Syria - What should we do if anything?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Apparently they came down somewhere along the coast, WTF is going on there?

UAVs ROFL?

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[bangtail 0]

Apparently they came down somewhere along the coast, WTF is going on there?

An Israeli 'missile defense' test apparently, why am I not surprised.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20130903/183138071/Mediterranean-Ballistic-Targets-Were-Part-of-Israeli-Test--Defense-Ministry.html

Edited September 3, 2013 by BangTail

[Rovka 14]

Another potential Casus Belli in progress..

[ProfTournesol 956]

Another potential Casus Belli in progress..

Well nope, Israel is a major target of Syria and Iran, they show they are able to defend themselves.

[Rovka 14]

Hmn, on one side I'm glad it's not something worse, but it was a risky operation given the circumstances as a whole that those missiles were fired today..

[spooky lynx 73]

Firing towards the coast when your nearby neighbour waits for the missile strike? How wise...*facepalm* Good that Syrians were clever enough not to react on this 'test'.

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah could have guessed that only the israelis would be stupid enough to fire missiles in such a way without any prior announcement....

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Firing towards the coast when your nearby neighbour waits for the missile strike? How wise...*facepalm* Good that Syrians were clever enough not to react on this 'test'.

What makes you think this happened anywhere near the coast of Syria? The intercept would occur in the Eastern Mediterranean probably between Cypress and Egypt at high altitiude or in space. The Black Sparrow target missile would have been air launched somewhere between Malta and Crete from an F-15 with an outgoing Arrow 3 interceptor from a launch tube on land in Israel. I doubt the Syrians were even aware of it till informed by the Russians. Arrow 3 missile tests have happened for many years with no prior announcement.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[spooky lynx 73]

What makes you think this happened anywhere near the coast of Syria?

As itwaswritten in news articles the direction of missile fly was from the center to the eastern coast. Which is formed by Israeli, Lebanon and Syrian territory.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

As itwaswritten in news articles the direction of missile fly was from the center to the eastern coast. Which is formed by Israeli, Lebanon and Syrian territory.

Ahhh so you assumed.....if you look at previous Arrow 3 tests you would realise what's written in the news isn't really accurate.

[Brain 12]

"When in doubt, blame Israel" - guess it's the most common strategy if you have no arguments or no real reasoning. Well, just blame Israel (for everything). Don't see anything wrong with these tests.

[scrim 1]

My suggestion is to put culprits like George W. Bush on par with bandits like the late Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia) for example. Both were presidents of a legal nation' date=' but waged genocide abroad! (the former in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.)[/quote']

That is nothing less than a demonstration of proper stupidity. Do you even know what a genocide is? Exactly how is Bush guilty of genocide? Just give me a single thing he did that is defined as genocide, please.

[Dwarden 1124]

well ... we can call supporting Dictators as responsibility for genocide they do ...

even with only last 50 or 30 years timeout it would make like 75% of governments world wide as guilty

the problem of todays world is that because usually dictators sits on something valuable,

everyone plays blind and deaf as long as they get what they want (Kerry on dinner with Assad in Syria)

also don't get me started who gave Saddam theirs chemica weapons (used e.g. Iraq-Iran war and against Kurds)

[Rovka 14]

As top-dog being commander in chief of the US forces, Bush jr. and his henchmen had created two wars abroad on foreign soil, most notably Afghanistan which even the Soviets couldn't tame or beat through their brutal 9 years of occupation of said country, one would think America had learned a valuable lesson from the debacle that was Vietnam. But apparently not, the policy makers with Bush put into the limelight decided they'd go bomb the crap out of Afghanistan, instantly thinking themselves being victorious over a at the time seen as sub-cultural Multi-ethnic groups collectively known as the Afghans. Iraq nearly the same story, again they'd go in for the kill this time effecitvely toppling Saddams iron grip, but again starting a sectarian war, heck even supporting elemental factions of it. So first the UN approved sanctions, to which America as bossy as their policiymakers tend to be should have vetoed sanctions against Iraq that only target the civilian populations, killing children in their thousands. That's cooperation to indirectly causing genocide. Putting troops in harms way in a war one cannot win is also genocide, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan just like what Vietnam was, having the Americans at a strength sizable for an military invasion force, but still the minority in a country abroad;

