Livestream out of Syria

I'm talking about yours and Syrian Scholes' oddly divergent views, given that he's in Syria and you're in Tehran. ;)

So now we're using his opinions as gospel and representative of the Syrian people? Didn't seem to apply that logic when I had my 'divergent' views on Iraq ;)
 
So now we're using his opinions as gospel and representative of the Syrian people? Didn't seem to apply that logic when I had my 'divergent' views on Iraq ;)

lol. Well you weren't in Iraq at the time were you ? I've probably got a bit more time in your "home country" over the past few years than you do. :)
 
lol. Well you weren't in Iraq at the time were you ? I've probably got a bit more time in your "home country" over the past few years than you do. :)

I was in Kurdistan in 2003 actually, granted not as a turbulent but there you go. And I've visited the region biannually every year for the past decade, granted you've spent more 'permanent' time there but my trips were as a civilian and not as a non-lethal, enemy occupier :lol:
 
So moving away for a second from who we think is fighting who and who is the villain etc etc


Is Assad winning this war?

The rebels seemed to be making some great early progress, even striking in the heart of Damascus and since then, their gains seem to have been quite poor. Assad is pretty entrenched and seems to be winning back territory. Plus the groups/ countries supporting him have all been involved in wars more recently than the countries supporting the rebels, that can only help in terms of expertise.

So, is Assad actually winning?
 
So moving away for a second from who we think is fighting who and who is the villain etc etc


Is Assad winning this war?

The rebels seemed to be making some great early progress, even striking in the heart of Damascus and since then, their gains seem to have been quite poor. Assad is pretty entrenched and seems to be winning back territory. Plus the groups/ countries supporting him have all been involved in wars more recently than the countries supporting the rebels, that can only help in terms of expertise.

So, is Assad actually winning?

Some are saying that Assad has a slightly upper hand at the moment because his forces have regained a key location or two throughout the country. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as winning for either side because Assad is a minority dictator who, even if he crushes the rebels, would no longer be accepted by the majority non-Allawite population of Syria, which would suggest an indefinite insurgency involving all sorts of foreign fighters entering and leaving Syria at will. There is no way anti-Assad Syrians (ie the majority of them) would go back to minority dictatorship, probably involving all sorts of reprisals, especially after Assad has bombed the hell out of his own country and displaced millions.

Conversely, the rebels can no longer win because removing Assad would not alleviate (and probably exacerbate) the current security vacuum inside the country. The only solution would be an outside intervention backed by all UN security council members, which is also a stretch given that Russia are using Syria as a means to showcase their relevance as a global actor on the international stage.

Looks like the world will allow the slaughter to continue for the time being.
 
Some are saying that Assad has a slightly upper hand at the moment because his forces have regained a key location or two throughout the country. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as winning for either side because Assad is a minority dictator who, even if he crushes the rebels, would no longer be accepted by the majority non-Allawite population of Syria, which would suggest an indefinite insurgency involving all sorts of foreign fighters entering and leaving Syria at will. There is no way anti-Assad Syrians (ie the majority of them) would go back to minority dictatorship, probably involving all sorts of reprisals, especially after Assad has bombed the hell out of his own country and displaced millions.

Conversely, the rebels can no longer win because removing Assad would not alleviate (and probably exacerbate) the current security vacuum inside the country. The only solution would be an outside intervention backed by all UN security council members, which is also a stretch given that Russia are using Syria as a means to showcase their relevance as a global actor on the international stage.

Looks like the world will allow the slaughter to continue for the time being.

Why? It worked for Saddam in Iraq after 1991, after the world led by the US let Saddam commit all kind of crimes against his own people..
 
I see Hezbollah are doing their bit for the cause - putting in big numbers and taking casualties.

They've helped Syrian forces take back the key strategic town of Qusair. The ride of the war is definitely shifting in favour of loyalist forces, of course the rebels aren't doing their image a favour when it comes to burning down Islamic shrines, churches and filming their commanders eating enemy organs.
 
Some are saying that Assad has a slightly upper hand at the moment because his forces have regained a key location or two throughout the country. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as winning for either side because Assad is a minority dictator who, even if he crushes the rebels, would no longer be accepted by the majority non-Allawite population of Syria, which would suggest an indefinite insurgency involving all sorts of foreign fighters entering and leaving Syria at will. There is no way anti-Assad Syrians (ie the majority of them) would go back to minority dictatorship, probably involving all sorts of reprisals, especially after Assad has bombed the hell out of his own country and displaced millions.

