|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet.
|
On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet.
Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts.
- Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards.
- Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders.
- Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah.
- Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad.
- Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash.
- Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president.
You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that?
|
France266 Posts
On June 14 2013 18:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote:
As to weapons smuggling, despite all the verbal bravado from Hollande and Cameron (and now Obama), nobody wants to see a massive influx of weaponry ending up in the hands of the Al-Nosra front and of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, especially when many jihadist with European passports are reported to be in their ranks. Nobody except other radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. Like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been arming the rebels with western blessings since the start of the conflict.
Arming them mostly with light weapons (assault/sniper rifles and RPGs) though. As far as I know, the lethal component of the western military assistance is expected to be much more powerful (wasn't it Cameron who even talked about armored vehicles, a few weeks/months ago?). And thus to represent a much bigger threat of terrorist attack later. Handing out manpads like if they were mere rifles is madness.
On June 14 2013 18:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote:On June 14 2013 08:22 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Can we PLEASE get a reliable confirmation from a third party regarding the usage of chemical weapons? "The U.S. concluded" just isn't nearly good enough for me anymore.
I honestly thought the American people would be more wise to the tame and care more after Iraq. For what it's worth, the newspaper Le Monde (largest French newspaper, which strongly opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) has blood samples tainted with sarin that was gathered by their reporters on the Syrian battlefied, although they can't tell for sure if it was the governement or the rebels who used the gas. I have to say, for me at least, that's kind of important. We can be fairly sure that chemical weapons were used, the science is there from what I've read. Then the science took a trip through U.S. / U.K. spook land and came out as "Definitely the guy we don't like did it". Call me a cynic but I'd really like to see how they came to that conclusion.
Funny thing is, the Western chancelleries don't even try to pretend that they are impartially adressing this issue. This article is hilarious in this regard. UN inspectors on the field claim that both sides were responsible for using chemical weapons, but fuck that says Laurent Fabius (foreign affairs minister of France), he has no doubt that it's the regime and its accomplices solely who launched sarin attacks (with no proof whatsoever).
|
On June 14 2013 22:46 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote:
As to weapons smuggling, despite all the verbal bravado from Hollande and Cameron (and now Obama), nobody wants to see a massive influx of weaponry ending up in the hands of the Al-Nosra front and of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, especially when many jihadist with European passports are reported to be in their ranks. Nobody except other radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. Like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been arming the rebels with western blessings since the start of the conflict. Arming them mostly with light weapons (assault/sniper rifles and RPGs) though. As far as I know, the lethal component of the western military assistance is expected to be much more powerful (wasn't it Cameron who even talked about armored vehicles, a few weeks/months ago?). And thus to represent a much bigger threat of terrorist attack later. Handing out manpads like if they were mere rifles is madness. Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote:On June 14 2013 08:22 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Can we PLEASE get a reliable confirmation from a third party regarding the usage of chemical weapons? "The U.S. concluded" just isn't nearly good enough for me anymore.
I honestly thought the American people would be more wise to the tame and care more after Iraq. For what it's worth, the newspaper Le Monde (largest French newspaper, which strongly opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) has blood samples tainted with sarin that was gathered by their reporters on the Syrian battlefied, although they can't tell for sure if it was the governement or the rebels who used the gas. I have to say, for me at least, that's kind of important. We can be fairly sure that chemical weapons were used, the science is there from what I've read. Then the science took a trip through U.S. / U.K. spook land and came out as "Definitely the guy we don't like did it". Call me a cynic but I'd really like to see how they came to that conclusion. Funny thing is, the Western chancelleries don't even try to pretend that they are impartially adressing this issue. This article is hilarious in this regard. UN inspectors on the field claim that both sides were responsible for using chemical weapons, but fuck that says Laurent Fabius (foreign affairs minister of France), he has no doubt that it's the regime and its accomplices solely who launched sarin attacks (with no proof whatsoever).
We the UK are already giving them armoured vehicles I think we just haven't given them anything to kill anyone else, yet... but this intervention won't even help the Rebels don't need light arms they need heavy arms like tank busters and anti-air weaponry not more AK-47s or w/e .
|
On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that?
Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all.
Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria.
It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world.
Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations.
The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising.
If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys.
Prediction, Mid of june 2013:
Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years.
|
On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years.
