Syria - What should we do if anything?

[Daniel 0]

Other sources are reporting the rebels planted a bomb in the room, 20th July style.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yep, the irakization of the conflict progresses each day. That's sad.

[oxmox 73]

This is a really interesting radio interview from France with Jacques Bourdin, Bourdin & Co. a famous radio transmission. It tells a bit more about the background in Syria and the current situation, but from a different outlook. Watch it please, not saying this is the "truth" like the title of the video but it contains interesting informations. I found the info at 7:08 quiete interesting about current politicians.

[astast 12]

Send a SOF team and kill the country's leader send in someone to control the country till they are able to do so by themselves :D

---------- Post added at 08:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

of course that's easier said than done. :(

[ProfTournesol 956]

Will Iran let Assad's regime crumble ?

[eble 3]

Well watch everyone run for cover if the chemical weapons get into the wrong hands, oh lordy.

Not sure what Iran could do otherthan invade, I'm sure they are on the ground fighting a proxy war with Saudi Arabia anyway.

All in all this is a real mess and I hope the Syrians don't suffer too much before it's all over.

[PELHAM 10]

Not sure what to make of this latest thing - it's the usual asymmetric warfare, all could have been resolved with some responsible leadership and a promise of free and fair elections. Now we have 17,000 - 25,000 dead and rising (that's equal to the total for Libya) and the Russians and Chinese continue to dither and delay at the UN.

The Assad apologists here and elsewhere keep telling us that foreign intervention is wrong but so far have not criticised the Russian decision to send an 11 ship naval task force and troops to Syria, with no UN backing. Opinion is divided as to the purpose of the armada, some say it's there to prop up the regime and will covertly provide arms and assistance, others say it's going to evacuate Russian citizens and equipment from Tartus, finally pulling the bear's testicles out of the Syrian fire, another possibility is a mission to safeguard Russian military supplies to Syria in the event of a UN blockade.

A Turkish Navy cost guard boat escorts the Russian Navy destroyer Smetlivy, in the Bosphorus in Istanbul, part of the latest Russian task force to Syria, July 11, 2012.

Edited July 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[oxmox 73]

Understandable that they try to secure the russian naval harbour, to prepare for the worst if there will be maybe a military intervention. Maybe there is more behind it, who knows but probably more than the media tell us. By the way your so called Assad apologists are also highly reputeable experts which are actually discourage from any military intervention, with reasonable arguements which are worth to discuss about.

Edited July 18, 2012 by oxmox

[PELHAM 10]

That is a military intervention happening before your very eyes, but it's "understandable" is it? lol. If those were NATO troops and ships the anti war mob and the press would be apoplectic, but it's OK if Russia does it. One thing continually perplexes me in all this. The very people that proclaim to be concerned about human rights etc. don't say a word about people dying unless the US, EU, Saudi Arabia or Israel is somehow involved. If anyone else decides to off a few thousand there is hardly a murmur from them. Why is that?

If you look at some of the anti-war websites there is hardly a cross word about the Syrian regime when there is hard evidence and verifiable video footage of tanks, artillery and helicopters being used against population centres. It's very odd.

Additional news: Iraq tells its citizens in Syria to return home.

Edited July 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[oxmox 73]

That is a military intervention happening before your very eyes, but it's "understandable" is it? lol. If those were NATO troops and ships the anti war mob and the press would be apoplectic, but it's OK if Russia does it. One thing continually perplexes me in all this. The very people that proclaim to be concerned about human rights etc. don't say a word about people dying unless the US, EU, Saudi Arabia or Israel is somehow involved. If anyone else decides to off a few thousand there is hardly a murmur from them. Why is that?

If you look at some of the anti-war websites there is hardly a cross word about the Syrian regime when there is hard evidence and verifiable video footage of tanks, artillery and helicopters being used against population centres. It's very odd.

