Rebels/terrorists at it again
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rebels/terrorists at it again
Spoiler your images and YouTube clips from now on.
Deleted 20801
Guest
Kaos
Full Member
Unsurprisingly, the report is unconfirmed, and even more unsurprisingly - this story is going on the FSA 'claim' that the army was responsible.
Unsurprisingly, the report is unconfirmed, and even more unsurprisingly - this story is going on the FSA 'claim' that the army was responsible.
Its hard to get reliable information out of Syria given Assad's crackdown. At this point, the most accurate reports are probably going to come from activists and the few western journalists who manage to sneak in.
VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,603
Western journalists who sneak in with the help of the terrorists would hardly be neutral.
Western journalists who sneak in with the help of the terrorists would hardly be neutral.
Western journalists who come from democratic systems generally provide more information than the likes of Russian and Iranian propaganda outlets. Only someone who fears the truth would generally have a problem with journalists reporting the news inside Syria.
VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,603
Western journalists who come from democratic systems generally provide more information than the likes of Russian and Iranian propaganda outlets. Only someone who fears the truth would generally have a problem with journalists reporting the news inside Syria.
Democratic system has nothing to do with "neutral" reporting. What were Western journalists from democratic systems doing when iraqi wmd's were being peddled on mainstream channels ?
Btw russia is also a democracy but yes they have a russian bias just like western journalists have a western bias. Whats interesting is that articles from western democratic journalists are strikingly simililar to articles from journalists coming from monarchy and dictatorial countries.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,444
Vidared, how would you like the western goverments to respond to the conflict in Syria?
VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,603
Vidared, how would you like the western goverments to respond to the conflict in Syria?
What i'll suggest goes against western geopolitical interests. All of this is about "interests" of outside parties and not about freedom and democracy. Syria is not a stand alone issue, its connected to the larger scheme of things in the middle east.
Do you for one second believe that the saudis are funding the rebels/terrorists to bring freedom and democracy to syria ? Ideally the west should cut off all ties with the wahabi saudis. They are the single biggest source of islamic extremism around the world. They spend billions around the world to teach a twisted and extremist form of islam. A regime that has separate roads for muslims and non-muslims should not be an ally of the west if the west really believes in the ideals of democracy. Btw before the wahabis even non-muslims could visit mecca.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,444
I completely agree with you about Saudi Arabia
So how should the west respond to the conflict in Syria? Apart from cutting ties with Saudi Arabia.
So how should the west respond to the conflict in Syria? Apart from cutting ties with Saudi Arabia.
VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,603
I completely agree with you about Saudi Arabia
So how should the west respond to the conflict in Syria? Apart from cutting ties with Saudi Arabia.
The west shouldn't interfere directly or indirectly.
Now even if assad wins he will have to do reforms, he cant go back to how it was earlier.
But if the terrorists win then you will have a country that would be consumed by islamic extremism and they will also get hold of chemical weapons. Need i remind you that israel is just next door!
Democratic system has nothing to do with "neutral" reporting. What were Western journalists from democratic systems doing when iraqi wmd's were being peddled on mainstream channels ?
Btw russia is also a democracy but yes they have a russian bias just like western journalists have a western bias. Whats interesting is that articles from western democratic journalists are strikingly simililar to articles from journalists coming from monarchy and dictatorial countries.
Russia may technically be considered a democracy, but it lags behind in media freedoms due to Putin's authoritarian drift. Russian journalists who are critical of powerful Kremlin figures typically don't do too well, so your argument here is a bit flaccid. In Syria, the best information is coming out of activists and western trained journalists who generally report the news with levels of transparency that doesn't exist in authoritarian leaning states. Basically, the media situation in Syria is a near replica of what happened in Libya.
The west shouldn't interfere directly or indirectly.
Now even if assad wins he will have to do reforms, he cant go back to how it was earlier.
But if the terrorists win then you will have a country that would be consumed by islamic extremism and they will also get hold of chemical weapons. Need i remind you that israel is just next door!
Assad can't win. He has to go, and once you get your head around that you can begin to see the reality of what is about to happen.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,444
Assad can't win. He has to go, and once you get your head around that you can begin to see the reality of what is about to happen.
