Syria

Just posting what Rand Paul has to say on the matter of sending arms to the "rebels". Thought I'd thow it in here as Rand Paul recently got his face featured on a roster of religious loons recently posted on this site. Presumably we can ignore him now because he's insane like his dad?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The people of Al Qusayr celebrate the retaking of their town by the Syrian army.
Click to expand...


comment sections in the sundry of stuff ive read about this should be distressing...

Fupi matata
Jun 6, 2013 3:15 PM
The West trying to impose an Israeli accomplice in Syria or allow it to be overrun by Israel has been thwarted.The Russia and China Iran should block should stand vigilant againsr decadent West's further machinations.BRICS should take immediate further steps to establish an economic power to obliterate Zionist loving West's economicZRPA power
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating0​
Earthtiller
Jun 6, 2013 2:31 PM
We are all grateful to the valiant SAA and the Syrian people,it is them who are facing the onslaught and are the tip of the spear holding the line against the Zionist NWO.Syria is not only fighting for its own Nation but for all of mankind.Syria and Iran must prevail.Gratulations and may the Almighty be always be with you.
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating0​
Pay Back Time
Jun 6, 2013 1:35 PM
Syria should round up the al-cia-da terror mercenaries and put them to work rebuilding what they ruined for the rest of their days.
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating7​
Paul R.
Jun 6, 2013 12:56 PM
"Might does NOT always mean Right", which the western leadership has yet to learn.Israel's existence will always depend on their willingness to live with their neighbors on equal footing, which Zionist's and their supporters totally reject. Here you have an ideological, cultural and political stand-off, that uses Religion as a basis for it's aggressive and belligerent policies towards other, mostly the Palestinian people or anyone else that disagrees. It's the old struggle of Good versus Evil, but Good will prevail.
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating6​
Native Australian
Jun 6, 2013 11:23 AM
Thumbs up to the brave Syrian army and the mighty Hizbullah. Please send the takfir bodies to israel and house of saud, They are not fit to be buried on Syrian soil.
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating18​
Daniel
Jun 6, 2013 8:28 AM
The domino dancing play that Israel with its puppet (the US) is trying to realise is starting to play tunes exciting themselves and their thug domino friends.I also agree with a previous poster, the war is far from over, and don't fool yourselves for a second that Israel and the US are accepting to lose their faces here, so it is wise to be prepared for the evil axis to wield their satanic axe in some different manner, sooner or later.God Bless all who oppose the zionists and supporters of evil deeds.
Click to Rate
Reply​
Rating18​
99[[]%]
Jun 6, 2013 8:14 AM
The wahabi's rams al-Qaeda terrorist have been set up to be murdered by Syria army, they need the Syria army to help the west complete the job they left unfinished in Iraq n Afgan, they were misled and abandoned to be murdered.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/06/06/307397/qusayrs-liberation-blow-to-israel-us/
 
Peter Hitchens on Syria.

I do not like the Syrian government. Why should I? It is not much different from most Middle Eastern nations, in that it stays in power by fear. The same is true of countries we support, such as Saudi Arabia, recently honoured with a lengthy visit by Prince Charles.

In fact Saudi Arabia is so repressive that it makes Assad’s Syria look like Switzerland. And don’t forget the places we liberated earlier – Iraq, Libya – which are now sinks of violence and chaos.

So many high ideals, so much misery and destruction. My old foe Mehdi Hasan (who understands the Muslim world better than most British journalists) rightly pointed out on Question Time on Thursday that our policy of backing the Syrian rebels is clinically mad.

These are the very same Islamists against whom – if they are on British soil – Government Ministers posture and froth, demanding that they are deported, silenced, put under surveillance and the rest.

But when we meet the same people in Syria, we want to give them advanced weapons. One of these ‘activists’, a gentleman called Abu Sakkar, recently publicly sank his teeth into the bleeding heart of a freshly slain government soldier.
Click to expand...
 
These are the very same Islamists against whom – if they are on British soil – Government Ministers posture and froth, demanding that they are deported, silenced, put under surveillance and the rest.

But when we meet the same people in Syria, we want to give them advanced weapons. One of these ‘activists’, a gentleman called Abu Sakkar, recently publicly sank his teeth into the bleeding heart of a freshly slain government soldier.

swell feller right there... he should be in charge... has met with mccain yet? johnny boy hasn't met a terrorist yet he didn't like... and he tried to give us palin so we know his "love" for america is right around the zero ish mark....
 
