Stop the Rebeles, Stop Siryan Government, Make Elections. Give voice to the Syrian People.

With all this info/disinformation around the civil unrest on Syria.
With all the campaigns pro War and media Propaganda from some of the Allied countries (US,France,G Britain...)
With all suffering of the real people that have no means to express there will.
With all the economic interests smashing peoples life.
And lots and lots of BS...

I ask, Why? Why the UN doesn't stop the "civil war" and organize free elections, for the people?

Who should rule Syria? Assad? the Rebels? other?

By the way, anybody knows why these so called "rebels" are fighting for? Why only know (2011)?

Again. Can We (i think the world peace) have Elections on Syria?

I leave this for ATS members think about ... and hope to spark some discussion.

Leave also this real good thread about Syria.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even if know one cares about this. I know that I'm in the path for the truth.

take a look on the curious feed alignment on recent posts at ATS.


How much improbable is that? leave to you guys.

Let's free them!

Then give them rigged election with no real choices.

Create a money debt system which is equal to slavery...

Let's bring peace to the world by doing wars and then call it the new world order.

Then, well we will have the elite to govern our way of living while they live in a totally other way.

Yeah let's free Syria, that's what God (money and power ) wants!

reply to post by theMediator


I don't really understand you Sir...

If you give elections to people, you really give them choices... If you a have an alternative way to organize one Society (where (almost) everyone only cares about them selves) I invite you to share it.

For the rest of your post, I only have to say, I'm against war and the OP is all about stoping it.

About the sarcasm... keep it.

oh. And by the way. For you is better to bomb them. right!?

reply to post by voyger2


I do like the fact that you are trying to spark a conversation about this. This is my opinion;

Back before we invaded Iraq, we were told Saddam may try to move the yellow cake uranium and chemical weapons through or into Syria. It's been a long time but I will search out the articles or a clip tomorrow.
There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to determine if it was Assad that ordered the Chemical attack, the rebels or the military acting on its own.
The rebels were identified as Al Queada. So, in essence, anyone voting to assist the rebels would be committing treason.
The media has not been thorough in the least at identifying the rebels and pushing that story.
I am happy you asked about the UN and not the US getting involved.
I think everyone should let Syria be, especially the US. It isn't our business, I don't know what national security interests we would be protecting by going in there.
Reminiscent of Kosovo/Bosnia under Clinton. A lone janitor was killed in an aspirin factory that our intelligence said was a chemical weapons factory.
Intelligence has been wrong, or late many times over the last decade or so. And bad intel has been passed to the media to change public opinion. This is also known as PsyOps.

I think as far as the US is concerned we should stop getting involved in every conflict. Normally war is created to distract the public, make money or satisfy big business or banking interests. Read Smedley Butler, War is a Racket. Written by a very famous Marine.
The presidents administration has committed so many gaffes and has tripped over themselves so many times that it would do just about anything to take people's mind off it.
IRS Scandal-More evidence has recently come forward showing emails between top IRS officials in Washington proving they not only knew about the scandal, they orchestrated it. They also lied under oath about it. He'll before she pled the 5th, ol' what's-her-name stated they were unaware of the situation until they read about it.
Obamacare-Obama just signed an exemption for Congress, so seemingly the only part of the Affordable Care Act that is being paid for is by you and me. Big business got an exemption earlier this year, Congress last week and now the Individual Mandate is all that's left.
The very same union that was lobbying hard for ObamaCare lost 40,000 members in a day, stand to continue to lose members and because of that are now accepting non workers.
The media was turning on Obama until there was an off the record meeting at the White House and now they love him again. People are taking notice.
The famous red line comment could be the single most dumb statement he has made. I say this because not only did that affect our nation, but the whole world got to see Obama for who he is. A gutless man who talks the talk but in the end is full of hot air.
He made the official White House visitor log secret for ten years. Why do that unless you have people who shouldn't be there in the first place.

Obama plays his game, then terrorists threaten that they will commit small scale attacks. One group threatened the presidents daughter saying someone that consistently can get close to her will take her, do vile things and kill her. The group threatened every top political leader and said it could be done within hours. A week later or so, Navy Yard shooting by someone that doesn't fit the profile of a lone gunman mass murderer.

Media goes crazy spinning the story into a gun control issue and most news media blasts that the shooter bought an Ar-15, which only a few hours later turned out to be a complete lie. They tell us he was an Obama supporter, what does that have to do with anything? He was more of a liberal says a friend, how is that news?
There seems to be way more blatant disinformation with this story than others.

