Syria says it's ready for talks with armed rebels

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Hearing Syria say that it's ready for talks with armed rebels is like hearing Iran say it's ready to talk about it's nuclear program.

Neither is gonna happen because the "pre-existing conditions" for talks will make sure it doesn't happen. That's how Iran, Israel and Palestine all drag their current situations out.

Syria is being taught by the master....Iran!




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Thanks everybody for the feedback good to know there are still free thinkers here at ATS imho of course



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
There'll be nothing left to worry about if this kicks off:

Russia Threatens Nuclear War with America. (is this really true????)




TextRussia Threatens Nuclear War Against America – End Times News Update Sunday, February 24, 2013 19:13 0 (Before It's News) According to Lyndon LaRouche's LPAC and statements made in this video by Russian President Medvedev, Russia has threatened nuclear war against America if it were to interfere in the sovereignty of Syria, Iran, North Korea and other sovereign nations.

Russia Warning in St Petersburg against interference in third-party global conflicts, Medvedev said: "At some moment such actions, which undermine sovereignty Syria, Iran, North Korea, can end with a full-fledged regional war, or even, and I don't want to scare anybody, the use of nuclear weapons.





posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by quedup
 


I dunno...

Is there anything there???




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I don't think there are any real "White hats" out of the whole bunch
I think all sides stink to high heaven.

Spits....


You know, that really is the worst thing about the whole Syria situation, isn't it? The Assad family is about the worst thing Syria could have happen to it in the long term . . . except for who is trying to take it from them right now.

If not for the rebels, I'd happily cheer Assad's downfall. Errr.. Ooops... but for the rebels, that is. Who is worse than Assad? Don't ask... No need to. What a mess and definitely not one our nation ought to be taking sides on, either way IMO.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





What a mess and definitely not one our nation ought to be taking sides on, either way IMO.


Unfortunately, the rebels are blaming the U.S. for not stepping in sooner to help them as their reason for siding with extremists who are willing to fight on their behalf right now. It's all a matter of survival for them at this point and they don't care who's helping them as long as it gets rid of Assad and they live to tell about it.

It's a lose/lose situation all around for us regardless of what we do at this point.

If Assad wins, we're screwed. If the Muslim extremists take over, we're screwed too. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this situation. We're screwed either way.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I think the rebels have had the opportunity for dialogue and have declined in the past so this isn't anything new. But if we were to go off the way the West feel about Assad, then I can't see any talks happening let alone stopping the bloodshed in Syria. All this shows it that the Syrian regime are far from falling and the insurgency is a complete failure. Both sides are guilty but I think things would of been much more peaceful if Syria was left alone to start with. Its a shame 70,000 people have lost their lives for this cause.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Unfortunately, the rebels are blaming the U.S. for not stepping in sooner to help them as their reason for siding with extremists who are willing to fight on their behalf right now. It's all a matter of survival for them at this point and they don't care who's helping them as long as it gets rid of Assad and they live to tell about it.


The issue is that even if the USA step in, you will only be fighting them somewhere down the track. The alliance if thats what its called is only a temporary one. Those animals have Jerusalem in their sights from their own admission. They aren't bringing peace to Syria.


It's a lose/lose situation all around for us regardless of what we do at this point.

If Assad wins, we're screwed. If the Muslim extremists take over, we're screwed too. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this situation. We're screwed either way.


Why are yous screwed? What threat does Assad pose to the USA? None. What threat do Extremists pose to the USA? Well, what are we in the Middle East for again?






posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


Since there is no unbiased press reporting this, the only thing I can go on is the 1st person accounts of the refugees. And they place the blame everywhere.


Agree.

It stands to reason that "meddling" has been going on, from all powers not only the US.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Assad's Syria would really only ask for talks if it saw that the tables were turning against them. Asking for a truce really just emboldens the rebels I think. After all the killing and bombing I don't think it possible Syria can keep Assad any more. Right or wrong its like asking the Italians to live under Mussolini if he hadn't of been executed.

I wonder if any of his hardline partners in crime feel betrayed by this sudden willingness to talk with the opposition?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 





Why are yous screwed? What threat does Assad pose to the USA? None. What threat do Extremists pose to the USA? Well, what are we in the Middle East for again?


Assad's alliance with Iran does pose a problem to the USA and the entire Middle East.

The Sunni extremists pose a threat because they're taking over the entire Middle East.

The USA is in the Middle East to try and create stability (whether you believe it or not).