This is it really. It might take a long time and it will be a bloody conflict, but the situation as escalated too far to go back to status quo.
Kaos
Full Member
Assad can't win. He has to go, and once you get your head around that you can begin to see the reality of what is about to happen.
The reality is already pretty crystal for all of us to see - terrorists are murdering minorities and want to set up an Islamic Caliphate. The US, Britain, France and their regional Arab allies are arming/funding Wahabi terrorists not to promote democracy in Syria, but to isolate their regional nemesis Iran.
Assad leaving won't stop the carnage - heck I'd argue it'd only exacerbate things with the likely consequence being that Alawites, Christians and regime sympathises get massacred in the thousands. The ideal solution would be to implement a ceasefire, but considering that the rebels have refused to do this (encouraged by the US and gulf arab states), then the next best solution is for the army to cleanse Syria of Wahabi terrorists and to restore order.
This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, its religious fundamentalists vs secularists with external parties getting involve to satisfy their own regional agendas.
Red Dreams
Full Member
The UN is the only reasonable solution. But Assad rejected that. He is directly responsible for what is happeneing and the carnage that is being predicted.
And Russia and China have blood on their hands too.
And Russia and China have blood on their hands too.
Kaos
Full Member
The UN is the only reasonable solution. But Assad rejected that. He is directly responsible for what is happeneing and the carnage that is being predicted.
And Russia and China have blood on their hands too.
Assad didn't reject the UN, he accepted the Kofi Annan plan but it was difficult to maintain considering how the rebels broke ceasefire every 5 minutes.
And the Yanks and Arabs have just as much, if not more blood on their hands considering their support for the Islamsits who have committed despicable acts on ordinary Syrians. Russia and China are looking out for an ally (the same way the US and Gulf Arabs look out for their despotic allies Bahrain and Yemen), whereas the opposing parties are backing Islamic militants with frightening doctrines.
The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
Terrorists and Wahhabi influence is a convenience excuse used by the Assad regime, and others who want to bash the Saudi's and the West. The Syrian supporters and it's regime have learnt well the war marketing strategies of the last decade.
I'm not entirely ruling out certain foreign elements getting involved. However, it's not just Saudi helping out financially, or a few crossing over the borders to help, they are no different to Iran helping their co-religionists in Syria.
Basically the Sunni Muslims have been empowered by the Arab spring and this has caused a civil war and an internal struggle against a regime where the majority Sunni Muslims (80%?) have been deprived by a minority for over 40 years by it's security apparatus which are in the hands of the Alawis, a religious minority to which Assad belongs. Sunnis in Libya resent the fact that power is monopolised by a handful of Alawis. Just as the Shias resent their lot in certain other Gulf states.
I'm not entirely ruling out certain foreign elements getting involved. However, it's not just Saudi helping out financially, or a few crossing over the borders to help, they are no different to Iran helping their co-religionists in Syria.
Basically the Sunni Muslims have been empowered by the Arab spring and this has caused a civil war and an internal struggle against a regime where the majority Sunni Muslims (80%?) have been deprived by a minority for over 40 years by it's security apparatus which are in the hands of the Alawis, a religious minority to which Assad belongs. Sunnis in Libya resent the fact that power is monopolised by a handful of Alawis. Just as the Shias resent their lot in certain other Gulf states.
The reality is already pretty crystal for all of us to see - terrorists are murdering minorities and want to set up an Islamic Caliphate. The US, Britain, France and their regional Arab allies are arming/funding Wahabi terrorists not to promote democracy in Syria, but to isolate their regional nemesis Iran.
Assad leaving won't stop the carnage - heck I'd argue it'd only exacerbate things with the likely consequence being that Alawites, Christians and regime sympathises get massacred in the thousands. The ideal solution would be to implement a ceasefire, but considering that the rebels have refused to do this (encouraged by the US and gulf arab states), then the next best solution is for the army to cleanse Syria of Wahabi terrorists and to restore order.
This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, its religious fundamentalists vs secularists with external parties getting involve to satisfy their own regional agendas.
You sound like a parrot from within the Assad regime.
