UN 'No-Fly-Zone' only solution left to end Syrian sufferings?

Originally posted by khimbar
Fine with me.

It's not my war, though my country is chomping at the bit to get involved.

I respect your opinion, freedom and right and only wish you well.

Fortunately, you are the one fo the few or even the many who wants nothing done, just as the despicable Neville Chamberlian had done when he faced up to Hitler until too late.

But there will always be the few whom will never remain silent and allow evil to truimph, more so when evil is so evident today with the genocide and massacres of EVEN babies. Regardless if we fail or succeed, we seek not for glory, but only that we had tried our best, and through the internet, our words will live for posterity for others to never fear but to stand up.

Cheers.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think they should do what they were talking about doing before, setting up a safe zone inside Syria for civilians that is defended by NATO forces.

That could be difficult to do too. You have to be very careful with that, or you end up supporting the rebels, when they come in as "civilians" and use the safe haven to get aid (medical), or just to plan with other members. You have to have some way to be absolutely certain that the people you let in really are civilians.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I call them terrorists because they affiliate themselves with terrorists. They act like terrorists in the free and indiscriminate murder of civilians while also drawing fire upon those same civilians by fighting amongst them.

They release videos of themselves blowing Syrian POW's to bloody pieces, on the growing, screaming for their lives (Syrian military is made up of conscripts, not "True Believers". That was outright murder...and they laughed and joked about it on the video THEY released of themselves).

They then kill animals in testing of bath tub chemical weapons and release videos of that, as well. Here most recently, they kidnap UN workers ..for the second time in separate incidents and parade their photos as prisoners...not the people they claim to have 'simply assisted out of harm's way'.

Add to all this, they've willingly and openly sided with Al Qaeda in Iraq and AQI has mutually joined THEM. How precisely wouldn't you call those scum, terrorists? If not them, who? What definition would fit?

These people we now support, fund and are about to openly start arming...are doing EVERYTHING we have viciously condemned and gone to actual WAR over (Taliban, Nov-Dec 2001), in other nations already. The fact they have care packages with little American flags instead of the black flags of Al Qaeda doesn't change what they are .....and for that matter, it isn't at all unknown for them to be seen waving the black flags of that who organization openly and proudly as well.

We agree on much...but as someone who HAS literally been watching this since the "Peaceful Protests" in Homs began, secondary to calls across Arab sites and the People's Liberation Front web properties to 'Join the Syrian Uprising and bring the Arab Spring to Damascus"? I can think of NO other proper term for these animals. So.. We sure can't agree on everything, indeed.

We should BOMB them...not fund them.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Again I agree it’s not a good option, like I say they only have bad ones left really .

It might be the best of a bad bunch.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well I have also been following this very closely since it all started, all of the Arab spring for that matter.

Yes they have commented horrible acts that I don’t condone, I have a thread on it actually, but I think that Obamas horrible foreign policy has led to this situation and like I said many of their acts could be accurately called acts of terrorism (no am not blaming Obama for that). Al-Qa’ida in Iraq and Al-Nusra have formally joined, but the FSA and Al-Nusra have a troublesome relationship while they have a common enemy the secular FSA is cautious of them and their intentions after Assad they are very cautious of each other, they are competitors.

And while I agree that the FSA is barbaric, it is in the national interests of the West that it is they, or rather the Syrian national council, who take control of Syria and not the radical islamists. For that reason I think we should support them.

That said I can totally understand why you disagree with me, and that’s fine it’s a difference of opinions, I am just glad that we both have informed opinions as it makes debates so much more enjoyable and civil.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by khimbar
Fine with me.

It's not my war, though my country is chomping at the bit to get involved.

I respect your opinion, freedom and right and only wish you well.

Fortunately, you are the one fo the few or even the many who wants nothing done, just as the despicable Neville Chamberlian had done when he faced up to Hitler until too late.

But there will always be the few whom will never remain silent and allow evil to truimph, more so when evil is so evident today with the genocide and massacres of EVEN babies. Regardless if we fail or succeed, we seek not for glory, but only that we had tried our best, and through the internet, our words will live for posterity for others to never fear but to stand up.

Cheers.

Awesome straw man there. Well done. Very good. It's exactly the same as Hitler.

It's a civil war. Both sides are evil. One, in my opinion, more than the other. One, in my opinion, played by the West and useful idiots.

Like I say, nothing to do with me or my country.

Blah blah babies thrown from incubators. Heard it all before...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So you call them terrorists and welcome bombs upon them.