Ok, I read some magazines. Here's one pointing out recent sanctions against an Al Qaeda operative in Iran. For a decade, at least, the US and other nations have said that Iran is either facilitating Al Qaeda on its territory or at least allowing them to operate. Apparently the Sunni and Shia found a common enemy...
If you want to fact-check my fact-checking, go right ahead. Try to point out where I am wrong.
But what you said so far is contradictory. You say that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation, and its members ARE terrorists, and then try to boisterously claim that it's ridiculous to consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation...
The Shia v. Sunni analysis is simplistic, but it does not exactly say anything about the current situation. We do not even yet know what the US and NATO will provide. Nor are there any confirmed links between the rebels and Al Qaeda. So I'll take your bet. Permaban for the person that loses the bet. I win if no US made AA weapons delivered to Syria will be used at JFK within 2 years, you win if the opposite is true.
|
General: dont take your facts from a random blog on the internet,
Especially: dont take your facts from a random blog on the internet if it relates to Iran and is written by a guy with the name "Samuel Rubenfeld".
What it basically says: Iran has arrested an al quaida guy that did try to deliver fighters / money for Syrian rebells, iraqui and afghanistan Terrorists. He has been released from Iranian prison after 2 years, and his current location is unknown, and there is a bounty from US State ministry on him.
Yep that proves, that iran supports al qaida.
|
Israel2209 Posts
The Wall Street Journal is not a random blog. And you believe that people with a Jewish name should not be believed when it is about Iran?
I think I'd rather not believe a random "Holo82" on the Internet who writes high level material such as "saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world." without any links to back their claims.
|
On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years.
the "liberals" uprising is the only thing that is meaningful.
|
I find this timing quite... interesting. Obama's in huge PR mess at home and suddenly a big bad wolf pops out from nowhere. This especially considering that the government is crushing the rebels and they know how much the USA's military especially is waiting for an excuse to go into Syria.
I don't delude myself into thinking that Assad is a saint, but I very much doubt the rebels are any better or that the forces in Syria and countries surrounding it will in time be very happy about US presence in their country.
I think helping the rebels is just going to end up like helping Afghanistan in the cold war, though admittedly now people are more reluctant due to that point in history.
|
On June 15 2013 00:21 Noam wrote:
The Wall Street Journal is not a random blog. And you believe that people with a Jewish name should not be believed when it is about Iran?
I think I'd rather not believe a random "Holo82" on the Internet who writes high level material such as "saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world." without any links to back their claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisbollah
Quote:
Hezbollah’s status as a legitimate political party, a terrorist group, a resistance movement, or some combination thereof is a contentious issue. Several Western countries officially classify Hezbollah or its external security wing as a terrorist organization, and some of their violent acts have been described as terrorist attacks. Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is referred to as a resistance movement, engaged in national defense
Hezbollah is sworn enemy of Israel, they want their country back. Of course Israel and allies are condemning those attempts as terroristic.
It mostly depends whether you are on one or the other side, and i dont want to discuss about this with a person that is on one side.
There is a list of the 7 countries that define Hizbollah in general as terroristic organization. You are a member of one of them. I am not.
There is a total of over 200 countries worldwide.
Im neutral in this matter and therefore think that i can give a non-biased point of view, from more or less objective sources, like critically consuming non-involved Media, double checking news on different countrie's newspapers
(getting the middle value out of reports of the same thing from different countries is pretty tough sometimes, The way news are presented is mostly tied to the presenter's intention and culture, dont ever rely on only one source, and always ask what intention this source has)
The UN resolution that said that the Occupation of Golan is illegal and a crime to international law is over 30 years old. But no one considers Israel a terrorist state of war criminals (well except Hisbollah perhaps).
Its not as easy to say who is the bad guy, and who is the good guy. The best way is to come together, talk, and handle with each other with respect, try to understand the others point, and make peace.
|
On June 15 2013 00:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years. Ok, I read some magazines. Here's one pointing out recent sanctions against an Al Qaeda operative in Iran. For a decade, at least, the US and other nations have said that Iran is either facilitating Al Qaeda on its territory or at least allowing them to operate. Apparently the Sunni and Shia found a common enemy... If you want to fact-check my fact-checking, go right ahead. Try to point out where I am wrong. But what you said so far is contradictory. You say that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation, and its members ARE terrorists, and then try to boisterously claim that it's ridiculous to consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation... The Shia v. Sunni analysis is simplistic, but it does not exactly say anything about the current situation. We do not even yet know what the US and NATO will provide. Nor are there any confirmed links between the rebels and Al Qaeda. So I'll take your bet. Permaban for the person that loses the bet. I win if no US made AA weapons delivered to Syria will be used at JFK within 2 years, you win if the opposite is true.
I will only talk about the last part as your other claims already got addressed.
Surely it is kind of simplistic when you are 100% sure about this being a Shia vs. Sunni conflict. But you still cannot ignore the fact that leading Sunni clerics have called for Jihad against the Syrian government.
You also said that there are no confirmed links between FSA and Al Qaeda. This is just wrong, as Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra is the biggest organization within the FSA.
|
On June 15 2013 10:08 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years. Ok, I read some magazines. Here's one pointing out recent sanctions against an Al Qaeda operative in Iran. For a decade, at least, the US and other nations have said that Iran is either facilitating Al Qaeda on its territory or at least allowing them to operate. Apparently the Sunni and Shia found a common enemy... If you want to fact-check my fact-checking, go right ahead. Try to point out where I am wrong. But what you said so far is contradictory. You say that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation, and its members ARE terrorists, and then try to boisterously claim that it's ridiculous to consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation... The Shia v. Sunni analysis is simplistic, but it does not exactly say anything about the current situation. We do not even yet know what the US and NATO will provide. Nor are there any confirmed links between the rebels and Al Qaeda. So I'll take your bet. Permaban for the person that loses the bet. I win if no US made AA weapons delivered to Syria will be used at JFK within 2 years, you win if the opposite is true. I will only talk about the last part as your other claims already got addressed. Surely it is kind of simplistic when you are 100% sure about this being a Shia vs. Sunni conflict. But you still cannot ignore the fact that leading Sunni clerics have called for Jihad against the Syrian government. You also said that there are no confirmed links between FSA and Al Qaeda. This is just wrong, as Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra is the biggest organization within the FSA.
I don't think you can dismiss the rest of what I said as "dealt with", I'd say it pretty much stands.
As for the context of the claim you looked at, yes, Al-Nasra is a Sunni extremist group the website of which links to Al Qaeda, but I'm still willing to take that bet I proposed earlier. + Show Spoiler +Your text gives the impression that Al-Nasra is some long-standing group that is allied with Al Qaeda. It's name is revealing: Jabhat al-Nusra li-Ahl al-Sham Min Mujaheddin al Sham fi Sahat al Jihad, which means “Support Front for the People of Syria from the Mujaheddin of Syria in the places of Jihad"
P.S. I actually agree with Ignatius' analysis of the situation, but so does Obama. And unless more details were published between when I went to bed last night and this morning, we still do not know whether any actual weapons will be provided to these groups. It could still be a no fly zone or humanitarian aid.
|
I read an article earlier arguing that the strategic goal of the US with regards to its policy in Syria was to purposefully leave it destabilized perpetually so as to bleed its regional rivals (Iran in particular) of resources supporting Assad. Interesting point to say the least.
|
On June 14 2013 23:47 Holo82 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On June 14 2013 18:57 Pika Chu wrote:
You need to be out of your mind to think this is about Putin worried about foreign intervention to kick him, a democratically elected president, supported by half of population, out of his position.
The issue has a lot to do with Russia. How are they caught up?
- Tartus - Russia's only port at the Mediterranean, and probably few of their outside military outposts.
- Proximity - Syria is quite close to Russia, which has enormously long land borders, guarding it all is impossible. They have their own extremist islamists problems, another islamic country nearby, can destabilize the area.
- Geopolitics - Russia doesn't have many friends left, Syria has been a small ally of theirs.
- Diplomatic power - Imagine what message a Russia that backs down now on their friends sends to other potential friends.
- Economy - They have been doing great business with Syria, from military to civil buildings, infrastructure, technology etc. There are quite some russians living in Syria. If Assad wins, Russia gets a big chunk of rebuilding contracts.
- Internal politics - Putin played this game very calculated, with confidence and put on a power show. Exactly how his people want him. If he backs down now, it will deliver a blow to his image, which may get fatal, dramatically decreasing his popularity and chances of reelection, as well as opening a power rift in the system.
