The Syrian Predicament

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ah well there's always this little gem.

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad. It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

Just another day at the good old MINISTRY OF TRUTH I guess.

I could include more or less every major "western news source" and do the same thing, its not hard. Your reliance on sources however that have been proven over time and time again to be responsible for some of the most gross miss-representations[WMDs LOL] in the media is rather mind boggling.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

If I was asking for Western sources it would be mind-boggling...

But I haven't...


I asked for non-Western sources as I've said numerous times because of people complaining about Western sources.


Hope that clears things up.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Oh right, non westerns sources about what, specificaly?

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Is this really that hard for 3 people not to get?


If you don't trust Western sources views on Syria...
You must be using non-Western sources to get your news...


If not then you're getting the information from Western sources & just denying everything...



If it's the latter I go back to my original point that it's all based on opinions rather than facts.


Here is the facts that deals with exposing the Assad regime... Not State funded Syrian news or Western geo-Political nonsense.



What's so hard about sharing your non-Western sources that you get your views from?
Or is it as I guess, you just say the opposite of what the West says?


Edit: I don't mean to sound aggressive in my diatribe...

But you're the third person to come and say the same thing and it's pissing me off a little bit.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Oh right, I kinda understand what your saying sort of but the truth of the matter is I do not discriminate news based on geography I discriminate news on who is providing it.

As a rule of thumb state sponsored corporate news is not to be trusted, it is usualy almost biased and agenda driven. Think I might have showed that with the BBC, they simply cannot be trusted, at all in anyway shape or form.

And I guess an ability to simply join the dots is pretty important, a sound understanding of history is pretty fundamental and reasonable knowledge of both geography, economics and politics helps really. I think Im somewhat able to formulate my own opinions on whats happening in the world.

You've also got to understand, disagreeing with what America and the UK are doing in Syria is not support for Assad.

This is a good interview with Noam Chomsky, he is very much against Assad but at the same time strongly disagrees with what the U.S is actualy doing.

Noam Chomsky - Jon Snow, Channel 4 News on Syria, US Foreign Policy

And John Pilger is another one of my favorite journalists. This was one of his latest pieces.

War by media and the triumph of propaganda

Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

But look man if you can provide me some sound sources that can explain to me why the excesses of American Imperialism are a good thing, id sure like to read them.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Appreciate the links pal.
& I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from now.


I think people have me mixed up...


Because I come here and express that Assad is a murdering despot...
Doesn't mean I trust the foreign policy's of the West, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia...
They've proven all to often that their "goodness" comes at a price...
It just means Assad is equally untrustworthy & equally tyrannical to me.


You're right, connecting the dots is important, but you also have to know when the dots of the West when it throws truth into the mix.


The Chemical Weapons bull, throw that away...
A Syrian civillian uprising, that can be confirmed by any source including Assad's allies over at RT, so we'd be wise to take it a face value.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thanks for all the non-Western sources to back up your claims.



You've wasted enough of my time repeating the same thing over & over.



Assad is a murdering dictator who is doing all he can to stay in power...

You have yet to provide any sources...

I'll give you a source right now to prove that the western media was lying. As I said, I sat in a seminar with the very chemical weapons expert team that was first on the ground regarding the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. They said to us crystal clear that the evidence is just not that there to show that Assad did it. The Western media said that there was to justify air strikes.

That is a non-state, relatively unbiased transnational team, i.e. source.

If we go aspect by aspect of this war then let's discuss sources and evidence, but so far I'm the only person on here that studied with such experts and actual UN and government officials, on this exact topic.

Care to answer my request for evidence of your claim that most of Syria wanted Assad out?

You've still lost by showing you know little about this situation beyond #basic western media simplisms.

I explained clearly to you that both sides had killed tens of thousands of people, and had BOTH targeted urban areas. You are attempting to falsely imply that dropping barrel bombs on enemy areas, resulting in civilian deaths, is worse than rebels shooting rockets and cannon into urban areas, ALSO killing countless civilians. You are still justifying the removal of Assad or current proxy war based on his "murderousness," without taking into account what the other side is doing NOR what other countries are doing.

Should Bush and Obama be removed now because whole wedding parties get killed by drones? You know, collateral damage? How is that different from ghetto-rigged barrel bombs that do the same thing?

Are you really so dense as to not realize your argument does hold water given the above truths? Or are you just not willing to recognize you are wrong?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I never said I believed that Assad did a chemical weapons attack...
I actually agreed with you that it was fabricated.


However he has killed innocent people with Airstrikes & Barrel Bombs...
His Army he killed protesters...
Maybe you'd like to read some of these stories of the Syrian people to understand where I'm coming from...