The ceasefire should come after Assad leaves and the UN goes in to create a security corridor. The hatred he has generated after having murdered much of his own population effectively guarantees that minority Alawite dictatorship is not in Syria's future.
Terrorists and Wahhabi influence is a convenience excuse used by the Assad regime, and others who want to bash the Saudi's and the West. The Syrian supporters and it's regime have learnt well the war marketing strategies of the last decade.
I'm not entirely ruling out certain foreign elements getting involved. However, it's not just Saudi helping out financially, or a few crossing over the borders to help, they are no different to Iran helping their co-religionists in Syria.
Basically the Sunni Muslims have been empowered by the Arab spring and this has caused a civil war and an internal struggle against a regime where the majority Sunni Muslims (80%?) have been deprived by a minority for over 40 years by it's security apparatus which are in the hands of the Alawis, a religious minority to which Assad belongs. Sunnis in Libya resent the fact that power is monopolised by a handful of Alawis. Just as the Shias resent their lot in certain other Gulf states.
Good post Sults. Beyond the sectarian angle, I think that people generally want more rights and freedoms in their day to day lives and all of these wars are just a means to cleanse the system of old school dictatorships. Whether some like it or not,the middle east, and more broadly the international system is in the midst of a 10-20 year period in which many undemocratic nations will move towards Democratic systems.
Kaos
Full Member
Good post Sults. Beyond the sectarian angle, I think that people generally want more rights and freedoms in their day to day lives and all of these wars are just a means to cleanse the system of old school dictatorships. Whether some like it or not,the middle east, and more broadly the international system is in the midst of a 10-20 year period in which many undemocratic nations will move towards Democratic systems.
Would you wheel out that same rhetoric towards your Saudi, Yemeni and Bahraini dictator friends? Or are they given the moral green light to oppress, torture and rule by the fist?
Also, Assad leaving wasn't a term in the Annan peace plan. It was a very simple proposal - both sides maintain a ceasefire, the rebels couldn't do this and hence doomed it to failure.
Would you wheel out that same rhetoric towards your Saudi, Yemeni and Bahraini dictator friends? Or are they given the moral green light to oppress, torture and rule by the fist?
Also, Assad leaving wasn't a term in the Annan peace plan. It was a very simple proposal - both sides maintain a ceasefire, the rebels couldn't do this and hence doomed it to failure.
Unlike you, I'm not sectarian and would wish protesters in those countries the best of luck if they aspired to have more democratic systems.
Kaos
Full Member
Unlike you, I'm not sectarian and would wish protesters in those countries the best of luck if they aspired to have more democratic systems.
There's nothing sectarian about opposing the implementation of theocratic doctrines in an already secular society, nor is there anything sectarian about objecting to the oppression of minorities. In fact, I'd argue those values are the very anti-thesis of sectarianism. The only ones turning this conflict into a sectarian one are the FSA and those who chose to malevolently back them.
And its nice to see you show an impartial loyalty to all those who universally chose to pursue democracy, but unfortunately your sentiments aren't echoed by your government or the gulf Arab states, as evident by their behind-the-scenes implementation of token and obsolete constitutional changes in order to keep their autocratic mates in power (you know, the anti-Iranian ones, 'our bastards' etc).
There's nothing sectarian about opposing the implementation of theocratic doctrines in an already secular society, nor is there anything sectarian about objecting to the oppression of minorities. In fact, I'd argue those values are the very anti-thesis of sectarianism. The only ones turning this conflict into a sectarian one are the FSA and those who chose to malevolently back them.
And its nice to see you show an impartial loyalty to all those who universally chose to pursue democracy, but unfortunately your sentiments aren't echoed by your government or the gulf Arab states, as evident by their behind-the-scenes implementation of token and obsolete constitutional changes in order to keep their autocratic mates in power (you know, the anti-Iranian ones, 'our bastards' etc).
Who cares what they think. Its the right thing to do and all of these countries will be fully Democratic sooner rather than later, and those countries that come to grips with it will find it easier to do business with them once it happens. The likes of Russia and China will be the big losers in that game.
