| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Holo82
Austria107 Posts
If wales would start rebellion against the crown (murdering the major, some peers, burning public buildings, driving out all non walish people out of wales, stealing the money, houses, killing policemen, raping policemans wife), would u as UK citizen say "ok they have the right to to this because of democrazy" Or would u say "wtf, call surpreme commander, mobilize army, lets shut those bastards down"? Gadaffi would be the crown, Wales would be the Nomade tribe living at benghazi. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On May 04 2013 01:45 Holo82 wrote: If wales would start rebellion against the crown (murdering the major, some peers, burning public buildings, driving out all non walish people out of wales, stealing the money, houses, killing policemen, raping policemans wife), would u as UK citizen say "ok they have the right to to this because of democrazy" Or would u say "wtf, call surpreme commander, mobilize army, lets shut those bastards down"? Gadaffi would be the crown, Wales would be the Nomade tribe living at benghazi. You're going far to above their heads with that analogy, anything in the West is entirely different : D It's way better to leave dictators like Gadaffi/Saddam/Assad in charge then to save the people. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On May 04 2013 01:45 Holo82 wrote: If wales would start rebellion against the crown (murdering the major, some peers, burning public buildings, driving out all non walish people out of wales, stealing the money, houses, killing policemen, raping policemans wife), would u as UK citizen say "ok they have the right to to this because of democrazy" Or would u say "wtf, call surpreme commander, mobilize army, lets shut those bastards down"? Gadaffi would be the crown, Wales would be the Nomade tribe living at benghazi. They would be arrested and have a fair trial not slaughtered. | ||
|
Holo82
Austria107 Posts
| ||
|
iMOOrtal
Canada144 Posts
On May 04 2013 00:53 Holo82 wrote: Syria was a multicultural country with muslims of several confessions, christs, jews living together in relative peace for the last 50 years, since the country exists independently from france / great britain. Now its a messed up fanatism mob rebelling against the government, using civilian as hostages /meat shields against the army, most of those djihad guys even come from other countries,and the governments fault was trying to stop the fanatics in a civil way in the beginning. The majority of syrian people have fled to either government controlled regions or abroad. If the western world should support anyone in this war, it should be Assad. The alternative would be another Scharia state in the middle East. We already have this stupid shit in Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Tunisia due to those "Democratic" movements, that resulted in fundamental islamic governments. Syria has not been a country of peace for the last 50 years. I posted on page 39 here, I'll re-hash a bit for you. Assad(s) regieme had put down 2 prior rebellions (one involving the Muslim Brotherhood) killing at least (and these are the lowball estimates) 30,000 people in each case. Assad has been the only candidate in what you say are "democratic elections" well I guess its democtatic but because he is the only candidate this is not a legitament democracy, surely you will understand that. You also say in a later post that there's no evidence you have seen of chemical weapon use, only on "sheeps" I post on page 40 with links to evidence that they have been used on people. I hope you follow up on and fact check before making an opinion on this crisis. I'm not saying there aren't Al-Qaeda linked fightings on the rebels, I'm only saying that the Assads are fucking MONSTERS as well. Don't fool yourself into thinking hes doing the right thing, and don't think the that about the rebels either. There are criminals on both sides now. some information on 1976 and 1981 Massacre's in Hama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre http://middleeast.about.com/od/syria/f/hama-rules.htm http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/63819/the-hama-massacre-reasons-supporters-of-the-rebellion-consequences | ||
|
Holo82
Austria107 Posts
I did never state, that Syria was /is a Democratic country, it has no democratic tradition. Assad took over from his father, as far as i remember. The father was a hard despot, who did everything he could to keep fundamentalism at bay, while supporting the regional stability in Lebanon and get along with Isral (althoug golan still is part of syria, but has been occupied since the 67). There is a Uno Buffer zone between Lebanon / Isral / Syria, in which i was stationed as a soldier 10 years ago. Officialy, there is still war between Israel and Syria, as far as i know. The young Assad tried to establish reforms for more civil rights and economic growth, and a western-directed politics, while staying on the anticlerical direction. He freed all political prisoners, in hope it would give peace and cooperation. What he earned with this kind of glasnost politics was a rebellion fueled from foreign interests, and relentless fundamentalists. I am pretty sure, Assad has no way of staying at power realistically,, the sunna are like 60 + % of the people, and they hate him for his anticlerical direction. But i will never believe that he ordered use of chemical weapons on civilians, as is stated by the rebels. (who also state that the 2 christian bishops where kidnapped from assad regime, to make rebels look bad lol) | ||
|
iMOOrtal
Canada144 Posts
There is evidence from multiple sources that the weapons have been ultilised by the government, wheather you choose to read, and absorb those reports is up to you. You never said he was democatically elected, I checked and I misread what you had said (sorry but it's a bit hard to understand your english so I don't feel too bad about the mis-understanding there, it was my mistake though). But my point is still relevant in that, he is not a a legitament ruler. I agree that the alternative to Assad's government would be messy, but you Europeans came out of the dark ages after some struggles with rebellions, monarchies, and the like.. It took quite a while for legitiment governments with proper systems to form, maybe Syria will be a better place when the dictator is put down. Maybe it won't, maybe it will, but would you want to keep living under a bloodthirsty regieme with the ability and will to slay your entire family at the first sign of political desent? I wouldn't. Even if the alternative was just as bad, an Islamic Sharia Law state, I would fight Assad, and then fight the Sharia state. You can only fight one battle at a time though, and fighting against Assad is an honorable cause. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Fine, it's a deal. We'll take out Assad, and Kim, followed up by Saudi's and Bahrain, and a threat at Isreal to sign the NPT or else. Comedy gold, that's what that would be. Apologists indeed. I don't apologize, I scrutinize What? So if I don't support invading every dictatorship on the planet that means I'm an apologist for them? | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 04 2013 04:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: What? So if I don't support invading every dictatorship on the planet that means I'm an apologist for them? "Yes it is truly brave to have tanks and artillery indiscriminately fire into civilian neighborhoods, or to massacre hundreds of people in one day, as the brave Syrian army men fighting for their country have done. Is there any reason besides anti-Americanism that you are an apologist for literally every dictator the US has an issue with?" How quickly you assumed the the role of the person you attacked just a page ago. Sorry dude, you owned yourself. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN. U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon. One official said the United States had limited information so far and could not yet confirm those are the specific warplanes that conducted a strike. Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes. Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel. Source | ||
|
iMAniaC
Norway703 Posts
On May 03 2013 22:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: so.. giving more weapons to terrorists is a good solution? I didn't want to make it look like I ignored your post, but I really don't have anything to add that someone else didn't already respond with. If we would have helped them long ago, perhaps there would have been fewer Al-Qaida terrorists in Syria today. If you are that afraid of terrorists, then that in itself would have been a good reason to intervene. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
isreal confirmed this. "game changing weapons" but not chemical. | ||
Noam
Israel2209 Posts
This is what we bombed in Syria apparently, a convoy of these weapons on their way to Hezbollah. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 04 2013 11:28 BioNova wrote: "Yes it is truly brave to have tanks and artillery indiscriminately fire into civilian neighborhoods, or to massacre hundreds of people in one day, as the brave Syrian army men fighting for their country have done. Is there any reason besides anti-Americanism that you are an apologist for literally every dictator the US has an issue with?" How quickly you assumed the the role of the person you attacked just a page ago. Sorry dude, you owned yourself. You didn't answer the question. Here's another one: how did I assume his role? You have ascribed a position to me and are now attacking it for being hypocritical, despite being unable to prove that I actually hold that position. Rather hard to say that I'm being hypocritical, since I haven't even expressed an opinion on the subject. You simply pulled a very tired and very stupid 10-year old false choice gotcha "argument" out of your ass and now are calling me a hypocrite when I asked why you are presenting me with a false choice "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style question. Sorry dude, ridiculous accusations and acting like you've won in some contest that never existed is doing very poorly. | ||
|
Shake n Blake
Canada159 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:23 iMAniaC wrote: Libya: -Arming rebels, imposing no-fly zone, goal of overthrowing dictator -Death toll: ~25,000 -Duration: ~8 months (Wikipedia) Syria: -Not arming rebels, no no-fly zone, goal of diplomatic solution -Death toll: ~120,000 and counting -Refugees: ~1,200,000 -Duraion: ~2 years and ongoing (Wikipedia) Yeah, I know. Those war mongering US and NATO, eh? They're only after military escalation with no heed to human life. Bastards! Before you know it, they've intervened and selfishly just made an end to all the bloodshed. Western imperial scumbags! [/sarcasm] You should understand that if the US and NATO had any intention of actually saving lives, they would've intervened 1.5 years ago before the opportunistic Al-Nusra moved in from Iraq and essentially hijacked the FSA. But of course Russia wouldn't allow any foreign intervention because of their own economic ties to Assad's government, as well as the Tartus port being their last entry way to the Mediterranean. They can do this because of their veto power in the UN. The entire UN system is designed to screw people over (in this case, those suffering in Syria) who had any hopes of the world defusing this conflict before needlessly escalating into a bloody civil war. (Again, questionable if it's even a civil war anymore with so many foreigners present.) The peacekeepers who used to"help" in Syria were laughably useless in keeping the peace. They would wait until a massacre had ended and all of Assad's forces had vacated before helping the survivors set up a mass grave and leave. UN policy of sending un-armed peacekeepers baffles me. Is it any surprise why Kofi Annan resigned? Also, how can anyone rationally suggest that arming the rebels would be a smart idea? Are they oblivious to the presence of Al-Nusra, whom have openly stated that once Assad's government has been toppled, they will turn on the FSA as well as the western world and implement Sharia Law upon Syria? I hardly believe that's a future the peaceful