Prelude or bluff?
Turkey found sarin in he hands of Al Qaeda (sorry, "the rebels") but that doesn't matter - Turkey is too busy to mention that again for a while. The US has decided that Assad is the gasser and so we have a pretext that, in retribution for those 150 Syrians, the US can bomb thousands of Syrians and call it "no-fly".

Meanwhile the Islamist rebels seem to be having a big hate on for all Syrians who practice America's favoritest religion, but most Syrians just want their peaceful secular state back.
 
I wonder how quickly they can get a no-fly zone over Syria. Tomorrow would be too late as far as I'm concerned.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Meanwhile the Islamist rebels seem to be having a big hate on for all Syrians who practice America's favoritest religion, but most Syrians just want their peaceful secular state back.
Click to expand...
So do the Russians pay you well to post this shit? An entire village slaughtered and all we have are beautiful pictures of ruined buildings. At least the rebels are smart enough to post photos of actual dead people. And btw, "most Syrians" are not the Christian Syrians depicted in your RT article. Nor is Damascus all of Syria.

As for the poison gas, I don't really understand why that's a red line - death is death and there's no shortage of that in Syria. Perhaps they feel that the use of gas increases the chance that it will be lost or stolen on the battlefield and get into the wrong hands. And if it is already in the wrong hands, US involvement can help make sure it no longer is (ie. target al-Qaeda along with Assad's forces).

It seems that people keep talking about Syria as if there are two warring sides. Many US hawks like McCain talk about the Syrian rebels vs Assad, where as Assad, the Russians, Iran, Hezbollah and Fluffy talk about Assad vs al-Qaeda. But as Bill Clinton would say, there's always three sides to every story and that's certainly true in Syria. There's al-Qaeda, there's Assad and then there's everyone else who just happen to be the vast majority. That everyone else bit is the bit I'm most worried about and they don't like Assad any more than they like al-Qaeda. They're also unfortunately the weakest group of the three even though they are the largest. I see no reason why the US/NATO can't use their air power to take out not only Assad but the al-Qaeda dudes and help just the actual Syrian rebels.
 
Glaucus said:
So do the Russians pay you well to post this shit?
Click to expand...
I wish, but no, it's a matter of conscience. I will try to find more pictures of dead people if that's what you want.
As for the poison gas, I don't really understand why that's a red line -
Click to expand...
Really, you don't? It's simple. It's one of the very few weapons the US hasn't recently used on civilian populations so it's the thing that the US can claim is the evil way of killing people. Sure, they've used high explosives, bullets, barometric bombs, bunker busters, DU and WP - but not poison gas. Poison gas is "Adolf Hitler" evil (even though Adolf was adamantly against using poison gas in war - ironic considering). Saddam was not evil because he engaged in a protracted war against Iran that killed thousands at our request. He was evil because he gassed some people. Poison gas is jut where the western "evil" threshold is. Kill'em how you want but just not gas.
That is also the reason that Assad won't use gas (doesn't actually need to - has sufficient conventional forces plus poison gas is not a very useful weapon as it is unreliable and unpredictable - which is the REAL reason we don't use it). The rebels (at least the paid outsiders) have every reason to use it since they actually don't care about any of the local factions and it increases their ability to cause terror plus they can then blame Assad for the deaths caused.

There's al-Qaeda, there's Assad and then there's everyone else who just happen to be the vast majority. That everyone else bit is the bit I'm most worried about and they don't like Assad any more than they like al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...
No, quite wrong. The majority of them very much prefer (hate less) Assad over Al Qaeda - because they aren't bat shit insane.

They're also unfortunately the weakest group of the three even though they are the largest. I see no reason why the US/NATO can't use their air power to take out not only Assad but the al-Qaeda dudes and help just the actual Syrian rebels.
Click to expand...

How about it's far too much money to spend to just give the country away to the locals afterwards. There is profit to be made from freeing people. Look at history. Nations fight wars to control territory, not to hand it to the locals. Look at all the puppets the US runs. Syria won't get to chose it's own leaders if the US invades. They will get a choice of several US vetted puppets and they will be left to run a country with a constitution written by the US, just like Iraq. Do you think they are free now?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I wish, but no, it's a matter of conscience.
Click to expand...
You're giving them a freebie?