Would you do the same to the american founding fathers?

It is often easy in the comfort of our peaceful lives to condemn the actions of others. But to have an informed opinion and not a stupid one that is made as subjective as yours, do consider:-


1. Are the Syrian People to simply accept the death of their loved ones brutually slaughtered by the regime when they had only pleaded with the ruler for succor as they faced economic woes during that time?


2. Are they then to simply accept and welcome the regimes tanks and animals to slaughter their women and babies in their homes in Homs and other provinces, just because they were sunnis while the ruling and those in control are shias, to be bowed and to grovel in the presence of their imposed upon betters?

Are you even human? If you can accept such indignities, and IF i am the monarch and you a sunni, please..oops, typo, no....DO lick my boots, I command you, and I would like your family including your babies slaughtered. Will you do it?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Would you do the same to the american founding fathers?

Do you look at any issue in the world outside the prism of how America can be compared and found worse? I'm thinking you likely don't....and your posts almost universally bring comparison to the United States, no matter the topic or context, if that can be a strictly negative outcome for the example.

Our Founding Fathers and the actions they took in the 18th and 19th Centuries have absolutely no relation or context to modern day America or it's leaders. Not in the way you're presenting it here, to be certain.

It takes deliberate effort to overlap topics which naturally have none. Hence ...my question? This is why your messages to me often go without reply and are flat ignored. In case you'd wondered. You keep trying, so I figure it's worth the mention for why it's rare to get something back about anything.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

That said I can totally understand why you disagree with me, and that’s fine it’s a difference of opinions, I am just glad that we both have informed opinions as it makes debates so much more enjoyable and civil.

Absolutely true on that. Disagreement without being disagreeable. It's the go-go juice for good debate, eh?

Of course, you know deep down, I'm right and you're wrong....right? (hops off real quick and jumps into hole to...attend to sudden pressing business. )

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for your reply even though you claim you have ignored me continually and also thanks for your continued participation on this thread started by me.

It is good to comprehend where you are coming from and how your mind subjectively work, and attempts to distract without even replying to the question posed. It is your right to back track, but thanks for letting it show for all readers to know your subjective stand as well.

While history had already moved on, and situations had changed, however one thing sadly that had not evolved yet is human nature.

The fight for freedom in mankind is not just limited to americans, past, present or future. It is in the blood of everyone and thus the continued changes in the governance of mankind for centuries.

In this age, that desire for freedom from oppression and in the face of immediate genocidal end of existance of a group of people lays with the Syrian people, with the rebels in the forefront to make that stand, that all leaders of mankind whom sought for such freedom had tried and attempted, and some successful.

I doubt if those of lower basic instincts would comprehend such, but I wish you well and may you live to enjoy forever that exclusive freedom the founding fathers had bequethed to you through their blood sacrifices, with the belief that all men are equal and everything that stands in the sacred Constitution.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The Syrians absolutely do have it as open fact.

They Syrians don't have S-300. Think about it? It would have to be trained with and the acquisition and fire control radars integrated into their air defence system. The resultant testing and deployment within Syria wouldn't go unnoticed and would have been leaked by the Israelis and or US. It isn't something that they just deploy when the poop hits the fan. Any clandestine sale wouldn't last five minutes and the Russians know it. The US would take great delight in embarrassing the Russians with such an S-300 deployment and or sale.

The Russian Foreign Minister has cleared up the rumours of S-300s being supplied to Syria.

No S-300 supplies planned, Russia finalizes standing Syrian weapons contracts - Lavrov Russia is not planning to supply Syria with any weapons beyond the current contracts that are nearing completion, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said refuting speculations that Moscow was going to sell S-300 air defense systems to Damascus. “Russia does not plan to sell,” Lavrov told reporters on being asked on S-300 air defense systems rumors. He stressed that Russia has only been fulfilling contracts that have already been signed with Syria for defensive weapons.

rt.com...

reply to post by tommyjo

The issue of the S-300 is FAR from that clear and Russia makes statements today while having made other statements in the past. There is a string of "Yes we are delivering...No we're not ...well maybe...well okay we promise we won't'" stretching clear back to 2005 and before.

Also, the greatest single strength and threat of the S-300, as I've read analysis of the system, is that it does NOT have to be integrated and it's designed for operation by people of limited training and education. Again, it's Russian design. That's not an insult. It's really a compliment. They can turn very effective systems into something dumbed down for operation so a teenager could make it work as advertised.