Can you tell me your explanation of a military intervention please, because I have a different definition of it and dont see it like you think about it. The russians have a naval base here since decades and use it, of course they will protect it. Who are these "very people" and who is dying ? I dont read that much anti-war websites, cant comment here but the information is always washy as far a conflict starts, especially when foreign nations are involved. I really dont differ who is who and try to see it neutral, all of the mentioned global powers/ nations have a skeleton in ones closet.

edit: The Montreux Convention from 1936 plays probably a role aswell since the Turkey could be involved into a NATO engagement and therefore deny any naval crossing of the black see fleet. This could be a reason...just a speculation.

Edited July 18, 2012 by oxmox

[*LK1* 10]

Undoubtly like myself everyone has been watching what has been happening in Syria.

What appeared to be a small uprising now seems to be spreading with the introduction of the supply of weapons to the rebels.

Is the West and Saudi Arabia trying a defacto change of government similiar to Libya?

obviously.i would like to see chinese and russian troops (unfortunately SCO its a failure at the moment) moving on syria to defend the legit government instead to see syria becoming a "wild west" state owned by various kind of radical islamists fighting eachothers for the power, like lybia.

what we could face in some decades of years is a new radical islamic pan-arabism which it was prevented during these years by the ex-dictators of the area. this western proclaimed "arab spring", which is just an islamic revolution, has failed to reach his main goal, bringing democracy and a cultural modernization. for example in egypt the muslim brotherhood had need to be accepted by the military junta to extablish his new formed government. and thats means we have no democracy if the military junta still have the power to say "yes you can form a government" or "mmm you look to much liberal and western, youll not form a government". moreover: there was not international inspectors in egypt. in lybia the rivals tribes who "liberated" the country are still shooting eachothers on the streets.

im really interested to see what will happens in syria and how much the standard of life of the syrians will be improved when this revolution will end, in case the "liberation army" will win. which is higly probable if Assad doesnt start to play properly this geo-political chess game.

That is a military intervention happening before your very eyes, but it's "understandable" is it? lol. If those were NATO troops and ships the anti war mob and the press would be apoplectic,

probably because it would be the third time that NATO (or western nations wtihout NATO) intervent for geo-political interests in less than 10 years. and by the way its the contrare: "the press" (i would say the propaganda tools) most of the times are minimizing the error made by NATO or and western countries and at the same time they emphasize the mistake/error made by the last enemy they want to throw out from power. i can go deep in detail if you wish.

but it's OK if Russia does it. One thing continually perplexes me in all this. The very people that proclaim to be concerned about human rights etc.

plz make a favor to our intelligence stop speaking about human rights of someone else. because your government, the Allied governments of my government and your governments doesnt care to much about that stuff called "human rights". do you think that in saudi arabia they take care about human rights? of course not but they are allied of the western block. do you know that the riots reached also the state of qatar and the government its doing at the population the same shit that gaddafi did? but qatar its allied with the

western so who cares about qatar....even if its a tyranny. and what about Oman? there were riots even there, no freedom of speech ecc but they are western allied so, who cares...

this is a geo-political game and nothing else. russia and especially china were reinforcing their positions in the middle east and africa. china need an huge amount of gas and oil to keep growing. and 1 of the mayor customer of the libyan and syrian oil and gas companies were chinese and russians. maybe it's just a case (sarcasm).

don't say a word about people dying unless the russia, china, syria or gaddafi is somehow involved. If anyone else decides to off a few thousand there is hardly a murmur from them. Why is that?

fixed.

could we stay serious for a bit plz? how many documentaries, investigations do you saw in prime time on the cnn, fox news, bbc (had some respect for it...had) and more in general on any western network concerning the thousand of deliberate murders/crimes or foreign politics mistakes made by our soldiers ( or some politician) in combat and undercover operations? i dont remember many of these. i do remember seeing some Buddhist priest being punched by some chinese police officer (during the tibet riots) and i do remember many reportages about the situation in Chechnya. do you think we have a balanced media coverage between 2 main blocks? or you really think we have an unbalanced media coverage...in favor of israel, americans, and saudi arabia enemies(lol...)?