Like I said, it is very late here so I will post my references tomorrow and correct any inaccuracies my tired brain may have misconstrued. Again, these are my opinions, and it reserve the right to listen to anyone else's views and have my mind changed with valid points and conversation.

voyger2
reply to post by theMediator

 

I don't really understand you Sir...

If you give elections to people, you really give them choices... If you a have an alternative way to organize one Society (where (almost) everyone only cares about them selves) I invite you to share it.

For the rest of your post, I only have to say, I'm against war and the OP is all about stoping it.

About the sarcasm... keep it.

edit on 18-9-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

What would be best for Syria is for other nations to stop sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong and let Syria solve their own problems. If the people of Syria want Assad removed then let them do it not the paid mercenaries and terrorist that currently make up the FSA.

reply to post by voyger2


I think your sentiment is great, although hopelessly idealistic. This is similar to the UN approach of imposing peacekeepers where neither side of a conflict has ANY interest in peace, let alone idiots in blue beanies to run around explaining how to achieve it.

The only way to stop a civil war both sides are energetically fighting in is to kill those on one side of it to such an extreme, it breaks the will to fight, long before the underlying issues are settled to anyone's sense of a conclusion.

To put it another way...How many would the UN kill for peace ...and how long until those fighting today are back at it, as the reasons for the fighting are never addressed this way?

reply to post by voyger2


I can understand some are opposed to war, however there are times were it is necessary. Syria I don't believe, is one of them.

stinger94
reply to post by voyger2

 

I do like the fact that you are trying to spark a conversation about this. This is my opinion;

There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to determine if it was Assad that ordered the Chemical attack, the rebels or the military acting on its own.

The rebels were identified as Al Queada. So, in essence, anyone voting to assist the rebels would be committing treason.

The media has not been thorough in the least at identifying the rebels and pushing that story.

I am happy you asked about the UN and not the US getting involved.

I think everyone should let Syria be, especially the US. It isn't our business, I don't know what national security interests we would be protecting by going in there.

I think as far as the US is concerned we should stop getting involved in every conflict. Normally war is created to distract the public, make money or satisfy big business or banking interests. Read Smedley Butler, War is a Racket. Written by a very famous Marine.

Thanks stinger for your response. I agree w/ you, and I think is right to remark some of your comments about this.

Question although remains. Instead of threatening w/ bombs why are we not making any progress on behalf of the Syrian citizens, giving them voice?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

(..) where neither side of a conflict has ANY interest in peace,(..)

I really don't care about sides (assad our the rebels) I care about the people. Give them again the right to choose.
If they want Assad. ok. then UN should be worried in fighting the rebels out of there. If it's the oposite, then kick out Assad.
The people should decide.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

How many would the UN kill for peace ...

Good question. But that's the point of UN. Fight for peace.

buster2010

 

(..) let Syria solve their own problems. If the people of Syria want Assad removed then let them do it .

That's one of most important problems here. We really don't know who those rebels are (Syrian local's or not) and what are there real purpose.

So, who is the best one to decide? The local Syrians, not the "rest" of the world. I know (at least I think I know) the legitimate interests of the different parties in my country.

reply to post by voyger2


I agree 100% with you, and the sentiment, again, is pure and noble. Stop the killing so the average people can choose a life with peace to raise their kids in. What can ever be more Noble a motive and cause than that?

The problem is....with an estimated 100,000 Rebel fighters and a recent estimate of 178,000 Syrian regular forces to draw upon? You have over 1/4 of a million people who are very very determined to see no fighting ends here until their side achieves victory. Total and by any means necessary, it's coming to seem.

Seriously..not a bit of sarcasm... How does the world impact a situation like Syria without the paradox of having to 'fight for peace' in beating one or both sides into submission first? ....leaving out the fact the UN has no internal military capability beyond it's own physical security forces anyway....

* Just to make this a full Migraine and nothing half way ... add to the fact that the Rebels are almost 100% and exclusively fighting from inside and among the civilian population ...in terms of what gets hit by return fire ...and Assad's people started to disperse the same way when US threats became real. Who do you shoot at without killing the people it's all for?

I'd really love to hear viable ideas where outside force added to the mix of forces engaged already isn't a key requirement. So many areas of the world would benefit if only such an approach could be developed somehow.

reply to post by voyger2


Unfortunately the only thing the elites do not care about in Syria,is Syrian people and what they really want.It seems like money,oil and geopolitics are the only things they are basically interested in,as usual...It truly amazes me to see some people still think otherwise.