This system isn't THAT simple, but part of it's selling point is a self contained, sealed set of launch tubes so maintenance (usually a big failure point) becomes moot. It can also go from 60 mph down the highway to fully positioned for launch with a missile clearing the tube in just over 5 minutes. That's got no equal in Western military inventories for a system of this type and class that I am aware of or have read about in military publications.

It CAN be part of a larger integrated system, don't get me wrong. It can function quite well and effectively that way, too. It CAN also function outside it, however. That is where it takes on a somewhat unique capability compared to what our side has faced before. ......Oh, and China also makes an equivalent system with more than simply rumor suggesting Iran has a domestically produced variant. So this kitty is out of the bag in a big way. Tracing weapons shipments from the plant in Russia directly to the port in Syria isn't going to answer this either way ....nor will searching for it's radar signature. If Syria is intelligent, the first sign of absolute confirmation they even have them will come with a missile...or several...in the air and from wildly different directions.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You are not thinking outside the box and seeing it from the perspective of the Russians. Yes the Syrian contracts are out there but the S-300s are a step too far to go ahead with under the current situation. The Russians also postponed the sale of Yak-130s and MiGs. The same applies to existing S-300 contracts with Iran. Iran has been repeatedly promised and denied S-300 sales from Russia. So much so they are attempting to sue in a vain attempt to get the system.

rt.com...

Russia knows that any delivery of S-300s to Syria will also mean that Iran will gain access to an operational system. The last thing that Russia wants is Iran gaining access to a fully operational system and reverse-engineering it.

It's got nothing to do with Syria being intelligent in trying to hide the system, but Russia being embarrassed on the international stage by being caught having supplied it. Russia has a lot to lose over supply of such a system to Syria under present circumstances and that is why they have put on hold the contracts. It just creates too much hassle for them and they know it. Russia requires UAV technology and systems from Israel and that deal was in the balance due to fulfilling all the previous Syrian contracts.

en.rian.ru...

www.haaretz.com...

The Russian have far too much to lose over such a sale at this time and especially with Israel and the US on their back over it. They certainly are not going to get involved with supplying it denying it and then getting caught red-faced when the US and or Israelis find out about it.

reply to post by tommyjo


Well, I think Russia is between a rock and a Syrian place.

Russian Naval Base at Tartus, Syria

I don't know about the tone of the article, but I share it for the overhead of the Russian Naval base on the Syrian Coast. It's not the only facility Russia has inside Syria. This is a wee bit more complicated than some would like it to sound.

Russia has also had as many as 100,000 nationals working, living and marrying locals inside Syria at any given time, over the years. Syria isn't merely 'just another client state' to Moscow. It's a critical (some suggest, one of the most critical) Russian partners in that region. It's certainly one of the more critical strategic partner nations in the world for them.

Last I checked, the best estimates still put Russian citizen count in the range of 10's of thousands inside Syria. It's not JUST Syrians or profits from arms sales that Putin has in his mind as he plays the word games and pursues these deals with Assad. It's far more direct and personal to the Russian Federation, on more than just one level.

*Russia also has sold them the Yakhont Anti-Ship cruise missile in some quantity and helped them with the shore batteries to fire them. (One of the most advanced of it's type in the world)

Notice a lack of U.S. Naval presence in a meaningful way? Kinda odd...isn't it? (Unless something has changed since April 1) Uncle Sam normally has at least one Aircraft Carrier anywhere in the area where our people may be called to fight. Not so much there right now....because Syria is no 3rd world Military force to face. The outcome isn't in question...if we pursue it to the ultimate end. It just won't come without serious loss, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for the reply.

Russia has not yet delivered S-300 missiles to Syria: Putin AFP - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday Moscow had not yet delivered its sophisticated S-300 missiles to the Damascus regime despite hints from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that such shipments had already been made. "The contract was signed several years ago. It has not been realised yet," Putin said at a joint press conference with EU leaders. "We do not want to upset the balance in the region."

www.france24.com...

“As for the S-300s, it’s one of the best air defense systems in the world,” Putin said following a Russia-EU summit. “It’s a serious weapon. We would not like to tip the balance of power in the region. We signed the contract a few years ago. It has not been implemented yet.”

rt.com...

reply to post by tommyjo


I'm somewhat confused with what your message there is supposed to be in reply to or about? I looked at your profile to see if that might help put context to it and notice you literally spam posted that precise message for your last 5 messages, across 5 different threads. Now I'm really confused as to the point? Perhaps you can help elaborate?