This is why i believe Russia is tied to Syria right now and are the most important actor to take into account, more important than Iran.
This game may unfortunately get hot, i'm surprised the russians haven't "leaked" any response to the "american leak" yet. Putin IS out of his mind. But in the end, you're seeing ghosts. - Tartus: there was no permanent Russian naval presence in Tartus before this year. You have the cause and effect backwards. - Proximity: Syria's borders are a thousand kilometres from the nearest point in Russia. I don't think Syria will help protect Russia's borders. - Islam: Syria IS an islamic country at the moment. Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And Assad's allies involve the islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah and Iran that funds everything from Al-Qaeda to Hezbollah. - Russia indeed doesn't have many friends left. But they are also visibly embarrassed by a chemical-weapon, citizen-massacring Assad. Remember, Russia is on good terms with most Arabic countries, yet most of the Arab league no longer has diplomatic relations with Assad. - Economic relations. These aren't dependent on the leadership, and since the civil war began, I don't think there's substantial imports into Syria. There are a few billion in arms sales for which Russia is receiving massive diplomatic backlash. - Putin's power play. It's not like Syria is a major presence in the state-run Russian media. And even if it were, Russians like Putin no matter what. You might claim it plays an important role, but whether Syria is annexed by NATO tomorrow or not, Putin will remain president. You're trying to analyze the situation between the US/NATO and Syria with a third actor in a prominent role that it just does not hold. And what your analysis is lacking is the ramifications of Russia's actions. Sure, they will veto a peace-keeping force in the security council (probably...) but besides that? Read some newspaper / magazines before posting such a mess in Forums, , wrong-correcting mostly correct posts is not cool at all. Hisbollah / hezbollah is a shiite political party with an own paramilitary army, it was founded in the early 1980s as a response to Israeli invasion in Lebanon/Syria. It is not considered an terroristic , but rather an political organization by EU and most other countries worldwide. Israel and USA tend to see sings more onesided in this case, and single Members of Hisbollah may be counted as terrorists, but in general, saying that hisbollah is terroristic is just plain wrong ans shows how little u know about the real relations in the islamic world. Iran (the mightiest state of Shia-Islam) btw is the arch-enemy of Al Kaida and other sunni-terroristic organisations. The fight in Syria is about a more or less moderate autocrate Shiite government vs Sunni terrorist aka al kaida / al nusra whatever those bastards call themselves/ (and some meaningless liberals) uprising. If heavy weapons will be delivered to those rebels, u could just directly give them to al kaida terrorists,its the same guys. Prediction, Mid of june 2013: Modern anti-aircraft missile systems, delivered from US to Syrian rebels, will be used on JFK Airport to destroy starting civil airplanes within 2 years.
Even if you could say that Hezbollah are engaged in a righteous war for self-defense in Lebanon, what would you say about the fact that they openly support Assad, who is massacring civilians? Its kind of shocking that you would describe the people of Syria who starting this whole uprising, and have died by the tens of thousands for their cause, as meaningless liberals...you don't think that the majority of the people dying on the streets are those who live in Syria? Do you think they are almost all terrorists? Because that sounds like the same conspiracy theory stuff that Assad himself is trying to propagate.
In my eyes this clearly shows that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Unless you think its just "elements" of Hezbollah, but I don't think that's possible when Nasrallah himself vowed to back Assad.
But anyway very happy that the US finally decided to support the rebels. I think the no-fly zone will be particularly helpful; and since they now have a stake in the outcome, I feel that they will increase aid if necessary to ensure civilians take back their country. There is definitely the danger that supplying weapons to rebels could come back to hurt them, but ultimately I think much more good than harm is being done here.
|
On June 15 2013 00:32 Zarahtra wrote:
I find this timing quite... interesting. Obama's in huge PR mess at home and suddenly a big bad wolf pops out from nowhere. This especially considering that the government is crushing the rebels and they know how much the USA's military especially is waiting for an excuse to go into Syria.
I don't delude myself into thinking that Assad is a saint, but I very much doubt the rebels are any better or that the forces in Syria and countries surrounding it will in time be very happy about US presence in their country.
I think helping the rebels is just going to end up like helping Afghanistan in the cold war, though admittedly now people are more reluctant due to that point in history.