I also never said that the West don't have anything to gain from his regimes demise...
But it's well known the uprising began before the West decided they wanted their fingers in the Pie.



As for providing you a source...

I would if I had said "most"...
However I didn't...

I said "Syrian people"...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I don't see why I should be respectful to someone who lies about me.


I asked for non-Western sources because people complained about Western sources...
None have been shared as of yet...

Take your evidence YouTube video somewhere else.

Source on which topic? I will gladly then follow up with them. I already provided a UN source regarding the falsity of Western attribution of Assad using chemical weapons. So that's one topic.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are attempting to falsely imply that dropping barrel bombs on enemy areas, resulting in civilian deaths is worse than rebels shooting rockets and cannon into urban areas, ALSO killing countless civilians.

No one implied this in the slightest.

Should Bush and Obama be removed now because whole wedding parties get killed by drones?

Make a thread about that and find out...

Until then it's just an off topic deflection.

Collateral damage

There's that disgusting Western phrase again...


Now I remember why I ceased conversing with you.


Bye.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1) Once again, in international law legitimacy is not defined by democracy versus basically kingship or family lineages. I'm not saying I am a fan of family based regimes. But I'm explaining international law to you.

In 2012 Syria changed it's constitution to a multi-party system and HELD AN ELECTION. Syria has in fact HELD MANY ELECTIONS. Do I have to tell you what an ELECTION is??? It's the foundation of a DEMOCRACY! Well, it sure the hell isn't a family dictatorship, which is the TRUTH of what is going on in Syria. You are seriously impaired arguing the legitimacy of Assad.

2) It's a proxy war based on the fact that the west wants Assad out as an ally and outpost of Iran and Russia.

If you mind is stuck in the Cold War era then I guess every war is still a proxy war. Amazingly enough the rest of the world has moved on. When people rise up and try to kick out there government it's a CIVIL WAR. Very simple. The definition doesn't change because of who they get help from. Of course geopolitical lines are going to guide countries to help one side or the other. DOESN'T MAKE IT A PROXY WAR.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of Proxy War:
A war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved
www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The Syrian war was INSTIGATED by the PEOPLE OF SYRIA against ASSAD.

I understand you want to add labels and shift blame onto the West or Russia or whoever else your agenda of the day demands. It simply isn't true.

No, the rest of the world has not moved on, and neither has the US nor Russia.

Most of the world knows this is a manipulated conflict. You just don't most likely because your mind resides behind the veil of the western media and borders.

Go travel around the world, including developing countries. Study views from all over. You will be surprised what most of the world thinks about all of this, and the last 15 years of US policy.

In reality most proxy wars in practice involve manipulating a pre-existing issue or situation, then accelerating it to a desired outcome (or failing to do so). For example, Vietnam was MOST DEF a proxy war between Russia and the US. The Vietnamese kicked out the french, and then there was a western puppet in the south and a communist government in the north. The north tried to invade. Russia funded the north, US the south. It was ALL about geo-political dominos, using the domino of Vietnam. Videos from the time spoke to the need for the US to be involved to stop communism from spreading.

Now we are dealing with the present goal of preserving and increasing US hegemony, especially in the ME region.

If you think that the West versus Russia are involved for pure motives, you would be incredibly naive.

Russia's only naval port outside of former USSR satellites is in Syria. It's also a key client of Russia, and an ally of both Russia and Iran. Yes, the US DOES want to knock out this regime and has for a while.

The US uses claims to human rights to try to cloak it, justify it, and lead people like you be the nose into another conflict. Story as old as time. More and more people worldwide are waking up to it. But some people apparently fall for it still every time.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I never said I believed that Assad did a chemical weapons attack...
I actually agreed with you that it was fabricated.


However he has killed innocent people with Airstrikes & Barrel Bombs...
His Army he killed protesters...
Maybe you'd like to read some of these stories of the Syrian people to understand where I'm coming from...

I also never said that the West don't have anything to gain from his regimes demise...
But it's well known the uprising began before the West decided they wanted their fingers in the Pie.



As for providing you a source...

I would if I had said "most"...
However I didn't...

I said "Syrian people"...

You did imply, if we read your original statement, that a majority of Syrians wanted him gone. That is a false statement if a non-majority want him gone. A non majority of Americans want Obama gone.....