If the USA left the Middle East entirely, we'd see Israel wiped off the map along with a renewed war between the Sunnis and the Shiites (just like we see in Iraq after the US left) that will most likely leave more dead in the Middle East than any war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

After Syria falls, the Sunni extremists will work their way over to Shiite Iran (which is a double edged sword in itself). Even if the Sunnis take over Iran, we may have gotten rid of one of our biggest threats, but then we'll find out that they were only replaced by a bigger threat of Sunni jihadists who may gain access and take over nuclear endeavors started by Iran in which no one in the entire world is safe.

Do you see how that works? The Middle East is a ticking time bomb and we can only try to slow down the tick unless we want to use our own nuclear capabilities. I think we know how popular of an idea that would be!



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Watch the Assad army torturing the civilians they caught and then decide who's good or bad. The rebels (the muslims) aren't allowed to torture or kill prisoners for no reason. But none of these rules are respected in the side of Assad, they're allowed to plunder, rape, kill and slaughter. I really don't even want to recommend you watching them do it on Youtube, It's just disgusting to know that any human can perform such an action.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Assad's Syria would really only ask for talks if it saw that the tables were turning against them. Asking for a truce really just emboldens the rebels I think. After all the killing and bombing I don't think it possible Syria can keep Assad any more. Right or wrong its like asking the Italians to live under Mussolini if he hadn't of been executed.


The regime have been open to talks all through the conflict.. You will find that its the opposition who continue to decline. But lets say Assad does fall, what happens next? Do people actually think the bloodshed will just cease to exist or something?


I wonder if any of his hardline partners in crime feel betrayed by this sudden willingness to talk with the opposition?


Again they have been open to dialogue through the conflict. There are plenty of articles which prove it also.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by DarknStormy
 

Assad's alliance with Iran does pose a problem to the USA and the entire Middle East.


How so? Syria have had the opportunity to retaliate to Israel and didn't. If they were such a threat don't you think they would of attacked Israel already? They had the balls to shoot down Turkish Jets, why not Israels?


The Sunni extremists pose a threat because they're taking over the entire Middle East.

The USA is in the Middle East to try and create stability (whether you believe it or not).


Yes they are but there is a problem with what your saying. Firstly, the USA are funding those Sunni Extremists who are responsible along with Assad for the deaths of 70,000 Syrians. How do you call that stability? Things are getting worse over their.


If the USA left the Middle East entirely, we'd see Israel wiped off the map along with a renewed war between the Sunnis and the Shiites (just like we see in Iraq after the US left) that will most likely leave more dead in the Middle East than any war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.


I'm going to ignore the above because its garbage.


After Syria falls, the Sunni extremists will work their way over to Shiite Iran (which is a double edged sword in itself). Even if the Sunnis take over Iran, we may have gotten rid of one of our biggest threats, but then we'll find out that they were only replaced by a bigger threat of Sunni jihadists who may gain access and take over nuclear endeavors started by Iran in which no one in the entire world is safe.


Yeah I understand that but Iran will not fall to Sunni Extremists. They can barely withstand the Syrian army let alone take on Iran..


Do you see how that works? The Middle East is a ticking time bomb and we can only try to slow down the tick unless we want to use our own nuclear capabilities. I think we know how popular of an idea that would be!


But your not slowing it down.. People are dying at an alarming rate over there. How the hell can you say that your peace keeping over there when the very people you are funding are slaughtering anything that breathes?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misbah
Watch the Assad army torturing the civilians they caught and then decide who's good or bad. The rebels (the muslims) aren't allowed to torture or kill prisoners for no reason. But none of these rules are respected in the side of Assad, they're allowed to plunder, rape, kill and slaughter. I really don't even want to recommend you watching them do it on Youtube, It's just disgusting to know that any human can perform such an action.


lol, I think you will find more rebels torturing, raping etc on youtube... Unlike the rebels, the Syrian army have family and friends amongst the population. Why don't you type in Rebel Atrocities next time your on Youtube.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Yeah they have.. but its not like they offered a 24hr stand-down or something is it? maybe a ceasefire and discussion? they were just as guilty as the rebels for continuing this folly..

the rebels captured an airfield with a couple of jets a couple of weeks ago
NYTimes

they seem to be getting an upper hand.. Assad wouldn't let an airfield like that get taken unless he was running out of men to defend his government.


BEIRUT (AP) — At least 141 people, half of them children, were killed when the Syrian military fired at least four missiles into the northern province of Aleppo last week, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.


This mans asking for peace?