If you look at some of the anti-war websites there is hardly a cross word about the Syrian regime when there is hard evidence and verifiable video footage of tanks, artillery and helicopters being used against population centres. It's very odd.

no theres not. how can you provide an image that proof something without any doubt? you remove an AK 47 from a civilian and you have a "murder" when in reality it could be just a legitimate kill. you film an mi-17 using rockets on a building or at a certain area and the western media will say "syrian, lybian chopper attacked peacefull demonstrators" when maybe there was some insurgent there. some of you its just so naive.

the worst thing is that im seeing a third wolrd conflict becoming more probable than ever... i dont have tons of info suggesting me that but i can see a growing aggressive foreign politic against china and russia which they are already military allied. and these "arab western inspired failed springs" are the last but not the only action that will bring us right there: third world war. not mentioning the constant expansion of the NATO in the east, against any previous accord stipulated. at least i know at who i have to say thanks.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[spooky lynx 73]

The Assad apologists here and elsewhere keep telling us that foreign intervention is wrong but so far have not criticized the Russian decision to send an 11 ship naval task force and troops to Syria, with no UN backing.

Erm... Does US need to get UN permission to move its ships to Qatari base? If no, why Russia does need it for moving the ships to Tartus? There's our base there, so why do you think that moving some ships to this base is foreign intervention?;)

Oh, I suppose somebody should really visit psychologist for curing against "Evil Russkies!!!" obsession...

[batto 17]

If you look at some of the anti-war websites there is hardly a cross word about the Syrian regime when there is hard evidence and verifiable video footage of tanks, artillery and helicopters being used against population centres.

I have to reply. I don't really understand this. Why the hell are we told that Syria army is using tanks and helis against rebels like it was worse than using only soldiers? Are people really so stupid to buy it as another "bad Assad"? If you don't understand what I mean, just look what US used in last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq to catch one man and to find non-existent chemical weapons. They blow up whole street with hellfire from Apache every week to kill 2-3 alleged insurgents. They destroy whole village with JDAM if there are some insurgents hiding in one house. I haven't seen single complaint on BBC against this. Why should Syria army risk life of their soldiers when they can be more effective with helis? I'm now using only logic and I'm not on any side. Violence is bad.

[fraczek 4]

They blow up whole street with hellfire from Apache every week to kill 2-3 alleged insurgents. They destroy whole village with JDAM if there are some insurgents hiding in one house. I haven't seen single complaint on BBC against this

Not this stupid "argument" again, please ("if US can do it, so others can do it and even worse"). Also, please look up the meaning of logic. It's definitely NOT what you used it as.

And there is plenty of BBC coverage of civilian deaths and civilians killed in Afghanistan either by insurgent groups (majority of Afghans are killed by IEDs and suicide bombers) or US forces (whose death toll was steadily rising as well according to reports cited by BBC).

[PELHAM 10]

obviously.i would like to see chinese and russian troops (unfortunately SCO its a failure at the moment) moving on syria to defend the legit government instead to see syria becoming a "wild west" state owned by various kind of radical islamists fighting eachothers for the power, like lybia.

Erm ... there was a free and fair election in Libya this month where the secular parties won the majority? So your silly arguments and prophecies about the rise of Islam don't look so good now do they? As for saying it is right to impose savage hereditary dictators on people simply because you disagree with their religious views and what they might decide for themselves ... I'm lost for words at that one.

You also describe the Syrian government as "legit". It's a minority authoritarian regime that has not held any free or fair elections, it has no legitimacy at all. Not sure by what standards you attribute this to them???

Results from Libya's first elections since the overthrow of Col Gaddafi have shown gains for an alliance of parties seen as broadly secular.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18880908

Erm... Does US need to get UN permission to move its ships to Qatari base? If no, why Russia does need it for moving the ships to Tartus? There's our base there, so why do you think that moving some ships to this base is foreign intervention?;)

Oh, I suppose somebody should really visit psychologist for curing against "Evil Russkies!!!" obsession...

Do you know that this is the largest Russian naval deployment for 30 years? Do you also know that thousands of of marines are included? So it does not really compare with the odd US ship pulling into a harbour for repairs or replenishment does it? It's a completely different situation, Qatar is not in a state of civil war and is not subject to international and UN sanctions and if you compare the human rights records you will note a vast and significant difference. I have no obsession against Russians, simply pointing out the facts, if you had anything concrete against what I have to say I'm sure you would post it lol.