Red Dreams
Full Member
Where Syria is now..the entire bloodbath is 100% the fault of Assad. Both he and his father who come from a minority ethnic group in Syria dominated that country all these decades and fecked the majority. Welcome to payback.
Why are we surprised that people want revenge.
Why are we surprised that people want revenge.
Kaos
Full Member
Who cares what they think. Its the right thing to do and all of these countries will be fully Democratic sooner rather than later, and those countries that come to grips with it will find it easier to do business with them once it happens. The likes of Russia and China will be the big losers in that game.
Just like Iraq eh? The democracy project has worked wonders there turning back the country decades. Sure business and diplomacy has improved between it and the US and Gulf Arab states, but its just a shame that they're now an infinitely corrupt theocracy, plagued with sectarian war and an unprecedented 40% poverty rate.
Kaos
Full Member
Where Syria is now..the entire bloodbath is 100% the fault of Assad. Both he and his father who come from a minority ethnic group in Syria dominated that country all these decades and fecked the majority. Welcome to payback.
Why are we surprised that people want revenge.
No it isn't. Assad isn't the one who decided this would be a sectarian conflict, nor was he the one who ordered the massacres of Alawites, Shias and Christians. I'm pretty sure he didn't get in bed with Al Qaeda either.
Red Dreams
Full Member
No it isn't. Assad isn't the one who decided this would be a sectarian conflict, nor was he the one who ordered the massacres of Alawites, Shias and Christians. I'm pretty sure he didn't get in bed with Al Qaeda either.
You are stating the current situation. The Assad dynasty brought on this conflict with their refusal to be just to a majority in their own country.
Both father and son had so many opportunities.
You reap what you sow. I'm not supporting the atrocities the rebels are committing. It is teh reality though. Just as in Libya.
This is what happens when we do not have a proper democracy.
Just like Iraq eh? The democracy project has worked wonders there turning back the country decades. Sure business and diplomacy has improved between it and the US and Gulf Arab states, but its just a shame that they're now an infinitely corrupt theocracy, plagued with sectarian war and an unprecedented 40% poverty rate.
Whether countries get invaded and turned into democracies or whether it happens organically from within, the point is that its happening, and those who continue to clutch at "secular" dictators are going to wind up with the short end of the stick once its all said and done. Iraq will soon be one of the more powerful actors in the middle east.
No it isn't. Assad isn't the one who decided this would be a sectarian conflict, nor was he the one who ordered the massacres of Alawites, Shias and Christians. I'm pretty sure he didn't get in bed with Al Qaeda either.
He's a dictator who has murdered thousands to undemocratically stay in power.
Kaos
Full Member
Whether countries get invaded and turned into democracies or whether it happens organically from within, the point is that its happening, and those who continue to clutch at "secular" dictators are going to wind up with the short end of the stick once its all said and done. Iraq will soon be one of the more powerful actors in the middle east.
A secular, organic transition to democracy should be the right of all nations, even Syria. But unfortunately that's not whats currently happening in Syria, what we instead have is a sectarian civil war with no end in sight. The pro-democracy reform movement in Syria is dead, and Al-Qaeda's integration into the rebellion has acted as the death knell for it.
To call Iraq an emerging actor in the middle east is laughable, the only thing its achieved is superficially acting as a democracy on the outside.
Kaos
Full Member
You are stating the current situation. The Assad dynasty brought on this conflict with their refusal to be just to a majority in their own country.
Both father and son had so many opportunities.
You reap what you sow. I'm not supporting the atrocities the rebels are committing. It is teh reality though. Just as in Libya.
This is what happens when we do not have a proper democracy.
The democracy story doesn't add up, again see Iraq if you want to see the results you get when prematurely forcing a democratic transition upon a ethnically diverse nation. Syria is no different in that respect.
As for the minority holding power, see the elephant in the room Bahrain. Same story but no one seems to care.
A secular, organic transition to democracy should be the right of all nations, even Syria. But unfortunately that's not whats currently happening in Syria, what we instead have is a sectarian civil war with no end in sight. The pro-democracy reform movement in Syria is dead, and Al-Qaeda's integration into the rebellion has acted as the death knell for it.