Obama isn't in a huge PR mess. The Republicans here in the states are making mountains out of molehills trying to make him look bad, and it isn't working without except with the same Tea Party Conservatives who hated him all a long. The IRS thing has nothing to do with Obama, the director the IRS was appointed by Bush, and he was profiling groups unfairly, and the reason is because after Super Pacs were allowed, Conservative groups created them in mass compared to Liberal groups (since conservatives have the money... take a look at the independent Super Pac spending, the #1 and #2 Super Pacs for Romeny each outspent all Obama Super Pacs combined! http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals ), and some of those were fraudulent, so conservative groups were scrutinized since many of the fraudulent Super Pacs were using conservative sounding names. Obviously, the Liberal groups should have faced the same scrutiny, as this kind of profiling was unfair, but it had nothing to do with Obama. Benghazi wasn't a cover up, the CIA and intelligence in the United States didn't know where the attack was coming from and when they did, the administration told everyone. No different than when the CIA and intelligence said Iraq has WMD's, and it turns they didn't.
Anyway, this big bad wolf didn't pop out of nowhere, Assad use chemical weapons, and we have moral obligation to stop him. You're missing the point with Assad and who succeeds him. In the end the situation could turn out worse, but it could also turn out better. And if it ends up worse, we can change it again.
In fact, that is the only way to improve anything. And it actually requires positive thinking, and, gasp...
Hope.
Or else we're stuck with something terrible, fearful that the unknown is worse. That is an ignorant viewpoint.
|
On June 15 2013 13:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:32 Zarahtra wrote:
I find this timing quite... interesting. Obama's in huge PR mess at home and suddenly a big bad wolf pops out from nowhere. This especially considering that the government is crushing the rebels and they know how much the USA's military especially is waiting for an excuse to go into Syria.
I don't delude myself into thinking that Assad is a saint, but I very much doubt the rebels are any better or that the forces in Syria and countries surrounding it will in time be very happy about US presence in their country.
I think helping the rebels is just going to end up like helping Afghanistan in the cold war, though admittedly now people are more reluctant due to that point in history. Anyway, this big bad wolf didn't pop out of nowhere, Assad use chemical weapons, and we have moral obligation to stop him. You're missing the point with Assad and who succeeds him. In the end the situation could turn out worse, but it could also turn out better. And if it ends up worse, we can change it again.
I was all onboard with your rational explanation why this isnt a wag the dog thing for Obama.
What I disagree with is the quoted text. Why is there a moral obligation to stop Assad when he kills hundreds with chemical weapons but not weapon <insert random massacre in the last 10 years in shitty third world countries that dont invovle chemical weapons> ?
As to changing situation -- yes, the way the situation Iraq was 'changed' where a brutal dictator was replaced with an incredibly bloody and still continuing civil war.
|
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/
NATO survey:
70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime
20 percent were deemed neutral
10 percent expressed support for the rebels
"The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad."
"Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels."
"The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt.”
“What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad."
|
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - The United States is likely to send weaponry like rocket-propelled grenades and mortars to Syria's rebels after President Barack Obama approved arming the insurgents, sources said on Friday.
A source in the Middle East who is familiar with U.S. dealings with the rebels told Reuters that weapon supplies would include automatic weapons, light mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, known as RPGs.
Accusing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces of using chemical weapons, the White House said on Thursday the United States would supply direct military assistance to the rebels. A U.S. official said that meant sending them weapons supplies for the first time.
Two European security sources said the United States would increase the caliber of the arms and ammunition being supplied to the rebels by regional powers including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as supply some heavier weapons, including RPGs.
More RPGs would give the rebels, who have lost ground to government forces and Lebanese Hezbollah militants in recent weeks, greater ability to fight government armored vehicles and even tanks.
But a U.S. official who has been briefed on the new policy said he did not expect the new U.S. aid to seriously affect the course of events in Syria.
Source
|
On June 15 2013 12:38 xDaunt wrote:
I read an article earlier arguing that the strategic goal of the US with regards to its policy in Syria was to purposefully leave it destabilized perpetually so as to bleed its regional rivals (Iran in particular) of resources supporting Assad. Interesting point to say the least.
It's a rehashing of the 'we attacked Iraq to draw terrorist there' argument.
The strategic goal was to get rid of an unfriendly regime and try to increase US influence in the country. The hope was to do this with as few resources as possible so the government ended up prevailing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