Link

Assad usually asks for reconciliation in one of his speeches, something primed and broadcast and its always vague and opening.. whereas now? they've come out and asked to talk...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
Unfortunately, the rebels are blaming the U.S. for not stepping in sooner


For not stepping in SOONER? Why should we have stepped in AT ALL? It's THEIR war - a civil war, an internal matter. None of our business at all. I can't say that I give a flyin' flip WHAT they "blame" us for. If they can't fight a fight, they ought not to start one and then squall for help.



It's a lose/lose situation all around for us regardless of what we do at this point.

If Assad wins, we're screwed. If the Muslim extremists take over, we're screwed too. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this situation. We're screwed either way.


How so? What has Assad done to YOU to warrant an assessment that you are "screwed" if he retains control of the country he's HAD control of for years now? I can't say that it would affect me in the least - I'm not in Syria, so I can't fathom how I would e "Screwed" if Assad left smoking craters on every rebel stronghold there at 6 am tomorrow morning. Assad hasn't so much as flung a gravel at ME in years - as a matter of fact, THIS Assad hasn't thrown anything at me at all!

If you don't want to be "screwed" in the deal, the simplest solution is simply not to go to Syria.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Those animals have Jerusalem in their sights from their own admission. They aren't bringing peace to Syria.


You know, I'm so sick of this Middle Eastern pissing contest that I'm ready to let them HAVE Jerusalem. If Israel won't even step in and take control of the Temple Mount from the Waqf, why should I care at all what happens to Jerusalem? Israel seems not to.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by DarknStormy
 





Why are yous screwed? What threat does Assad pose to the USA? None. What threat do Extremists pose to the USA? Well, what are we in the Middle East for again?


Assad's alliance with Iran does pose a problem to the USA and the entire Middle East.

The Sunni extremists pose a threat because they're taking over the entire Middle East.

The USA is in the Middle East to try and create stability (whether you believe it or not).


Iran is Shia. Most of the rest is Sunni. IF you see them BOTH as a problem, what do you care if they kill each other off like two ant hills at war with each other? Let 'em sort it out on their own - the US will NEVER bring "stability" to that region. It's an inhuman task, and we are just human.

Saddam, in his own inimitably inhuman way, kept Iraq stable, where we have failed to. How's that US fostered "stability" doing there these days? You're fooling yourself if you think we can bring anything even resembling stability to the Middle East. All we can do is remove what little stability is there to begin with - as we did in Iraq, and as we are apparently now doing in Syria. Now, there IS a lot to be said for destabilizing the crap out of the entire region, stirring it up, then pulling out and letting THEM fight it out. I personally don't subscribe to that strategy, but I can at least see the rationale behind it.



If the USA left the Middle East entirely, we'd see Israel wiped off the map along with a renewed war between the Sunnis and the Shiites (just like we see in Iraq after the US left) that will most likely leave more dead in the Middle East than any war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.


ROFLMAO! The Arab armies combined couldn't wipe Israel off the map, however much rhetoric they spew about it - they've tried before, with less than stellar success. As a matter of fact, the drubbing that Syria took as a part of the failed UAE effort is a large part of what has kept them so quiet since they lost the Golan Heights!



After Syria falls, the Sunni extremists will work their way over to Shiite Iran (which is a double edged sword in itself). Even if the Sunnis take over Iran, we may have gotten rid of one of our biggest threats, but then we'll find out that they were only replaced by a bigger threat of Sunni jihadists who may gain access and take over nuclear endeavors started by Iran in which no one in the entire world is safe.


Throwing the Sunnis against Iran is the easiest way I can see to solve the entire Sunni "problem". I'm not sure there would be enough dirt in the Middle East to bury all the Sunni casualties. Now, I realize that the wet dream of the Muslim Brotherhood is to have a caliphate stretching from Algeria to Indonesia, but Iran is a great, big, fat stumbling block smack dab in the middle of their plans. There wouldn't be enough of them left to run a caliphate. Also, you shouldn't confuse the Muslim Brotherhood with "Sunnis" in general. While the MB IS Sunni, not all Sunnis are MB.



Do you see how that works? The Middle East is a ticking time bomb and we can only try to slow down the tick unless we want to use our own nuclear capabilities. I think we know how popular of an idea that would be!


I say let's light the fuse and stand back to watch. The Middle East will still be there when the dust settles, but it would be considerably more thinly populated, and they would only have themselves to blame because of their inability to settle their differences without sparking one another off.





edit on 2013/2/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join