To call Iraq an emerging actor in the middle east is laughable, the only thing its achieved is superficially acting as a democracy on the outside.
Actually what we're witnessing is Syria turning into a Democracy, organically. The destruction is largely a result of your favorite dictator attempting to murder his way into remaining in power against the will of a majority of Syrians. Lose the sectarian obsession and you'll see things a bit more clearly.
Kaos
Full Member
Actually what we're witnessing is Syria turning into a Democracy, organically. The destruction is largely a result of your favorite dictator attempting to murder his way into remaining in power against the will of a majority of Syrians. Lose the sectarian obsession and you'll see things a bit more clearly.
Really? Because those who represent the military wing of the rebellion don't seem to be of the democratic persuasion. Unless you believe in that Caliphate nonsense.
I don't understand the sectarian label either, I come from a family of secular atheists.
Really? Because those who represent the military wing of the rebellion don't seem to be of the democratic persuasion. Unless you believe in that Caliphate nonsense.
I don't understand the sectarian label either, I come from a family of secular atheists.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, the extreme factions of the Syrian resistance sprung up as a result of Assad attempting to kill his way into staying in power. The early days of the uprising were similar to the other Arab spring movements - people marching for more rights and freedoms. It wasn't until Assad tried to cynically stall by feigning reforms, all the while unleashing his sectarian militias and using heavy artillery on civilian neighborhoods, that things began to get ugly and made way for more nefarious factions to get involved. Had he stepped aside as every illegitimate dictator should do, this never would've gotten as far as it has.
Don't Kill Bill
Full Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 5,790
If they do nothing then they are ignoring oppression.
If they intervene in a revolution then they are backing one side and are responsible for all the wrong done by that side.
If they support a govt then they are responsible for all the wrong done by the govt they keep in power.
So whatever happens anywhere in the world you can blame the west/USA for it.
It gets a bit silly.
If they intervene in a revolution then they are backing one side and are responsible for all the wrong done by that side.
If they support a govt then they are responsible for all the wrong done by the govt they keep in power.
So whatever happens anywhere in the world you can blame the west/USA for it.
It gets a bit silly.
If they do nothing then they are ignoring oppression.
If they intervene in a revolution then they are backing one side and are responsible for all the wrong done by that side.
If they support a govt then they are responsible for all the wrong done by the govt they keep in power.
So whatever happens anywhere in the world you can blame the west/USA for it.
It gets a bit silly.
Good point.
Kaos
Full Member
As has been discussed ad nauseum, the extreme factions of the Syrian resistance sprung up as a result of Assad attempting to kill his way into staying in power. The early days of the uprising were similar to the other Arab spring movements - people marching for more rights and freedoms. It wasn't until Assad tried to cynically stall by feigning reforms, all the while unleashing his sectarian militias and using heavy artillery on civilian neighborhoods, that things began to get ugly and made way for more nefarious factions to get involved. Had he stepped aside as every illegitimate dictator should do, this never would've gotten as far as it has.
I was a keen supporter of the early Syrian reform movement, but you're wrong in claiming that the extremists had joined the show late on. They'd been involved in the insurgency from the very beginning. The artillery he used wasn't fired on civilian neighbourhoods for dissent, they were the army retaliating in tic-for-tac skirmishes with the rebels.
You're also forgetting he boasts the support of millions of Syrians - particularly those in major cities such as Damascus and Aleppo. He shouldn't step down just because the laughable Arab League demand he do so.
Kaos
Full Member
If they do nothing then they are ignoring oppression.
Well no, since its an internal matter that doesn't concern them.
If they intervene in a revolution then they are backing one side and are responsible for all the wrong done by that side.
I see nothing wrong with this sentiment. You arm extremists then you essentially have the blood of their victims on your hands.
If they support a govt then they are responsible for all the wrong done by the govt they keep in power.
The issue here is hypocrisy - support certain despotic governments, while condemning others. All based on how they interpret you diplomatically and who their mates are.
So whatever happens anywhere in the world you can blame the west/USA for it.
Well they're not the only ones to blame here, I'd say the gulf Arab states are the most guilty culprits.
Share: