EPTI didn't say that it was ok or not ok, i just said why they are doing it.
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 44
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
I didn't say that it was ok or not ok, i just said why they are doing it. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On May 05 2013 19:43 Zaros wrote: I didn't say that it was ok or not ok, i just said why they are doing it. He'd rather Syria excercise it's freedoms and harbor terrorists with no ill effect then actually preemptively stop the supply of weapons that could slaughter thousands of people in conflict. Better to let dictatorships grow into NK then stop them in the process am I right? | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
Anyway, accusations of ethnical cleansing has started popping up, but it confuses me a lot, I get that Sunnis and Shias and Alawites dislike eachother, but they are still the same ethnicity? Sunni and Alawite syrians still have way more in common with eachother than say... Sunni indonesians and Sunni syrians? The killing isnt excusable by any means, but to call it "ethnic" cleansing sounds strange to me, or are they actually considered different ethnicities? Anyone with more knowledge care to weigh in? | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
The point of the ethnic cleansing charge is to show that groups are no longer fighting eachother, but are targetting civilians systematically. It's basicly one stop short of genocide. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On May 05 2013 21:54 Derez wrote: Ethnic cleansing as a concept in international law covers 'religious cleansing' as far as I'm aware, so the accusation probably fits. I mean, what happened in bosnia was referred to as genocide/ethnic cleansing, the same for what happened in Rwanda and in both cases there's no big ethnic difference. The point of the ethnic cleansing charge is to show that groups are no longer fighting eachother, but are targetting civilians systematically. It's basicly one stop short of genocide. I understand, thank you for clearing that up. | ||
|
arChieSC2
Spain162 Posts
Keep voting rep/dem. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On May 05 2013 22:59 arChieSC2 wrote: I love how American people is brainwashed, they start two wars saying they are fighting againts "Al-Qaeda" and then they give weapons, training and support to factions loyal to Al-Qaeda, I mean, you guys are just sick. Good luck in the next 20 years, your country will need it. Keep voting rep/dem. What the hell? Do you honestly think all Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda? You need to stop taking all your news from RT my friend. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 05 2013 23:30 Catch]22 wrote: What the hell? Do you honestly think all Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda? You need to stop taking all your news from RT my friend. Where do you prefer your links from, and I'll field this one, even though I absolutely disagree with the person you're quoting sentiments. There is at least some factual basis to what he asserts(about AQ/AQAP) even if he deserved a ban for his bashing(my opinion). From CNN Dec 12. The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions Tuesday on leaders of the jihadist al-Nusra Front in Syria, hours after the State Department moved to blacklist the rebel group as a foreign terror organization linked to al Qaeda in Iraq. The Treasury also sanctioned two armed militia groups that operate under the control of the Syrian government, Jaysh al-Sha'bi and Shabiha, it said. Syrian opposition groups have voiced their opposition to the U.S. move against the rebel fighters, suggesting that they are being targeted because they oppose a new anti-government coalition. The move came the same day President Barack Obama recognized the leading Syrian opposition coalition as the legitimate representative of the country's people. "We've made a decision that the Syrian Opposition Coalition is now inclusive enough, is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime," he told ABC's Barbara Walters. In recent months, the radical Islamist al-Nusra Front has emerged as one of the most effective groups in the Syrian resistance, drawing on foreign fighters with combat experience in Iraq and elsewhere. Syria, to paraphrase Mark Ruffalo is a Bag-of-Cats, you can smell crazy. Also CNN If al-Nusra's fighting strength is some 5,000 members, as the Quilliam report estimates, that would be comparable to U.S. government estimates of AQI at the peak of the Iraq insurgency. But rebel commanders say that the group makes up less than 10% of the brigades fighting the regime. While al-Nusra is mainly made up of Syrians, it includes a significant number of fighters from other Arab countries. In recent months a growing number have arrived from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but Iraqis and Jordanians constitute the majority of foreign fighters. 