Taking sides in Syria. What makes YOU the expert?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


I haven't taken sides, I don't support terrorists. I don't support Dictators with blood on their hands.
Neither side is welcome at my dinner table come Thanks giving.


But lets say 100,000 members of a Mexican drug cartel decided to invade the USA.. Would you allow your government to use bombs if it had too or would you just expect your government to bend over and surrender? The dictator crap I heard with Gadaffi also and once again, I'm not buying that bs.




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
To claim that only one side has blood on their hands is exactly what I'm posting about.
For every "tit" there is a "tat"
One side does something terrible, the other side does something terrible,

You're insinuating that only the rebels or "terrorists" are the ones doing the wrong.
Your opinion, I don't see it that way. I condone neither side. I don't "root" for killers of civilians.
edit on 20-3-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I have spent a lot of time in the region and maintain many friends and contacts their. When the peaceful protests of an unarmed population started Assad had two choices step down or start shooting. He went for the shooting. Why? As a Jordanian Officer told me, because he thought his popularity with the military meant they would follow any order he gave. Turned out shooting your own unarmed citizens was a step beyond where they were willing to go so they started changing sides. The complete lack of loyalty of his people and forces became clear when everytime the much larger better equiped Government forces would go after the rebels, the forces would change sides. After losing so much of his Army this way Assad gave up the offensives in return for airstrikes and artillery. Some pilots started changing sides so even airsrikes are rare now.

Assads position now is desperate. He has small loyal group, and help from Iran. They have to keep the rebels out, the local population cowed and the rest of Syrian Army from changing sides.

The rebels position is much better but, they do have problems. Along with the FSA you have other radical islamic groups involved. This happened in Libya and Bosnia as well, the radicals hope to win over the people, hope the FSA fractures and grabs power when Assad falls. So the FSA has to deal with both of these threats and beg and plead for aid from the the west, who is dragging its feet as best it can.

The wests position is mixed. They know Assad has to go but, they do not want to do anything that requires anything beyond talking about it. At the same time they need to support the FSA so when Assad falls the country does not fall to the complete chaos or to the radicals.

Israel is in a position of just waiting. The Syria of old was an enemy but, they could wipe the floor with them. Now they have no idea what is coming. A radical gov would be unexceptable. Chaos also would cause nothing but trouble for them. Some here would think an more pro western FSA lead gov would be a good but, not to the Israelis who would just see Syria as a more powerful threat now armed and trained by the west. Their best position would be for Assad to win but, that is no longer going to happen.


edit on 20-3-2013 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by canucks555
 


Solarstorm summed it up perfect. If none of these thugs flooded they country with the backing of Europe and the USA, do you think the war would of got to this point? How about if these same group was terrorising Americans on your home soil, would you expect your government to sit back and do nothing?

I'll do ya one better. The Rebels have lost steam and almost crapped out entirely more than once for lack of support They've sent pleas and cries out to the World capitals they believed they'd find sympathy in ...and they have.

So it's worse than speculating about whether the war would have continued without outside help. We KNOW it wouldn't have because the rebels themselves have said it during those couple periods they didn't have enough to do more than just barely survive against the Governments attempts to stomp them out.

In a very real sense...after the first time the Rebels said they didn't have the oompf to do the job without everyone else? This really became everyone ELSE's war ...the Rebels just hold the cannon fodder and professional bullet stopper position to the nations running the straight into Assad's forces.

Interestingly... Saudi Arabia and their group seems to be sending the majority of weapons. Golly..where else have I heard majority Saudi involvement in terroris.....errr.. Oh.. Nvm.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Better the devil you know.

Assad.
Saddam.
Gaddaffi.

May the latter two rest in peace, and be respected for trying to change the trade of currency....because those not blind know exactly why they were assassinated.
edit on 20-3-2013 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


So bury your head in the sand....because that's such a great solution.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


I don't support murderers. If that means "burying my head in the sand" then fine. Glad you feel good about it

-cheers thanks for your input.

PS read MrSpads post. Regardless of what side he supports, he was THERE before. were you there before? Or are you you-tubing your info?
edit on 20-3-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Out of all the countries in the Middle East, those Saudis are the worst.. Nothing but a bunch Western butt monkeys who deserve worse than what Syria is copping.. Throw in Bahrain right beside them.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


But with that, we et reports like this coming out of Syria from a couple of years ago..


There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focused on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed “pro-democracy” demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are “according to witnesses”. The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.


Yes the shootings did happen but were we being told the truth about the protesters? I'm sure there are videos and confessions that the above is the truth.


Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.

The clashes came amidst growing political tension in the Muslim nation, whose Presidents and many senior officials have always come from Syria's influential Shia Alawite minority, when twenty students were arrested for spray-painting anti-government graffiti on a wall.