Edited July 19, 2012 by PELHAM

[*LK1* 10]

Not this stupid "argument" again, please ("if US can do it, so others can do it and even worse"). Also, please look up the meaning of logic. It's definitely NOT what you used it as.

i think you may have misunderstood the point of the discussion. we are not saying "since america and NATO are doing this then we can do it too, or we can do something worst". we are just pointing out the double standard.

And there is plenty of BBC coverage of civilian deaths and civilians killed in Afghanistan either by insurgent groups (majority of Afghans are killed by IEDs and suicide bombers) or US forces (whose death toll was steadily rising as well according to reports cited by BBC).

BBC is the most credible even if its changed a lot during these years, its becoming more pro-government (when its up to foreign politic) than ever. but BBC is 1, what about the rest of the western networks? theres a few tv channels who are not necessarialy pro-western ...tf1-tf2-tf3 (frenchies...they are not pro western when french is not involved) RAI 3 (italy) zdf (germany).

Erm ... there was a free and fair election in Libya this month where the secular parties won the majority? So your silly arguments and prophecies about the rise of Islam don't look so good now do they? As for saying it is right to impose savage hereditary dictators on people simply because you disagree with their religious views and what they might decide for themselves ... I'm lost for words at that one.

what we could face in some decades of years is a new radical islamic pan-arabism which it was prevented during these years by the ex-dictators of the area. this western proclaimed "arab spring", which is just an islamic revolution, has failed to reach his main goal, bringing democracy and a cultural modernization. for example in egypt the muslim brotherhood had need to be accepted by the military junta to extablish his new formed government. and thats means we have no democracy if the military junta still have the power to say "yes you can form a government" or "mmm you look to much liberal and western, youll not form a government". moreover: there was not international inspectors in egypt. in lybia the rivals tribes who "liberated" the country are still shooting eachothers on the streets.

does libya and egypt are synonyms nowadays? i spoke about the 100% fake election in egypt and the riots still going on the street in libya, not about the election on libya. so what about my arguments? do they are "silly" even after this clarification or not? :)

As for saying it is right to impose savage hereditary dictators on people simply because you disagree with their religious views and what they might decide for themselves ... I'm lost for words at that one.

i do not disagree with their reiligion, what exactly suggest you that im anti-islam? i disagre with the terms used and with the general perception of the western people about what is happening in africa and middle east. "spring" is a metaphor used to describe a positive change in the society, a cultural innovation ecc.... i dont see any spring when the radical muslims party are taking the power on growing their influence in the region.

You also describe the Syrian government as "legit". It's a minority authoritarian regime that has not held any free or fair elections, it has no legitimacy at all. Not sure by what standards you attribute this to them???

being a minority doesnt mean nothing. he governed good or bad but he was equal to any ethnic and religious group. syria is 1 of the few places in middle east and north africa (also libya was) where the ethnical and religious minority were not discriminated.

probably for you only a democratic government is "legit". for me a good government is more legit than a government whos democratic.

democracy is good but is not everything. theres many places on heart where democracy doesnt increased the standard of life of the people. libya was the most richest state in africa with the highest income per capita. now they have democracy but not bread. lets see how they will live in the next 10 years and then come back in this topic...libya could be a new "dubai" state in terms of richness. lets see where this "democracy" higly influenced by religion and by fighting tribes will bring the libyan people.

So your silly arguments and PROPHECIES about the rise of Islam don't look so good

actually its not a prophecy. in libya the radical muslims parties had a lot of votes even if they are not the first party in the country.

in egypt "the muslim brotherhood" won the fake election. and moreover the radical islamists played a primary role in the "arab spring".

am i wrong?

Edited July 19, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[batto 17]

Not this stupid "argument" again, please ("if US can do it, so others can do it and even worse"). Also, please look up the meaning of logic. It's definitely NOT what you used it as.

You don't get it. I said it's natural to use helis against "danger" to protect land crews as NATO does it now and I haven't heard that it's bad in news until now when Syria army allegedly uses it. Ant yes, I used logic, look:

According to media coverage this should hold true:

(use_helis & everythings_fine) & (use_helis & !everythings_fine)

but it's contradiction. This is true though:

!assad => (use_helis & everythings_fine)

assad => (use_helis & !everythings_fine)

[*LK1* 10]

double standard.