It's one of the very few weapons the US hasn't recently used on civilian populations so it's the thing that the US can claim is the evil way of killing people. Sure, they've used high explosives, bullets, barometric bombs, bunker busters, DU and WP - but not poison gas. Poison gas is "Adolf Hitler" evil (even though Adolf was adamantly against using poison gas in war - ironic considering). Saddam was not evil because he engaged in a protracted war against Iran that killed thousands at our request. He was evil because he gassed some people. Poison gas is jut where the western "evil" threshold is. Kill'em how you want but just not gas.
That is also the reason that Assad won't use gas (doesn't actually need to - has sufficient conventional forces plus poison gas is not a very useful weapon as it is unreliable and unpredictable - which is the REAL reason we don't use it). The rebels (at least the paid outsiders) have every reason to use it since they actually don't care about any of the local factions and it increases their ability to cause terror plus they can then blame Assad for the deaths caused.
Click to expand...
There's something wrong with almost every sentence in this. First of, weren't you arguing that WP is in fact a chemical weapon? Since the US has used it, are you saying that WP isn't? Who made the poison gas level of evil comparison to Hitler? That seems like your own invention. All I've heard is that it's a red line, they haven't even said why it's a red line just that it is. Iraq and Iran both used gas but Saddam is famous for using it to gas an entire town. And gas is not completely ineffective if used properly and is especially effective if used against troops that don't have the equipment to deal with the gas. Last I checked the Syrian rebels aren't equipped with head to toe suits required to protect themselves from modern chemical weapons - meaning they're an ideal target for such weapons. There's no technical or tactical reason for Assad not to use chemical weapons in this particular war because they sure as hell can be effective. There may be political ones but at the time when their use was reported the political momentum was on his side - the US and NATO seemed uninterested in intervening and the Russian S300s on order probably assured him that they won't. He may have decided to test the political waters with a bit of gas to see how things pan out and he may have decided that things didn't turn out so well (politically, there are certainly plenty of Syrian bodies to prove it worked well tactically). He might never use them again, but that's beside the point now.

Now, as for al-Qaeda dudes with gas, could they have attempted using such weapons? Sure. And yes, they'd try to blame Assad. But it's unlikely and for many reasons. First of all, they'd need to actually have them. They might, but it's doubtful, despite your posts about what happened in Turkey. The thing about Sarin gas is that it has a short shelf life, meaning, it's not the sort of thing you can just keep around for 10 years and use when needed. Syria needs to keep manufacturing it to keep it's stocks ready for war, al-Qaeda isn't likely to have such capabilities. And even if they did manufacture Sarin, it would likely be weak reducing both it's effectiveness and shelf life considerably. But, let's assume they have weapon grade Sarin gas, they'd also need the proper equipment to use it. You don't just chuck sarin gas grenades and hope for the best. You need to take all sorts of things into account including weather and terrain and of course you want to be a considerable safe distance away from your target. Any form of chemical agent requires proper clothing and respirators which are probably in short supply in Syria outside of the military. Which means, using something like Sarin gas against troops with the required equipment would be a waste of time so why bother? An al-Qaeda sarin gas attack simply doesn't make sense on the battlefield, which is where it seems to have been used. No, if al-Qaeda had sarin gas they'd probably use it in Damascus against unprotected civilians. That's where it would have the greatest effect both in terms of body count and terrorism. But that doesn't seem to have happened.

No, quite wrong. The majority of them very much prefer (hate less) Assad over Al Qaeda - because they aren't bat shit insane.
Click to expand...
That is probably correct, most Syrians probably do hate al-Qaeda more than Assad. Which is why NATO planes should be bombing the al-Qaeda guys in Syria as well.

How about it's far too much money to spend to just give the country away to the locals afterwards. There is profit to be made from freeing people. Look at history. Nations fight wars to control territory, not to hand it to the locals. Look at all the puppets the US runs. Syria won't get to chose it's own leaders if the US invades.
Click to expand...
Right, but letting the Russians and Iranians choose Syria's leaders is perfectly fine? You do remember that Assad is a dictator who inherited his power. Btw, what do you think of the Royal family in England? You don't strike me as a monarch loyalist, but it seems you support that type of power structure. Weird.