Thus genocide on a local ethnic minority through direct action to wage two wars, causing indirect damage to own troops through insurgency, like Afghans having Stinger AA weapons killing many, and lifelong disabling many more and regarding civilian deaths as mere collateral damage remember?. That on itself is also a warcrime, because both A'stan and Iraq like Vietnam were initiated solely on published lies for feeding the masses the war effort to distract them from problems at home. Like the many unemployed citizens inside the US, starving underpaid immigrant Mexicans for another, not caring for the sick and homeless, increasing state debt by the billions.. Those are all crimes against humanity my friend, atleast to my book they are. Anything else to say?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

well ... we can call supporting Dictators as responsibility for genocide they do ...

even with only last 50 or 30 years timeout it would make like 75% of governments world wide as guilty

the problem of todays world is that because usually dictators sits on something valuable,

everyone plays blind and deaf as long as they get what they want (Kerry on dinner with Assad in Syria)

also don't get me started who gave Saddam theirs chemica weapons (used e.g. Iraq-Iran war and against Kurds)

Nicely stated there!

So it's true the USA is after their phosphates and sheep? Can't be their oil, they don't have enough for themselves:

Syria’s oil reserves are being gradually depleted and reached 2.5 billion barrels in January 2009. Experts generally agree that Syria will become a net importer of petroleum by the end of the next decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria

Kerry was there for Middle East peace talks, is there something worng with that? In February 2009 Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss finding a way forward for peace in the region. You are criticising an attempt at diplomacy?

Who gave Saddam Chemical weapons? Spain, China and Egypt? As for chemicals and industrial equipment, which are dual use so they didn't necessarily know the end use, it's nearly every other industrial nation on the planet.

Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gases. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_development_1960s_-_1980s

Anything else to say?

You need to condense that nonsense down a little, see Dwarden's as a good example. If it's hard to read people will just ignore what you write and not respond.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Dwarden 1124]

ironically the whole Afghanistan problem would not happen

if USA instead of supporting government by Taliban,

focused on supportin the Northern Coalition (also known as United Front against Taliban)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud#United_Front_against_the_Taliban

btw. ASM was reformed islamist, modern thinking, who supported election and education of woman and secular state

he was hero of war for independence (actually one who rightfully deserved the saint warrior mark)

no wonder Taliban assasinated him ... he was the only local threat

the reason why some USA 'corporation consultant' decided it's more lucrative support Taliban is baffling to me

it reminds me on similar mistake, where USA overthrown democratic Iran government instead of making them own ally

the echoes of such mistakes are seen still dozens years later ...

so in the end we have two theocracies one in Saudi Arabia and one in Iran, both radical

sometime i wonder if USA is manufacturing theirs enemies on purpose but laterly it backfiring more and more ...

btw MT, you missed the weapons given by France and USA (both chemical and biological agents) and UK and may others ...

the list is really lon

Edited September 3, 2013 by Dwarden

[Rovka 14]

@Mattar, yeah I got a little bit carried away there, sorry for that lads. Anyways to sum things up, things clearly are not what they're presented to be. There's always an underlying motive, hidden from common citizens their viewpoint, who as result of that are fed propaganda being half truths and half lies spinned to an extend that it always suits the local government best. And government surpress people at home and abroad, through peace and war. So saying another government is bad is hypocricy to the fullest.

Yes someone used gas in an attempt to discredit either the FSA or Assad's forces, or perhaps both, and try to prolong the war for favorable gains, even on personal terms like enriching themselves of war profits. But veterans and civilians always pay the price for their foolish believes that their governments knows best when to activily wage war, where and where not. Basically I'm saying to let this be handled by the Syrians themselves. Give refugees shelter for the duration of the war, and then repatriate them homewards when the war has ended.

We do not need another internationalized proxy war between Iran/Russia and US/France with Syria inbetween. But geopolitics oftend tend to be the most vile and distant type of politics waged on a global level, and it seems like they're playing cards to decide which nation falls next. Question begged to be asked here, Why the Middle East? Why are all those people casually thrown into massive unrests and wars? Who or what had been working behind the scenes here to gain from that? There's always an answer, but this one isn't that clear to be seen.

All I know for one that Islamic banks do not charge interests, or atleast at way lower levels then Western capitalists world banks do. Basically put why Islam is made into a scapegoat is because of their non-compliance to our stranglehold international banking scandal.