Conversely, the rebels can no longer win because removing Assad would not alleviate (and probably exacerbate) the current security vacuum inside the country. The only solution would be an outside intervention backed by all UN security council members, which is also a stretch given that Russia are using Syria as a means to showcase their relevance as a global actor on the international stage.

Looks like the world will allow the slaughter to continue for the time being.

That's rich.
 
Why? It worked for Saddam in Iraq after 1991, after the world led by the US let Saddam commit all kind of crimes against his own people..

We're in a new era now. What worked decades ago won't work in today's age where people are increasingly less tolerant of dictators. As for Saddam, leaving him in power after the first war was a massive mistake in retrospect.
 
They've helped Syrian forces take back the key strategic town of Qusair. The ride of the war is definitely shifting in favour of loyalist forces, of course the rebels aren't doing their image a favour when it comes to burning down Islamic shrines, churches and filming their commanders eating enemy organs.

I'm more than happy to let you down and tell you that Al-Qusair is still controlled by the rebels and more than 20 from Huzb-allah are dying everyday. :-)
 
We're in a new era now. What worked decades ago won't work in today's age where people are increasingly less tolerant of dictators.

People don't "change" in 20 years.. It has nothing to do with the people themselves but rather with the countries that are behind these "revolutions". We all saw what happened in Bahrain in 2012.
 
By the way, I'm surprised nobody mentioned this in this thread...

(CNN) -- ...

Carla Del Ponte, the veteran war crimes prosecutor and a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, made this claim on a Swiss-Italian TV station.
Del Ponte explained, "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Great! Red line crossed! Let's bomb Assad!

Del Ponte added, "This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities."

:rolleyes: Oops.

The U.N. commission later pedaled back from Del Ponte's statement, saying that it "has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

:lol:

Source: CNN
 
One of my bestfriends die yesterday because of the chemichal weapons used on damascus suburbs yesterday, what a sad sad day! he was one of the best people I've ever known he is also 20.
 
People don't "change" in 20 years.. It has nothing to do with the people themselves but rather with the countries that are behind these "revolutions". We all saw what happened in Bahrain in 2012.

In fact they do. The world is a completely different place in the social media, Internet age than what it was at the end of the Cold War. Global norms are emerging, values are changing, new countries are becoming powerful, as a non state actors.
 
By the way, I'm surprised nobody mentioned this in this thread...



Great! Red line crossed! Let's bomb Assad!



:rolleyes: Oops.



:lol:

Source: CNN

It sounded like BS when she first said it, and the UN's subsequent reaction distancing themselves from one of their own employees basically proved that it was.
 
In fact they do. The world is a completely different place in the social media, Internet age than what it was at the end of the Cold War. Global norms are emerging, values are changing, new countries are becoming powerful, as a non state actors.

Why don't you talk straight and say Al-Qaeda fighters?

If you take take Al-Qaeda and the support by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey out of Syria, the "revolution" won't last a few months (even now). Even with the "internet and the social media".
 
It sounded like BS when she first said it, and the UN's subsequent reaction distancing themselves from one of their own employees basically proved that it was.

Oh really?? Was that going to be the case too if she was accusing Assad? What evidence did you have to accuse her of talking bullshit?

:wenger:
 
Oh really?? Was that going to be the case too if she was accusing Assad? What evidence did you have to accuse her of talking bullshit?

:wenger:

Probably not given that Syria actually had them in its weapons arsenal before all this began.
 
Why don't you talk straight and say Al-Qaeda fighters?

If you take take Al-Qaeda and the support by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey out of Syria, the "revolution" won't last a few months (even now). Even with the "internet and the social media".

Then you'd simply be left with a majority of Syrians wanting to get rid of a minority dictator.

And non state actors doesn't refer to just terror groups, it refers to a general diffusion of power from states to non state actors over the past 20 years....things like the emergence of global norms and international organizations etc.
 
Then you'd simply be left with a majority of Syrians wanting to get rid of a minority dictator.

And non state actors doesn't refer to just terror groups, it refers to a general diffusion of power from states to non state actors over the past 20 years....things like the emergence of global norms and international organizations etc.