[spooky lynx 73]

Do you know that this is the largest Russian naval deployment for 30 years? Do you also know that thousands of of marines are included? So it does not really compare with the odd US ship pulling into a harbour for repairs or replenishment does it? It's a completely different situation, Qatar is not in a state of civil war and is not subject to international and UN sanctions and if you compare the human rights records you will note a vast and significant difference. I have no obsession against Russians, simply pointing out the facts, if you had anything concrete against what I have to say I'm sure you would post it lol.

Please quote some official Russian sources saying it's largest deployment for 30 years and thousands of marines are included. I've seen nothing about it. Also 11 ships are slightly more than average US carrier strike group, which move here and there in Persian Gulf or other seas.

As for Qatar - its officials say on public that some other foreign leaders must be executed, place a reward for it, use its armed forces for helping foreign rebels... When Iran does something similar - all free press make hysteria about horror bloody mullahs that must be vanished. When Qatar does it - just silence. Oh wait, US naval base is there, so everything is okay.

As for human rights - read about Shia rights there. And can absolute monarchy be good in civil rights by its nature? Or if it's US-friendly monarchy than it's okay when people can not elect the head of the state?

[PELHAM 10]

Please quote some official Russian sources saying it's largest deployment for 30 years and thousands of marines are included. I've seen nothing about it. Also 11 ships are slightly more than average US carrier strike group, which move here and there in Persian Gulf or other seas.

As for Qatar - its officials say on public that some other foreign leaders must be executed, place a reward for it, use its armed forces for helping foreign rebels... When Iran does something similar - all free press make hysteria about horror bloody mullahs that must be vanished. When Qatar does it - just silence. Oh wait, US naval base is there, so everything is okay.

As for human rights - read about Shia rights there. And can absolute monarchy be good in civil rights by its nature? Or if it's US-friendly monarchy than it's okay when people can not elect the head of the state?

Not been reading your own newspapers, the plans have been leaked for months?

Given the worsening crisis in Syria, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reported that the Russian army is apparently being prepared for a mission in Syria. Citing anonymous sources in the military leadership, the newspaper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the general staff to work out a plan for military operations outside Russia, including in Syria.

The units being prepared for an intervention are the 76th Division of airborne forces (an especially experienced unit of the Russian army), the 15th Army Division, as well as special forces from a brigade of the Black Sea fleet, which has a base in the Syrian port of Tartus.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/rusy-j12.shtml

11 ships is the largest deployment in 30 years, the previous largest overseas deployment was to Venezuela in 2008, they only took 5.

You are also confusing Qatar with Bahrain lol, please get your facts straight. Whilst I am not in favour of Absolute monarchies, the Qatari monarch is not using tanks, rockets and artillery to destroy entire towns to stay in power and never has done? That is the difference here, Assad is not legitimate and is using force against his own people to stay in power.

Edited July 19, 2012 by PELHAM

[*LK1* 10]

the Qatari monarch is not using tanks, rockets and artillery to destroy entire towns to stay in power and never has done?

but we should also saying that at the moment noone is suppling, training and more in general helping the qatari rebels.

That is the difference here, Assad is not legitimate and is using force against his own people to stay in power.

litterally many of the rebels in syria are not their own people, some of them are syrian some of them comes from other arab/muslim states to fight against him. do the "free liberation army" ( what a nice name) is legitimate to fight him even if 50% of them fought in libya and they are not even syrians?

do the muslims are allowed to fight everywhere to help their "brothers" around the planet? they did it in Chechnya, bosnia, kosovo, libya, syria, afghanistan, nigeria.... they really should start to watch some porn and calm down instead to travel around the globe to fight for the islamization of the world.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[ProfTournesol 956]

Russia and China, apart from obvious strategical interests, do not prefer a well known dictatorship over an unfriendly one, or over so called chaos, they do prefer dictatorship over democracy.