The more backward a country turns out to be, the more likely either sanctions are raised hitting the local population with shortages of basic nessecities, and further isolating them all the more, whilst on the other hand criminal now extremists run societies like post-war Libya for example had quite alot of modern ethics for women, and free hospitalization for another, primary schools were state funded out of oil revenues income.. So basically those dictatorship run countries now falling apart where socialist by nature, albeit limiting as opposed to Western democratic values that we all know. Or are led to believe to know. For are we truly free? No neither are we, for a small group is dictating the rest, and we call it government.

And governments have a monopoly position on dealing out violence to protect the greater good of society incase of being attacked by a foreign power.. So you can guess what Assad is rightfully going to do when he's gonna be bombarded, he'll deal out violence because of it. To whom that remains to be seen, but perhaps he goes for the throat of the nearest enemy he knows he can destabilize getting back to his opposing factions and striking them a blow instead of directly getting at the US, which I deem unlikely.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

ironically the whole Afghanistan problem would not happen

if USA instead of supporting government by Taliban,

focused on supportin the Northern Coalition (also known as United Front against Taliban)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud#United_Front_against_the_Taliban

btw. ASM was reformed islamist, modern thinking, who supported election and education of woman and secular state

he was hero of war for independence (actually one who rightfully deserved the saint warrior mark)

no wonder Taliban assasinated him ... he was the only local threat

the reason why some USA 'corporation consultant' decided it's more lucrative support Taliban is baffling to me

it reminds me on similar mistake, where USA overthrown democratic Iran government instead of making them own ally

the echoes of such mistakes are seen still dozens years later ...

so in the end we have two theocracies one in Saudi Arabia and one in Iran, both radical

sometime i wonder if USA is manufacturing theirs enemies on purpose but laterly it backfiring more and more ...

That was a 3 year agenda by a single diplomat while the US President and the Secretary of State's attention was focused on the former Yugoslavia during it's breakup. Robin Raphel was dismissed because of her wrong headed policy and her career never recovered. Extrapolating that isolated error into some sort of larger conspiracy theory is classical behaviour around here isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Raphel

RE the Iran thing, what happened in 1979 is not a direct result of 1953. You are ignoring the influence of other players.....e.g. the US embassy was stormed because the Russians transmitted a radio broadcast telling everyone in Tehran that secret poice files were held in the embassy basement, untrue, but a neat trick.

btw MT, you missed the weapons given by France and USA (both chemical and biological agents) and UK and may others ...

the list is really lon

I listed the nations who gave delivery systems, the rest wittingly or unwittingly gave chemicals that have dual uses. The small samples of bacteria were part of an international medical study, extrapolation again.....

While nearly the whole industrialised world gave something.....

The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[spooky lynx 73]

Kerry was there for Middle East peace talks, is there something worng with that? In February 2009 Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss finding a way forward for peace in the region. You are criticising an attempt at diplomacy?

In February 2009 Assad had been the same 'bloody dictator' as now. Now he is named guilty in all deadly sins and, as they say, must be toppled no matter of anything. Where's the difference? Why now US govt wants nothing but to crush Assad's regime and 4 years ago had an easy talk with him? Assad hadn't been changed. US DoS had been cured from blindness? How they could afford a talk with such a culprit and why the can not have the same peace talks instead of arming the jihadists and threaten Syria with war? Why there's no diplomacy now but only support of one side of the conflict and threats to another? Assad lost the title of 'our SOB'?

[scrim 1]

As top-dog being commander in chief of the US forces' date=' Bush jr. and his henchmen had created two wars abroad on foreign soil, most notably Afghanistan which even the Soviets couldn't tame or beat through their brutal 9 years of occupation of said country, one would think America had learned a valuable lesson from the debacle that was Vietnam. But apparently not, the policy makers with Bush put into the limelight decided they'd go bomb the crap out of Afghanistan, instantly thinking themselves being victorious over a at the time seen as sub-cultural Multi-ethnic groups collectively known as the Afghans. Iraq nearly the same story, again they'd go in for the kill this time effecitvely toppling Saddams iron grip, but again starting a sectarian war, heck even supporting elemental factions of it. So first the UN approved sanctions, to which America as bossy as their policiymakers tend to be should have vetoed sanctions against Iraq that only target the civilian populations, killing children in their thousands. That's cooperation to indirectly causing genocide. Putting troops in harms way in a war one cannot win is also genocide, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan just like what Vietnam was, having the Americans at a strength sizable for an military invasion force, but still the minority in a country abroad;

Thus genocide on a local ethnic minority through direct action to wage two wars, causing indirect damage to own troops through insurgency, like Afghans having Stinger AA weapons killing many, and lifelong disabling many more and regarding civilian deaths as mere collateral damage remember?. That on itself is also a warcrime, because both A'stan and Iraq like Vietnam were initiated solely on published lies for feeding the masses the war effort to distract them from problems at home. Like the many unemployed citizens inside the US, starving underpaid immigrant Mexicans for another, not caring for the sick and homeless, increasing state debt by the billions.. Those are all crimes against humanity my friend, atleast to my book they are. Anything else to say?[/quote']

And the ridiculous arguments keep on coming.