How would you know?? :confused:

Did you conduct some poll I'm not aware of? I'm pretty sure most Syrians would rather Assad rule them than this:

_67594446_sakkar.png
 
Probably not given that Syria actually had them in its weapons arsenal before all this began.

Oh really?! How about "considering al-Qaeda groups also possess chemical weapons and actually do have a history of using them before, unlike Assad, and considering they even did seize control over big territories in Syria that may have contained some of the chemical weapons Assad has"??

Your logic reminds me of a recent event related to WMDs (well not very recent, about 10 years ago), but I can't remember what it was..
 
How would you know?? :confused:

Did you conduct some poll I'm not aware of? I'm pretty sure most Syrians would rather Assad rule them than this:

_67594446_sakkar.png

If that were the case they wouldn't have started this conflict to rise up and remove him would they ? Assad is a minority dictator and the majority don't have a voice in their own governance, which is why this entire mess started in the first place.
 
Oh really?! How about "considering al-Qaeda groups also possess chemical weapons and actually do have a history of using them before, unlike Assad, and considering they even did seize control over big territories in Syria that may have contained some of the chemical weapons Assad has"??

Your logic reminds me of a recent event related to WMDs (well not very recent, about 10 years ago), but I can't remember what it was..

There's no evidence of that - and if there is then you should point me in the right direction, as i'm sure everyone here would like to read about it. Otherwise, let's stick to what's being reported in the press, which is that there's mounting evidence that Assad's forces who actually have chemical weapons, are behind their use inside Syria. I suppose if Assad is happy to bomb his own Damascus suburbs from the air, then using chemical weapons wouldn't be much of a stretch would it.
 
If that were the case they wouldn't have started this conflict to rise up and remove him would they ? Assad is a minority dictator and the majority don't have a voice in their own governance, which is why this entire mess started in the first place.

Again, logical fault. Even if you counted all the people who took part in the protests, you won't even get close to one tenth the majority. So protests don't necessarily mean "majority".

There were also many protests against the new leader in Egypt, so?! Protests doesn't mean majority, until you do a poll and see the results.

This is one. Second, What's happening now is different even from what was happening 2 years ago. What's happening now is military groups supported by other countries trying to topple the regime to take his place. On top of those groups, is a sub-group of Al-Qaeda.

Assad was actually ready to talk to the opposition and discuss many reforms right from the start (and kept that position till now). The people of Syria weren't asked about his offer. It was the military groups that decided that they rejected any sort of talks, and went militarily for his head.. Who is imposing his will on the people now?

Till the moment. The opposition don't want to talk (although now they might actually have to, because they have been suffering heavy defeats in the last couple of months), because what they want (and what the countries pushing them want) is not the good for the Syrian people, but to serve their own interests, be it topple Assad, or seize power in Syria.
 
There's no evidence of that - and if there is then you should point me in the right direction, as i'm sure everyone here would like to read about it. Otherwise, let's stick to what's being reported

Al Qaeda's track record with chemical weapons

The most effective Syrian opposition group is widely considered to be al-Nusra Front. The U.S. State Department says that al-Nusra Front is simply a cover name for al Qaeda in Iraq, which has long operated in Iraq and neighboring Syria.

It is a worrisome fact that al Qaeda in Iraq is the only al Qaeda franchise ever to have actually used chemical weapons.
Al Qaeda in Iraq detonated a series of crude chlorine bombs in Iraq from late 2006 through mid-2007.

A study by the New America Foundation found a total of 16 chlorine gas bombings in Iraq, the last of which was in June 2007.

On October 21, 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq launched this campaign of chlorine bomb attacks by detonating a car loaded with mortars and chlorine tanks in Ramadi, wounding three Iraqi police officers and a civilian.
Such attacks sickened many hundreds of Iraqis, but the victims who died in these assaults did so from the blast of the bombs rather than from inhaling chlorine.

U.S. and Iraqi troops successfully killed or captured many of the people in al Qaeda in Iraq who were building the chlorine-laced bombs and captured much of the group's stockpiled chlorine.

Charles Faddis, who headed the CIA's operations against al Qaeda in Iraq's chlorine bomb network, told me in 2010: "There was a lot of effort to secure the chlorine, to get a hold of the tanks, to track these guys down (who were responsible for building the chlorine bombs), to kill them or capture them. Meanwhile, the attacks are not being particularly successful. The people are dying in the blast, but fortunately nobody is dying from chlorine."