China fears democracy more than everything else (crushing in blood every attempt of more regional independance), and that's how Putin is elected, throwing his "better him over chaos" motto. Sadly, that's quite popular among a population who never experienced democracy, and who wrongly accuse democratization process to have destroyed the USSR empire (and somehow Russian pride), when in fact it simply collapsed by itself.

I don't say the end of Assad's regime will bring something even close to democracy, but i know that democracy is a long process usually coming out of chaos. I'm afraid the next step will simply be a major conflict in the region between Shia and Sunni islam, and there is nothing we can do about it. Maybe something good will happen from this chaos, but maybe it will cause the next worldwide major conflict.

[PELHAM 10]

but we should also saying that at the moment noone is suppling, training and more in general helping the qatari rebels.

Uhhh that's because there aren't any lol. Despite being an absolute monarchy, society in Qatar is reasonably free to do as it pleases and it has a free press, unlike Syria. The Al Jazeera television channel (founded late 1996) is widely regarded as an example of free and uncensored source of news in Arab countries and is Qatar-based. If there were problems in Qatar we would know about it.

Sorry your logic is deeply flawed, as usual.

[*LK1* 10]

the land of freedom: qatar. having a great economy, and many skyscrapers doesnt mean having a resonable level of freedom.

and we also know the seriousness of al jaazera....al jazera its just fox news of the pan-arabic movement. when they speak for example about the israeli-palestinian conflict the always take the side of the palestinians, doesnt matter how many rockets falled on israel came from the palestinian refugee camps. do you realize most of the times your logic is turning against you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HCV6elmbgI

http://www.redstate.com/ausonius/2011/02/04/the-qatar-connection-to-the-egyptian-riots-follow-the-emir/

http://blip.tv/mechristians3/wikileaks-qatar-and-aljazeera-links-to-riots-4758839

some peacfull reportage from qatar :

i do realize that the situation in qatar its not bad as in other places but not only because they some some small liberties, more than the others. but even because theres no undercover operations going there. noone has the political intention to throw up the regime. and qatar is just an example...what about bahrain? another state allied of the western block not free at all where the people is oppressed by a dictator...it might just another coincidence that another state pretty muich similar to syria its not in civil war and the arab spring did not reached them? whats the mayor difference from libya and syria. i have a suggestion.

i want to stay focus just on the middle east but, as you may remember since we already had a dicussion on these problems, theres many example prood that the western world doesnt care a fukk about HR. i can say more theres also some proof thats the western block has instaurated far-right movements quicly turned in regimes.

(south america anyome?)

here some peacefull videos from bahrain (no theres not such cruent images...you can watch it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPwcFJYGWKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKKDEPq1MlE

(have fun theres many others video in youtube)

assad its just using more cruent military operation than the tyran of bahrain only because the "liberation army" he has to fight its strangely more organized than the barhain movement....but if he react against those deligit rebels which most of them are not even syrian he will turn as a brutal dictator at the eyes of some western brainwashed guy. ,

so: again, whats the difference betweem bahrain and syria....

you are still missing the point right?

Sorry your logic is deeply flawed, as usual.

well, i dont have the ability to convince most of the people partecipating at this thread with my logic, unlike you.

is full of * when you post.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[PELHAM 10]

Not sure where all that gets you?

4 videos that don't show any problems in Qatar at all, the 1st vid is footage from Bahrain, the 2nd & 3rd show Qatari support for the Arab Spring and the 4th is footage of a fire in a shopping mall, it was just a fire nothing more, which all proves nothing?

Then because you realise you can't really prove what you said you switch the argument to Bahrain?

The Bahrain crackdown was criticised widely by all western Governments and was eventually criticised by the Bahraini Governments own commission. The government promised to introduce reforms and avoid repeating the "painful events". They acknowledged their human rights abuses and the deaths of 95 protesters. In Syria there are about 100 deaths per day, that is why everyone is more concerned about it.

This thread is about Syria so shall we get back to some rational discussion about that? I don't see where making flimsy or non-existent comparisons to other countries (with higher ratings on the democracy index than Syria) gets this debate.

well, i dont have the ability to convince most of the people partecipating at this thread with my logic,

I humbly agree 100% with you on that one.....

Edited July 19, 2012 by PELHAM