reason why the people that weren't convinced by their previous assessments would be now if their findings are similar.
One curious but unrelated thing I'd like to point out is that Trump, the bona fide contrarian that almost always chooses to err against the accepted theory (climate change, vaccines, tariffs, etc), is so unequivocally convinced by the accepted theory in this case. A man with such an affinity for conspiracy theories surely pondered the timing of this last attack in relation to him, wonder what offset that to keep him from going down that road.
|
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
|
I don't think western governments want this. To me it looks more like some western (or israeli) influential groups want to manipulate the entire alliance into a serious intervention in Syria while western governments clearly don't want that and are content with just showing the public they don't tolerate chemical attacks.
By "manipulate" I don't mean the attack was certainly staged or a false flag, I'm talking only about the desired reaction to the "official version".
|
On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of?
Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well?
|
On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well?
I'm just assuming Assad isn't a moron.
If you are categorically winning a war, have just taken over an entire valuable area, and the West shows no sign of wanting anything to do with it, why would you then go and gas a bunch of civilians?
Its not really a matter of motive as much as the most basic of cost benefit analysis. Who stands to gain and who stands to lose?
Sure we don't know everything about the situation. Shit there could be a perfectly good motive that I don't know about, but we're on a discussion forum, not a place where we can all come and say "I don't know anything because I don't have perfect information."
There are various reasons why I don't trust the media's story that our governments gave them to tell us. The motive for the attack is just a small part of that.
|
On April 16 2018 01:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? I'm just assuming Assad isn't a moron. If you are categorically winning a war, have just taken over an entire valuable area, and the West shows no sign of wanting anything to do with it, why would you then go and gas a bunch of civilians? Its not really a matter of motive as much as the most basic of cost benefit analysis. Who stands to gain and who stands to lose? Sure we don't know everything about the situation. Shit there could be a perfectly good motive that I don't know about, but we're on a discussion forum, not a place where we can all come and say "I don't know anything because I don't have perfect information." There are various reasons why I don't trust the media's story that our governments gave them to tell us. The motive for the attack is just a small part of that. As the French report mentions, just because just because Assad has 'won' the war and is not at risk anymore does not mean the war is over. Clearing out rebels from dug in cities is hard work with the potential for a lot of casualties to an already depleted army.
And lo and behold the rebels leave after the chemical attack.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though.
|
On April 15 2018 19:46 Dan HH wrote:
The US claim to have lab analysis of samples that support this. I don't know how true that is and I don't see the harm in publishing lab data, it's not gonna help anyone make more such weapons. But I think we can agree that for the public that wouldn't be considered clear proof either, it can just as easily be dismissed as made up.
An OPCW team arrived in Syria yesterday to collect their own evidence, there's a valid criticism to be made here that the military response didn't wait for the OPCW's report. On the other hand I see no reason why the people that weren't convinced by their previous assessments would be now if their findings are similar.
My question is why the western powers felt that they had to attack so swiftly? I heard one justification on the news that it was to "stop another imminent attack" or something but I have a hard time believing that. I mean yeah you may never win over hardcore skeptics, but what would the cost be to simply wait until the inspectors do their job before launching so many missiles?
One curious but unrelated thing I'd like to point out is that Trump, the bona fide contrarian that almost always chooses to err against the accepted theory (climate change, vaccines, tariffs, etc), is so unequivocally convinced by the accepted theory in this case. A man with such an affinity for conspiracy theories surely pondered the timing of this last attack in relation to him, wonder what offset that to keep him from going down that road.
I think Trump is very enamored of the military and is firmly in the hands of career military men like Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and now the warmonger John Bolton. These men have all had hands in previous questionable military interventions, and America's endless "War on Terror". Trump seems like he's immune to listening to advice unless it comes from the military that he worships. That, and he watches Fox News a lot and apparently believes it, though I pray that the reports of that are exaggerated.
|
On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though.
The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what?
The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities?
What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy?
|
On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy?
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice.
Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists.
Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack.
People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US.
|
On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would.
But why would the US, UK and France play along?
Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them?
If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It might lead one to believe that there could perhaps be some preexisting desire to butt in that uses the attack as justification.
|
On April 16 2018 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
It might lead one to believe that there could perhaps be some preexisting desire to butt in that uses the attack as justification. Yeah, I'm sure they all just wanted to shoot some missiles at something and didn't care what it was.
That's the best you can come up with?
|
On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report?
If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that?
The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc.
Another reason they would play along is because the US and the UK are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear.
Remember the WMDs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