Bush can hardly be blamed for Afghanistan, I recall the Talibans forcing making a war inevitable by harboring al Qeada there. The Stingers BS just goes to prove how little you actually know about what you're saying; The shelf life of a Stinger, properly maintained, is not nearly long enough to make it usable in 2001 if it was one of those sent during the Afghan-Soviet war. And if anything, Vietnam would teach them valuable lessons about what to do in the next counterinsurgency, which it did. Remember what they say about the victor fighting the last war?

Eh, no. Sanctions against Iraq isn't genocide, are you legitimately insane? Neither is having troops on the ground because they create a danger for civilians isn't genocide either. How on Earth could anyone, anywhere be stupid enough to believe something like that?

And no, Iraq was hardly a war they couldn't win, since they sort of did. Both the conventional war, and the following insurgency. I'd also like for you to point out which ethnic group they supported in the sectarian war?

Yeah right, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were solely meant as distractions from poverty at home. That makes perfect sense until you do something as drastic as take a look at what the wars costs. For the money they cost, poverty could pretty much have been taken care of completely back home. Just having a single soldier deployed for a year ends up costing the government a million dollars.

And how does it become the Americans' responsibility to veto sanctions against Iraq, even if they actually had only targeted the civilian population? IIRC there's 4 other permanent members of the UN Security Council who are all able to veto whatever they damn well please, in addition to the non-permanent members.

Dwarden: Don't quite know where you've been for the latest 12 years, but that's exactly what the Americans did in Afghanistan. They had a minimal ground presence that was there mostly to direct the air-power paving the way for the Northern Alliance to run the Talibans out of the country. But as we all know, Karzai (of the Northern Alliance) didn't really turn out to be as democratic as one could have hoped.

Edited September 3, 2013 by scrim

[spooky lynx 73]

Yeah right, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were solely meant as distractions from poverty at home. That makes perfect sense until you do something as drastic as take a look at what the wars costs. For the money they cost, poverty could pretty much have been taken care of completely back home. Just having a single soldier deployed for a year ends up costing the government a million dollars.

1) New weapon and gear research and production => scientifical R&D etc.

2) New recruitments to armed force, more people are employed both in army and affiliated structures, military and civil.

3) Defence contracts for US companies in both A-stan and Iraq.

4) Other contracts for US companies and security agencies.

5) ...and war reports, films etc., taking their huge part of attention.

War was always way to solve domestic problems. Even one of the Russian Empire's officials said once "We need a little victorious war" as he answered on how internal problems causing revolts can be solved.

[Dwarden 1124]

@scrim , you do realize that originally USA supported for years Taliban and ignored theirs abuse of civil and human rights ?

the 'swift' change of mind came too late ...

Karzai is nothing compared to ASM ... in fact he is weak enough to not be respected even by some Afghani warlords ...

[Rovka 14]

Yeah Scrim, you want to know the truth don't you? Well I'm overly social trying hard to adapt to society's norms, where I have extra trouble doing that and other basic daily needs that need to be fulfilled. To some a mere task, for me a burden. I'm diagnosed with MCDD, PDD-NOS, and Asperger's syndrome. Does that automatically make me look that bad simply because I do not fit in to the norm of not being a perfect healthy human being? Remember excluding people from society can lead to extremists views being developed based on such events. But keep on pressing the buttons of others around you, and go ahead and feel superior all you want. It says a lot more about you, then that is says about me. I have the responsibility to speak my mind, if it helps others to perhaps slightly alter their own views on what is going on in the world through means of interacting with one another. Without dialogue wars are quickly started, and all the longer to last.. But openly questioning my sanity is somewhat of a mild insult on my book. So my apologies of I had unintentionally hurt your feelings backthere, so I'm sorry. Happy now?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

@scrim , you do realize that originally USA supported for years Taliban and ignored theirs abuse of civil and human rights ?

the 'swift' change of mind came too late ...

Karzai is nothing compared to ASM ... in fact he is weak enough to not be respected even by some Afghani warlords ...