3 months after those reports al-Nusra announced it's merger with AQI. To claim that secular homegrown are doing all the fighting in Syria would be as naive as asserting it's ALL al-Qaeda. It's neither here nor there, which is why it's so dangerous. Many countries are already likely involved in funding and support from EU, Saudi, Quatar, UAE, Jordan and just about everywhere it seems. Source | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On May 05 2013 22:09 Catch]22 wrote: I understand, thank you for clearing that up. Off topic on Rwanda but interesting nonetheless + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Syria's information minister has given warning that Israeli air raids against three targets on the outskirts of Damascus "open the door to all possibilities". Omran al-Zoabi's comments in Damascus on Sunday came after an emergency cabinet meeting organised to respond to what a Western source said was a new attack on Iranian missiles bound for Lebanon's Hezbollah. Although Zoabi did not hint at a concrete course of action, he said it was Syria's duty to protect the state from any "domestic or foreign attack through all available means". He claimed the Israeli attacks are evidence of the country's links with "Islamic extremist groups" trying to the Syrian government. Israel declined to confirm the attack so as not to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into serious retaliation, according to a confidant of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister. Sunday's attack is the third Israeli assault this year on Syrian soil. Source | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
Obama administration is fully supportive of Israel's airstrikes in Syria, diplomatic sources and US officials tell @NBCNews | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
Only a few days after an alleged Israeli strike, Syrian media reports IAF struck a military research center; Western intel sources say target was a Fateh-110 surface-to-surface missile shipment; Israel declines to comment; Syria state TV: Israeli strike a desperate attempt to raise rebels' morale. Large explosions rocked Damascus early Sunday morning, Syrian media reported. The Syrian news outlet blamed Israel for the rocket strike, which targeted a military research center in Jamraya near Damascus. The reports followed confirmations by anonymous Israeli officials on Saturday morning that the Israel Air Force had carried out a strike against Syria early Friday that targeted a shipment of advanced missiles bound for Hezbollah. U.S. officials said the strike targeted Iranian Fateh-110 missiles headed for Hezbollah, according to a New York Times report. On Sunday, Western intelligence sources said that both strikes over the weekend targeted Fateh-100 missile shipments sent from Iran for Hezbollah in Lebanon. U.S. President Barack Obama on Saturday said Israel has the right to guard against the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/live-blog-israel-launches-second-syria-strike-in-two-days-sources-say-1.519250 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On May 05 2013 23:30 Catch]22 wrote: What the hell? Do you honestly think all Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda? You need to stop taking all your news from RT my friend. How about the NYTimes? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html The rebels in Syria are islamic fundamentalists, period. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 06 2013 01:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: I didn't know the US started the war in Afghanistan. Then who did? When did the Taliban attack the USA? | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On May 06 2013 02:24 BuddhaMonk wrote: How about the NYTimes? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html The rebels in Syria are islamic fundamentalists, period. In my mind Islamists, people who want Islamic law to rule their home country, and fundamentalists (aka Jihadists) who are people who want to spread Islam through violence, are two very different types of people. It comes as no suprise that a lot of people in a highly religious area of the world are Islamists, but claiming that that makes them Jihadis or fundamentalists is a step too far. Thenagain in your view, maybe they are the same. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 06 2013 02:46 hzflank wrote: Then who did? When did the Taliban attack the USA? 1998, 1999, 2001... or I guess you could make the dumb argument you're making, that a military alliance between the Taliban and al Qaeda that had been in effect for 6 years means the Taliban bore no responsibility for al Qaeda terrorist attacks. Or the just-as-bad argument that the Taliban had the right to refuse to hand over bin Laden to the US, it not even being a legitimate government and all. There is no argument against the justification for the US invading Afghanistan unless you think September 11th was an inside job. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 06 2013 02:46 Catch]22 wrote: In my mind Islamists, people who want Islamic law to rule their home country, and fundamentalists (aka Jihadists) who are people who want to spread Islam through violence, are two very different types of people. It comes as no suprise that a lot of people in a highly religious area of the world are Islamists, but claiming that that makes them Jihadis or fundamentalists is a step too far. Thenagain in your view, maybe they are the same. The definition of Islamist is: supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 06 2013 02:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: 1998, 1999, 2001... or I guess you could make the dumb argument you're making, that a military alliance between the Taliban and al Qaeda that had been in effect for 6 years means the Taliban bore no responsibility for al Qaeda terrorist attacks. So then South Korea attacked Iraq? South Korea have a military alliance with the USA, do they not? The Taliban bore responsibility for not arresting the Al Qaeda terrorists and handing them over to American authorities. That does not constitute an attack on the USA. Edit to clarify: I do not think that the Taliban are good people by any stretch. I do not think that the Taliban having power is good for anyone. But to say that Afghanistan started the war is ridiculous. We invaded them. | ||
| ||