Unless you send a couple million Western trained troops into Syria you have no chance of forcing peace. The Syran war now has become a 4 sided conflict now that open fighting between the Al Quaida backed radicals and the FSA has broken out in the last week. You have Assad a his small group of Syrian supporterd plus Iran, Hezbollah and Lebanes militias in one corned, the Free Syrian Army in another corner, the Radical groups in another corner and the Kurds in a 4th corner.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

The problem is....with an estimated 100,000 Rebel fighters and a recent estimate of 178,000 Syrian regular forces to draw upon? You have over 1/4 of a million people who are very very determined to see no fighting ends here until their side achieves victory. Total and by any means necessary, it's coming to seem.

Is that true ( the number's about the rebels I ask)? But how many are we (UN Forces or Nato) in the World. Don't we have the capability to stop it? Is that so complicated?
Bombing anyone isn't the answer. If Assad's regime is free willing to give all CW why shouldn't the rebels be able to Stop or be Stoped. Aren't they fighting for the people...or is another issuer there?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

Seriously..not a bit of sarcasm... How does the world impact a situation like Syria without the paradox of having to 'fight for peace' in beating one or both sides into submission first?

They don't have to fight neither of the sides...After all, like you said, the objective is noble...neither of the sides want's bombs falling on them, right?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

Who do you shoot at without killing the people it's all for?

If the UN decides to intervene for the right reasons, you will not need to shoot any one. And if it comes to the matter, I believe I believe it will be Syrian people who will do it.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by voyger2

 

I'd really love to hear viable ideas where outside force added to the mix of forces engaged already isn't a key requirement.

At this stage, we really don't know what forces are involved there...

reply to post by voyger2

At this stage, we really don't know what forces are involved there...

With all due respect, while that sounds nice as a generality to keep a discussion pretty much open to all directions without concern for facts on the ground? It's just not true.

Syria's own Order of Battle and stregth to fill it is as well known as any nation..which is to say, he doesn't have much to surprise anyone with outside advanced systems that may pop up in individual cases.

As for the FSA? Have you followed this, closely? The FSA has broken down and listed their own organization well enough to make an elaborate chart, if anyone cared to go to the effort. Those they may not name or list specific to each general meeting of the factions? Well..they all fly their own flags and seem to NEED media attention. So, just watching material released by the FSA themselves makes reading the factions involved as easy as reading the language their faction-oriented flags are written in, IMO.

I admit, it takes real time and watching MSM doesn't do it ..not by a long shot. Still, most of the facts 'in dispute' are facts in plain evidence no one in Syria is much trying to hide. It just takes seeking out the info. Only off the battlefield do questions like "who all is even fighting?" come up?

MrSpad
Unless you send a couple million Western trained troops into Syria you have no chance of forcing peace.

How do you know that "we have no chance of forcing peace"? How do you know that's necessary "a couple million Western trained troops into Syria"?

This issue has ever been debated on UN? There's no one that can stop the will of other nations, if they are really united for freeing and giving voice to the people.

Why keep w/ BS of terrorist's, of fake or opressive regimes, if we the UN have time and the means to stop it!

We shouldn't be always on the if if if... We should act, and accordingly w/ freedom of speech for every nation! If they can't speak for them selves We should help them getting there voice back!

reply to post by MrSpad

If Iran and Hezbollah really got involved in the conflict and wanted to take care of the "rebels" then believe me there would have been nothing left of those animal savages and their entire supporters, and then some...Not to mention Russia's role in that case....We definitely don't want another WW,but it looks like some still do.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I admit I don't know all the aspect around the Syria "inside war". For me, again, I don't care for the sides (2,3 or 4) I really don't care... What I ask, for ATS to think, is Why nations around the world (UN of course or even NATO) don't force a pause, a peace agreement, for new elections?

Why all the interest in attack w/ bombs? And possibly triggering WW3...

People should ask for intervention, not for kicking a regime, but to create stability for the people to express there will.

reply to post by stinger94


Obama has already signed the order to increase aid to the Syrian rebels.

Obamas weapons

Obamas weapons - 2

Obamas weapons - 3

Essentially Obama gave the CIA and the government a hall-pass on arming the rebels. If this is where it's going and the CIA/US Government are giving weapons to these people then the world should brace itself for a new series of terrorist attacks across the ME and beyond.