There is no evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq stopped its campaign of chlorine bombing because of any qualms about the use of such weapons.
Chlorine gas was used by both sides during World War I but was banned by the Geneva Protocol, along with the use of other poison gases, after the end of the war.

The use of such weapons has been a matter of some debate within the leadership of al Qaeda.

In documents found by the U.S. Navy SEALs who raided Osama bin Laden's compound two years ago in Abbottabad, Pakistan, there was a letter written by bin Laden five days before he was killed in which he urged his followers in Yemen who were considering using "poison" to be "careful of doing it without enough study of all aspects, including political and media reaction."

As we consider the conflicting reports of the use of chemical weapons that have emerged from Syria over the past weeks, it is worth recalling that the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria has in the past used crude chemical weapons on multiple occasions in neighboring Iraq.

Also al Qaeda's leaders such as bin Laden have pushed back on the use of such weapons only insofar as their use might damage the image of al Qaeda in the eyes of the Muslim public, not because of international norms that the use of these weapons is beyond the pale.

It's not my fault that you only read what you want to read.

Source
 
Again, logical fault. Even if you counted all the people who took part in the protests, you won't even get close to one tenth the majority. So protests don't necessarily mean "majority".

The protests were crushed from the beginning which is why you didn't see the masses that you saw in Egypt 2/3 years ago, but the sentiment was the same nevertheless, and the images of protests would have been identical if the government hadn't immediately crushed them, which in turn fueled further outrage, first among Syrians, then spilling over into outside groups coming in. Thus, maybe you will want to consider the flaws of your own rather half-thought out logic.


Assad was actually ready to talk to the opposition and discuss many reforms right from the start (and kept that position till now). The people of Syria weren't asked about his offer. It was the military groups that decided that they rejected any sort of talks, and went militarily for his head.. Who is imposing his will on the people now?

Till the moment. The opposition don't want to talk (although now they might actually have to, because they have been suffering heavy defeats in the last couple of months), because what they want (and what the countries pushing them want) is not the good for the Syrian people, but to serve their own interests, be it topple Assad, or seize power in Syria.

Too late for talking I'm afraid. You can't murder tens of thousands of your own people, then attempt to save face by asking if they want to sit down and have pleasant discussions. We're well beyond that point now. It will be impossible for Syria to go on with minority dictatorship when his cultish sect only comprises 12% of the population, and especially after he squandered any chances at reforming and liberalizing over the years in favor of continued repression, which is what fueled the protests in the first place, much like as in every other middle eastern country over the past coulpe of years.
 
This is 20 years-old Ammar, he was in my school and we had the same classes everyday, we used to run away from school together, we had lots of good and fun times, may his soul rest in peace.
306959_342640335865669_1783112728_n.jpg
 
Uk actively supporting terrorists now with arms.

Terrorists, really?

Everyone has the right to take up arms against an oppressive dictatorship once peaceful avenues have been exhausted. The Free Syrian Army has to comply with international law if it is to have any legitimacy, and it has made a pledged to do that. Of course there will be individuals and groups fighting under it who break from FSA orders who engage in what we might call terrorism, but as long as the FSA can ensure that they are reasonably confident that weapons supplied to them will be used legitimately, then you can't seriously accuse the UK and France of supporting terrorists...at least not directly.
 
Don't be, easily more than 95% of the Sunni population in Syria wants him out.

Why did you dodge the other part of my statement? You know, the commander in the group you think is the best among the opposition?

Let's say you have to make a choice between him and Assad, one of them, which one will you choose? The point I'm making here is, even if you wanted Assad out at the start (as a Syrian citizen), that doesn't necessarily mean that you still want him out now after you saw the alternatives (may not apply to you, but it applies to many other Sunni Syrians).

Second, the Sunni Arabs constitute 61% of the people in Syria (The Kurds position in this fight has been unclear, and the opposition even accused them of making under the table deals with Assad). So even 95% brings us close to 55%.. I'd rather have a poll to be sure, because you can hardly take a result out of this for granted.

Now can you give me an estimation of how much of the population actually support Al-Nusra Front? (I have to remind you here about what you said earlier about them being the best out there).