Are you going to back up that with some proof? It's well known that more Pakistanis than Afghans faught in the Taliban ranks - all the doing of the Pakistani Government. The Taliban were supported as a strategic measure in case of future conflict with India. In 1994 the Taliban numbered a few hundred, by 1997 Robin Raphel was out of office and the attitude had changed. Al-Qaeda were already present in Yemen and Somalia by 1992, accusing the USA of bringing 9/11 on themselves because they ignored Pakistan's activities is rather ridiculous. If conditions were not suitable in Afghanistan OBL would have simply based himself elsewhere. 9/11 could have been planned anywhere in the world. Also can we get back on topic, this is the What to do about Syria thread, derailing it with a skewed tabloid history really isn't productive....

Taliban - Role of the Pakistani military

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994.[15][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth.[38][69][70][71] Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support.[16][72][73][74]

According to Pakistani Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the Taliban.[75] Peter Tomsen stated that up until 9/11 Pakistani military and ISI officers along with thousands of regular Pakistani armed forces personnel had been involved in the fighting in Afghanistan.[76]

In 2001 alone, according to several international sources, 28,000-30,000 Pakistani nationals, 14,000-15,000 Afghan Taliban and 2,000-3,000 Al Qaeda militants were fighting against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan as a roughly 45,000 strong military force.[22][23][77][78] Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf – then as Chief of Army Staff – was responsible for sending thousands of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden against the forces of Ahmad Shah Massoud.[23][59][79] Of the estimated 28,000 Pakistani nationals fighting in Afghanistan, 8,000 were militants recruited in madrassas filling regular Taliban ranks.[22] A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20–40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani."[59] The document further states that the parents of those Pakistani nationals "know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."[59] According to the U.S. State Department report and reports by Human Rights Watch, the other Pakistani nationals fighting in Afghanistan were regular Pakistani soldiers especially from the Frontier Corps but also from the army providing direct combat support.[18][59]

Human Rights Watch wrote in 2000:

Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support.[18]

On August 1, 1997 the Taliban launched an attack on Sheberghan the main military base of Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum has said the reason the attack was successful was due to 1500 Pakistani commandos taking part and that the Pakistani air force also gave support.[80]

In 1998, Iran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb Mazar-i-Sharif in support of Taliban forces and directly accused Pakistani troops for "war crimes at Bamiyan". [81] The same year Russia said, Pakistan was responsible for the "military expansion" of the Taliban in northern Afghanistan by sending large numbers of Pakistani troops some of whom had subsequently been taken as prisoners by the anti-Taliban United Front.[82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[scrim 1]

Spook: Nah. For starters, much of that R&D would've taken place either way, and some funds could've gone to other things. The recruitment is costing the government, and far from many people are actually employed due to the wars, as opposed to during WW2. The fact is that the amount of Americans with any military service ever, most before the wars started remains at below 1%, and the amount of people employed in factories isn't much either. Defense contracts to a few companies that employ very few Americans doesn't help much either. And no, movies and what-not doesn't help. And you're missing one extremely large difference between Tzar Russia and the US: Tzar Russia had actual flipping slaves, widespread extreme poverty, etc. The US has not been close to those levels for over a century.

Dwarden: Except they didn't support the Talibans. Ever. So, yeah...

Thani '82: I don't really care to be frank. You may think you have a responsibility to speak your mind, but so do others, especially when you start touting Nazi-ish nonsense about euthanising people with mental problems for what you perceive to be the greater good of society, and go on about absolute nonsense about genocide.

When anyone starts speaking in favour of actually killing a group in society who've done nothing wrong for what someone claims is a good cause seriously, it's reached the point where insanity is the best that can be hoped for, because the only other would be pure and simple evil. Don't fool yourself into thinking that any diagnosis on Earth can make me feel bad about reacting to such things. Not reacting to such things is to become complicit in paving the way for another Holocaust. What makes you look bad isn't any number of diagnoses, but your pandering to the belief that society can be cleansed by killing "corrupting" parts of it. That is exactly what the Nazis did, and as such, no man or woman on this planet should not react relatively strongly.

And for you personally: With those diagnoses, you have two options if you decide to argue about things, especially on the Internet: Either you make people aware of them beforehand, so they can keep it in mind, or you simply keep schtum about it and face the music. To say nothing about it and then bringing it up when faced with opposition is almost akin to using it as a tool in the argument.

Edited September 3, 2013 by scrim