So how did peaceful protesters manage to kill 7 police officers?
edit on 20-3-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
If the protestors had been armed then the Army would not have been so squimish about shooting them. Armed protests would have changed everything with the Army staying loyal and crushing the uprising because once they start shooting at you then it no longer matters who they are you put them down. If you wish to ignore the media then all you have to do is look at the action of the Army to tell you what really went on.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 

let's be on the side of people of Syria. foreign intervention is absurd. this game is solely for Israel. that is it.
this means if people of Syria elect Assad in an election then everyone should respect that. but I know what it is not important is the will of people of Syria. radical salafists are killing Syrian muslims and christians in the name of Islam ! exactly what Qaeda and Taliban Do. totally hypocrisy.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I think there is a misconception that if you do not support the throat cutting jihadists then you somehow support the tyrannical dictator Assad.

At present I would be more concerned that the throat cutting jihadists take control of Syria. These are hardcore fundamentalists, who will not spare the lives of the diverse and complicated make up of Syrian society. 10% of which are Christians. But there are other faiths there too, who would not receive the same level of tolerance, that the Assad regime ensured.

It's usually the ones that do the fighting that take power. At the moment, the ones doing most of the fighting, are the foreign jihadists. You want these people in power, with access to Syrias chemical weapons?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


I'm not taking a side.

I refuse to take a side.

This is a civil war and none of our damned business.

There are no good guys in this fight.

Only the innocent refugees and the dead deserve my prayers and support.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm not taking a side. I refuse to take a side. This is a civil war and none of our damned business.
There are no good guys in this fight.
Only the innocent refugees and the dead deserve my prayers and support.


Best post on this subject I have ever seen.

DITTO THAT!! In fact, it was so good that I'm fully quoting it to highlight how good it was.

If the entire world would think like this ... it would be a much better place.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I understand your position, and I only wish we lived in a world where such agnostic 'live and let live' positions result in peace.

However when the world is faced with the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of those who cannot be trusted to use them as a deterant only, I believe it is time to take sides. From my understanding of what happening on the ground now, western powers are now in the region training rebels, in how to cope with chemical attacks and how to deal with chemical weapons if it comes to pass that they fall into rebel hands. On this, the west I'm sure would rather Assad had control of these assets rather than some of the more extreme anti western rebel groups that are active in the region.

It would be nice to live in a world when this sort of thing doesnt happen, however that my friend is hopelessly irresponsible position to take. There are rebel groups that aligned with western societies, and there are rebel groups that are intent on building military assits to assit in a global jihad. You can sit in your arm chair and cross your fingers and hope the good guys (whoever you think they might be) will win out in the end, but have to be prepared for the prospect that that things will not work out the way that you hope.

When Sarin gas or BX 13 gets released in your local shopping mall or movie theatre or god forbid, your children's school, then how will you feel?

For the record, I've lived and worked in the region and dont consider my oppinion to be totally without context, I haven't posted on any thread about Syria, which was a beautiful country full of beautifull people and taken a position for either side. I've had by run ins with Assad's cronies, and didnt particularly enjoy the experience.I've also had friends injured in the 7/7 bpmbings in London and I have many friends in the region who are much closer to being effected by the instability in the region than I am. I have no idea which 'side' they might be on I can only cross my fingers and hope that those in a position to prevent them coming to harm have the courage to take a position and act to keep them safe in the event of the threat becoming an inevitability. If, after the fact we were to find out that the CIA, or others could have acted to prevent the catastrophy but instead stood by and did nothing, then we would most likely want their head on a pole.

If you live in a western deomocracy and have the right to be politically active, but refuse to use it, by taking a position and indicating how the agents of your state should act, then you cannot justifiably blame them and hold them accountable when it blows up in your face.

When the powers that be, stood by and refused to take a side in the cival war in rawanda the result was the largest and most lethal genocide with over a million men, women and children being hacked to pieces with machetes in less than a week. whats going on in Syria right now has the capacity to grow into something even worse in my oppinion.

But hey lets all just sit back and hope it all blows over and they can settle down and resolve things peacfully. I'm not foolish enough to believe that I live in a world where this kind of thing is likely to happen.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by redshoes
reply to post by beezzer
 


I understand your position, and I only wish we lived in a world where such agnostic 'live and let live' positions result in peace.


Being put in a position to chose sides is also untenable.


However when the world is faced with the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of those who cannot be trusted to use them as a deterant only, I believe it is time to take sides. From my understanding of what happening on the ground now, western powers are now in the region training rebels, in how to cope with chemical attacks and how to deal with chemical weapons if it comes to pass that they fall into rebel hands. On this, the west I'm sure would rather Assad had control of these assets rather than some of the more extreme anti western rebel groups that are active in the region.


History has shown that today's Saviour is tomorrow's Tyrant.


It would be nice to live in a world when this sort of thing doesnt happen, however that my friend is hopelessly irresponsible position to take. There are rebel groups that aligned with western societies, and there are rebel groups that are intent on building military assits to assit in a global jihad. You can sit in your arm chair and cross your fingers and hope the good guys (whoever you think they might be) will win out in the end, but have to be prepared for the prospect that that things will not work out the way that you hope.


Things rarely do.


When Sarin gas or BX 13 gets released in your local shopping mall or movie theatre or god forbid, your children's school, then how will you feel?


Sarin gas from the good guys or the bad?


There are no heroes in this mix.

American/Western "Imperialism" has to stop sometime, right? We in the west constantly get blamed for putting our nose in where it doesn't belong.

Isn't that what everyone says about Iran and their nuke programme?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join