They will get a choice of several US vetted puppets and they will be left to run a country with a constitution written by the US, just like Iraq. Do you think they are free now?
Click to expand...
You defeat your own argument. First of all, Syrians have no choice at all with Assad. Second, your example of Iraq isn't a very convincing one as many now believe Iraq to have gone "rogue" as they essentially kicked out the US and have become close buddies with Iran and even support Assad in this case. If you call that a puppet, then, wow.
 
Glaucus said:
I wonder how quickly they can get a no-fly zone over Syria. Tomorrow would be too late as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


Really? You want a no fly zone?

I find myself morbidly fascinated by your (apparent) ongoing transformation.
Are you aware of it and, if so, what do you attribute it to?

I have an Uncle (the one who lives in Canada, as it happens) who always insisted that as soon as I had children I'd ditch all my wooly, liberal views and become more conservative. I never took any of that seriously but do you think becoming a father has changed your outlook?

Or were you always like this and the liberal, anti-war, non-authoritarian Mike that we thought we sort of knew was the real aberration?
 
Robert said:
Really? You want a no fly zone?
Click to expand...
For a while I hoped no intervention would be required. I just read that the US will send arms to the Syrian rebels. This will include small arms and even anti-tank weapons and maybe even some anti-aircract missiles. Overall I don't actually agree with this as although it may tip the scale back to the rebels, it will most certainly drag out the war possibly for years and many, many more will die. I hope I'm wrong about that. However, I believe that a no-fly zone would actually end the war much faster and with less bloodshed. Fluffy believes that we could end the war faster simply by allowing Assad to win, but I don't believe that to be the case. Or another way to think of it is that I don't think it'll be a lasting peace and it may destabilize the region even more. If Assad conquers the territory that doesn't mean he wins the hearts and minds of the people. He'll be hated by the Sunni majority and he knows it and he's not gonna trust the Sunni people and he's gonna have witch hunts to find rebel leaders and fighters, and so on, which will basically plant the seeds for the next uprising in Syria and this war will be fought all over again. You know, Assad's father put down uprisings back in his day too, this isn't the first time Syrians have risen up against their Alawite rulers and there isn't any reason to think this would be the last if Assad wins. This isn't about me picking one side over another because I tend to agree more with them or not. If anything, I'd probably identify with the Syrian Christians who side with Assad. But like it or not the war is on and it's been a rather bloody one at that, I don't think we can expect them to just forget about all the crimes they committed to each other and get back to being a unified nation. To me that's just crazy. The Middle East was fucked up by the colonial powers when they drew borders almost randomly without paying attention to ethnic lines. Now they have to sort it out, meaning, populations are like gonna have to relocate.

I find myself morbidly fascinated by your (apparent) ongoing transformation.
Are you aware of it and, if so, what do you attribute it to?
Click to expand...
*sigh* I always new this day would come. No, not the day of transformation, but the day when my "liberal" friends see me as a right winger. I tend to see myself more as someone in the middle of extremes. So at times I appear as a liberal bleeding heart and others as a right wing hawk. I'd say I'm neither and those who disagree are probably not reading my posts carefully enough. My view on one or two issues doesn't really define me.

I have an Uncle (the one who lives in Canada, as it happens) who always insisted that as soon as I had children I'd ditch all my wooly, liberal views and become more conservative. I never took any of that seriously but do you think becoming a father has changed your outlook?
Click to expand...
I've certainly changed my views over the years but not so much recently I don't think. Fade would always say you get more conservative with age, so it's probably wrong. ;)

Or were you always like this and the liberal, anti-war, non-authoritarian Mike that we thought we sort of knew was the real aberration?
Click to expand...
I don't see myself as authoritarian. I think what troubles you is that I see terrorism differently than just a crime. Crime is the sort of thing people not only understand but can also deal with. You can buy an alarm for your house, choose not to walk the streets at night and choose where you hang out, etc. That's no guarantee that you'll never be a victim but it's not completely out of your control either. But when targeted by terrorists there's really not much you can do. You have to go to work and you have to go buy stuff and what is a life boxing yourself up at home? So you need to expose yourself but you can't do much to protect yourself. You can only take comfort that statistically you won't get injured yourself, but like with the lottery there's always someone who will. Only the state has the means to protect us and what's the point in numbers if there's no strength in them? I think there's lots to debate about how all that should be done, but if we do talk about that we should talk about actual facts and not fallacies generated by paranoia. You know, some people are terrified of terrorists and others of authoritarian government. Both are bad and we need to deal with both - which is where the balance I talked about before comes in.
 