protestors had in mind when they demanded legitimate democracy. Remember what happened the last time CIA agents weaponized and helped train a terrorist organization? Definitely bit us in the ass. (Referring to the Mujahideen.) I'm equally disgusted by those statistics as you are, but striking deals with the devil is not the correct course of action. My point is, Russia still has veto power, so why the US is suddenly contemplating intervention now is what makes me suspicious of their motives. If they planned on giving Russia the finger all along, why did they wait for such a hopeless scenario before finally acting? In other words, why is the US and NATO only willing to make the right decision when it currently happens to be the popular one? I'd hate for this to be true, but it's almost as if they wanted the situation to become extremely dire so intervention could be viewed as a last resort, thus garnering public support. The fact alone that western media outlets are still extremely reluctant to even acknowledge the humanitarian crimes committed by the FSA should make everyone suspicious of a hidden agenda in play, and you don't need a bloody tin foil hat to realize this. (In case anyone was going to accuse me again of wearing one.) | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On May 05 2013 01:25 Shake n Blake wrote: You should understand that if the US and NATO had any intention of actually saving lives, they would've intervened 1.5 years ago before the opportunistic Al-Nusra moved in from Iraq and essentially hijacked the FSA. But of course Russia wouldn't allow any foreign intervention because of their own economic ties to Assad's government, as well as the Tartus port being their last entry way to the Mediterranean. They can do this because of their veto power in the UN. The entire UN system is designed to screw people over (in this case, those suffering in Syria) who had any hopes of the world defusing this conflict before needlessly escalating into a bloody civil war. (Again, questionable if it's even a civil war anymore with so many foreigners present.) The peacekeepers who used to"help" in Syria were laughably useless in keeping the peace. They would wait until a massacre had ended and all of Assad's forces had vacated before helping the survivors set up a mass grave and leave. UN policy of sending un-armed peacekeepers baffles me. Is it any surprise why Kofi Annan resigned? Also, how can anyone rationally suggest that arming the rebels would be a smart idea? Are they oblivious to the presence of Al-Nusra, whom have openly stated that once Assad's government has been toppled, they will turn on the FSA as well as the western world and implement Sharia Law upon Syria? I hardly believe that's a future the peaceful protestors had in mind when they demanded legitimate democracy. Remember what happened the last time CIA agents weaponized and helped train a terrorist organization? Definitely bit us in the ass. (Referring to the Mujahideen.) I'm equally disgusted by those statistics as you are, but striking deals with the devil is not the correct course of action. My point is, Russia still has veto power, so why the US is suddenly contemplating intervention now is what makes me suspicious of their motives. If they planned on giving Russia the finger all along, why did they wait for such a hopeless scenario before finally acting? In other words, why is the US and NATO only willing to make the right decision when it currently happens to be the popular one? I'd hate for this to be true, but it's almost as if they wanted the situation to become extremely dire so intervention could be viewed as a last resort, thus garnering public support. The fact alone that western media outlets are still extremely reluctant to even acknowledge the humanitarian crimes committed by the FSA should make everyone suspicious of a hidden agenda in play, and you don't need a bloody tin foil hat to realize this. (In case anyone was going to accuse me again of wearing one.) It's hard to intervene when the world views any intervention as policing the world... You get to a point of 'trying to see if everyone's right and Syria's civil war will solve itself' and then say fuck these idiots, we're going in and helping the people. After Iraq and the US intervention they took to much heat for doing, I know a lot will disagree, the right thing in removing Saddam and doing it again so soon? Unlikely, not unless it's incredibly dire situations (as it is now). If anything this goes to show you how ridiculous it is to sit on your hands and hope dictators and the people sort their own messes out and how "horrendous figures like a few tens of thousands" is nothing compared to the hundred sof thousands that can die in long entrenched dictatorships. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On May 04 2013 01:45 Holo82 wrote: If wales would start rebellion against the crown (murdering the major, some peers, burning public buildings, driving out all non walish people out of wales, stealing the money, houses, killing policemen, raping policemans wife), would u as UK citizen say "ok they have the right to to this because of democrazy" Or would u say "wtf, call surpreme commander, mobilize army, lets shut those bastards down"? Gadaffi would be the crown, Wales would be the Nomade tribe living at benghazi. they can take our land, but they can never take our sheep! | ||
|
mainerd
United States347 Posts
Saw a couple videos on liveleak pertaining to Israeli strikes near Damascus, not sure if its the same thing: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52c_1367710192 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d6_1367712024 Enormous blast O.o | ||
|
AXygnus
Portugal1008 Posts
On May 05 2013 09:46 mainerd wrote: Saw a couple videos on liveleak pertaining to Israeli strikes near Damascus, not sure if its the same thing: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52c_1367710192 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d6_1367712024 Enormous blast O.o I don't think so. https://twitter.com/syriancommando/status/330832388190003202/photo/1 It's finally fucking happening. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