I have never argued that he is a good ruler nor that he hasn't taken actions which resulted in the deaths of lots of people. But you can't isolate that as an argument unless you compare it to the opposition AND to other nations in civil wars. That fails to be a justification if the opposition is killing all kinds of people and other nations are as well, including ourselves and our allies. This is what proves that the motive behind this is not human rights but instead geo-politics, again cloaked behind the veil of human rights allegations.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are attempting to falsely imply that dropping barrel bombs on enemy areas, resulting in civilian deaths is worse than rebels shooting rockets and cannon into urban areas, ALSO killing countless civilians.

No one implied this in the slightest.

Should Bush and Obama be removed now because whole wedding parties get killed by drones?

Make a thread about that and find out...

Until then it's just an off topic deflection.

Collateral damage

There's that disgusting Western phrase again...


Now I remember why I ceased conversing with you.


Bye.

It's the word to describe what you are talking about.

By deriding Assad for targeting militants and hence also killing civilians in the process, and then not only attempting to characterize it as "dropping barrel bombs on women and children," but also simultaneously failing to acknowledge that we and our allies are also targeting militants.... and killing civilians, shows either a lack of perspective, or willful manipulation... Do you realize that? Or are only leaders and militaries in developing countries culpable for their crimes and murderous? Why do you focus on Assad only? And why if what I am saying is true are not all of said perpetrators scheduled for regime change. Not off topic in the slightest with a little thinking.

My doctor is from Syria, and has family still in Syria. I asked him what his opinion on IS was. He is under the impression IS was created by Assad. IS was created by Assad by letting the majority of their prisoners out to help fight the fsa. After release IS had other plans. Assad could not control the problem he created. This is not from my mouth. But from my doctors mouth that has family keeping him in the loop of things. Take it how you will. 

He and his family wanted the United States to come in after that red line was crossed. They actually do want Assad out of power. I figured it would be the other way around, but he proved me wrong. Not saying his family speaks for the majority, but it just might be.

I had posted this on a thread that did not grab any attention. He came from Syria, family still in Syria. Straight from the mouth of one of your well educated Syrians. I had my doubts, and even tried to argue with him. Of course he won. He has family living it, and he came from there.

originally posted by: Crumbles
My doctor is from Syria, and has family still in Syria. I asked him what his opinion on IS was. He is under the impression IS was created by Assad. IS was created by Assad by letting the majority of their prisoners out to help fight the fsa. After release IS had other plans. Assad could not control the problem he created. This is not from my mouth. But from my doctors mouth that has family keeping him in the loop of things. Take it how you will. 

He and his family wanted the United States to come in after that red line was crossed. They actually do want Assad out of power. I figured it would be the other way around, but he proved me wrong. Not saying his family speaks for the majority, but it just might be.

I had posted this on a thread that did not grab any attention. He came from Syria, family still in Syria. Straight from the mouth of one of your well educated Syrians. I had my doubts, and even tried to argue with him. Of course he won. He has family living it, and he came from there.

We all know that some Syrians want Assad out. We don't have solid evidence that a majority want him out. As to the ISIS part, it's possible but it's important to remember that some of the ISIS aligned fighters were fighting with the FSA for a while before. So why would if they were on the FSA side, suddenly be Assad-aligned?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not my words. It isn't for me to debate, but like I said he lived it. As are his family members currently living it. Propoganda knows no bounds. Everyone has their opinions, and facts. I trust the ones living it, and the ones who got out in time. I imagine since he is a wealthy Syrian he is a bit more in the loop than a regular citizen. Just opinion.

One more thing. He recently went back to Syria. He claims Damascus is not in conflict. The outer suburbs in fact are, but the larger part of the city currently is not seeing the full effect of war. Though he feared it would be there before to long. I haven't kept up with it since then. It very well could be now. Just trying to contribute. As Damascus is where the majority of his family lives.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Ha ha ha....

I notice you didn't address the Oxford dictionary definition of Proxy War nor admit you are wrong. Neither did you address all the elections Assad has had in Syria or the recent change in constitution, something fairly important in countries.

As always people reading threads will decide for themselves what to believe and what not.

Enjoy your fiction!

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Ha ha ha....

I notice you didn't address the Oxford dictionary definition of Proxy War nor admit you are wrong. Neither did you address all the elections Assad has had in Syria or the recent change in constitution, something fairly important in countries.

As always people reading threads will decide for themselves what to believe and what not.

Enjoy your fiction!

The fact of the matter is your are missing the forest for the trees, and using minutea to attempt to deflect the conversation. The majority of people actually versant on global affairs would consider it a proxy war. Regardless, every other point I made is true. But instead of addressing those and the greater picture, you are attempting to deflect by pointing to a specific definition of proxy war. It isn't working. Are you fooling yourself? Certainly not I.