well... thats at least very honest... don't necessarily agree with you... but that was really honest... you cant really predict a home invasion any more than terrorism so the theory that you can "do what you can to avoid it" only holds up if you arent a living human susceptible to the same whimsical crud life hands any other bloke, but i can appreciate were you are coming from. im not willing to give up my freedoms over it tho. if bin laden had shown up at my house (he never did and i prayed a bunch by the way) the two shepherds woulda took him out. you can avoid terrorist targets (ugh now im really on the watch list) just by avoiding places they go to, right? i hear lucky larry silverstein bought the sears tower (id avoid that place)... point being... you've a greater likelihood of being f ed over by someone you know than a stranger. hell...in america you've a greater chance of being shot by a toddler and yet we aren't sending the nsa into the pre-schools and kindergartens, in uniform, just yet...

i choose to be unafraid... of anything... save dying alone i cant remember anything that ever even worried me much...a war... 14 car accidents, 2 tornadoes, a hurricane, 2 gun shots, and a stabbing (plus ive been married twice:D) ... i already know going into anything, i'm gonna live until i dont and today aint the worlds lucky day...
 
Glaucus said:
First of, weren't you arguing that WP is in fact a chemical weapon?
Click to expand...
WP is definitely a chemical weapon and so is the horrific DU. What WP is not, is a poison gas.
Since the US has used it, are you saying that WP isn't?
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that they can't really be taken seriously if they are going to call people war criminals for doing what the US does.
Who made the poison gas level of evil comparison to Hitler?
Click to expand...
That's just the current Zeitgeist. Every tinpot target for US overthrow is "Hitler" as part of the rhetorical war and the really horrible thing that Hitler did was to "gas his own people". The Nuremberg crime of starting a war is just passe (for the same reason as WP is not a winning argument). There is an army of PR professionals focus group testing these talking points and they seem to work.

All I've heard is that it's a red line, they haven't even said why it's a red line just that it is.
Click to expand...
It's a good red line for a couple of reasons. One is that it horrifies people. Another reason is that it has already been field tested and approved as a good propaganda "reason" for war. A third reason is that is relatively easy to set up. (Thank you wayback machine for saving this page).

Now let's quickly look at your gas logic.

Say that you are Assad and you are winning the war. The US has told you that sh!t will get serious if you use poison gas. What do you do? Continue winning OR ... figure you'll see what happens if you use some poison gas? You seem to subscribe to the "Assad is madman" school of thought rather than "Assad is a wily dictator"

Now the equation for the rebels is much better. Lob some gas that's been gifted you at some recalcitrant locals that don't want you around anyway and point to Assad. Downside .... none. Upside, America bombs all of Assad's troops calling it a "no-fly" zone and the rebels have a chance to win the rights to collecting the oil and gas revenues.

The UN has already concluded that it was probably the rebels that used gas.

That is probably correct, most Syrians probably do hate al-Qaeda more than Assad. Which is why NATO planes should be bombing the al-Qaeda guys in Syria as well.

You don't strike me as a monarch loyalist, but it seems you support that type of power structure. Weird.
Click to expand...

Oh, you got me. Alright then, lets destroy the UKs air defense systems and her military and navy and bomb water systems and sewage systems and phone exchanges and people in general but secure control over the banks and whatever oil and gas infrastructure that may be worth something because they have a monarch. Perfect sense.

Second, your example of Iraq isn't a very convincing one as many now believe Iraq to have gone "rogue" as they essentially kicked out the US and have become close buddies with Iran and even support Assad in this case. If you call that a puppet, then, wow.
Click to expand...
But that was not what was supposed to happen, was it? And if they can break Syria and then Iran, that little problem could get fixed.

Now if you go to my post at the top of page three of this thread, Assad has popular support. According to German intelligence most of the armed fighters are foreigners. Sweden has slammed the plan to arm the rebels but who cares what a truly humanitarian nation thinks.
 
Glaucus said:
However, I believe that a no-fly zone would actually end the war much faster and with less bloodshed.
Click to expand...
You know that "no-fly zone" is a euphemism. It doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

Only the state has the means to protect us ...
Click to expand...
Even if we hate that state. But the state can't protect you when a stronger state is funding the terrorists and is willing to back them up with it's air force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top