Livestream out of Syria

Its an interesting point that no one seems to be addressing. Where is all the outrage over what's happening to Syrians ?
Because the West plan to picture it as a mere "revolution against a dictator" has been busted? And because what we have been saying all along will happen did actually happen? (Luckily for the area probably before Assad's fall)

I still remember vividly the times when people were questioning (and denying) the role of Al-Qaeda's branches in the "Syrian revolution"... Turned out I wasn't just being "paranoid".
 
Because the West plan to picture it as a mere "revolution against a dictator" has been busted? And because what we have been saying all along will happen did actually happen? (Luckily for the area probably before Assad's fall)

I still remember vividly the times when people were questioning (and denying) the role of Al-Qaeda's branches in the "Syrian revolution"... Turned out I wasn't just being "paranoid".

Probably because the Al-Qaeda stuff happened after native Syrians began rising up for greater rights, which Assad brutally crushed. Thus, everything subsequent to that is his responsibility.
 
Probably because the Al-Qaeda stuff happened after native Syrians began rising up for greater rights, which Assad brutally crushed. Thus, everything subsequent to that is his responsibility.
No, the one responsible is the one who is funding Al-Qaeda, supplying them with weapons, and sending them in tens of thousands to Syria to topple a regime that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Israel don't like.

What's happening is pretty clear. Hiding behind the "dictator/uprising" excuses doesn't really carry much weight anymore. Syria is just another Afghanistan, where the US (and its allies) want to fight an enemy (Assad) with the hands of the extremists (after supplying them with money and weapons), calling them "freedom fighters" and then "peace makers" in the process, until the job is done and then say "Oops, we didn't know that will happen", 10 years later..

Fool me once...

And by the way, Al-Qaeda was involved since the beginning. Remember the carbombs that were exploding and some were saying "Assad was doing that to claim there is Al-Qaeda involvement"? It just became harder to keep it a secret with each day passing and with Assad showing more and more resistance.
 
No, the one responsible is the one who is funding Al-Qaeda, supplying them with weapons, and sending them in tens of thousands to Syria to topple a regime that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Israel don't like.

What's happening is pretty clear. Hiding behind the "dictator/uprising" excuses doesn't really carry much weight anymore. Syria is just another Afghanistan, where the US (and its allies) want to fight an enemy (Assad) with the hands of the extremists (after supplying them with money and weapons), calling them "freedom fighters" and then "peace makers" in the process, until the job is done and then say "Oops, we didn't know that will happen", 10 years later..

Fool me once...

And by the way, Al-Qaeda was involved since the beginning. Remember the carbombs that were exploding and some were saying "Assad was doing that to claim there is Al-Qaeda involvement"? It just became harder to keep it a secret with each day passing and with Assad showing more and more resistance.

All Assad's fault for being a minority dictator in a majority Sunni nation. Had he reformed earlier and given people their rights, none of the subsequent social or political upheaval would've taken place.
 
Because the West plan to picture it as a mere "revolution against a dictator" has been busted? And because what we have been saying all along will happen did actually happen? (Luckily for the area probably before Assad's fall)

I still remember vividly the times when people were questioning (and denying) the role of Al-Qaeda's branches in the "Syrian revolution"... Turned out I wasn't just being "paranoid".

No, you were viewing news stories from both sides and making up your mind on the matter whilst the rest were being fed propaganda and didn't know better and still dont.
 
All Assad's fault for being a minority dictator in a majority Sunni nation. Had he reformed earlier and given people their rights, none of the subsequent social or political upheaval would've taken place.

He should have made reforms years ago, as did his father decades before him, but to blame him for Saudi-funded terrorists escalating this into a sectarian bloodbath is a little obtuse and lazy don't you think.
 
Probably because the Al-Qaeda stuff happened after native Syrians began rising up for greater rights, which Assad brutally crushed. Thus, everything subsequent to that is his responsibility.


Let's not forget that Russia re-armed and Iran bankrolled Assad. Otherwise he would already have been removed.
 
He should have made reforms years ago, as did his father decades before him, but to blame him for Saudi-funded terrorists escalating this into a sectarian bloodbath is a little obtuse and lazy don't you think.

Not blaming him for Saudi actions at all. But he missed the boat years ago on improving conditions for Syrians. Rather than make proper Democratic reforms, he elected to sweep the people's aspirations under the carpet and remain an old school dictator, and is now paying a heavy price for it.
 
The rebels and Al Qaeda terrorists would have been defeated a lot earlier had the Yanks, Saudis and Qataris not been funding them.

The rebels, nor Al-Qaeda wouldn't even exist in Syria had Assad made appropriate reforms years ago. They are merely a reaction to the poverty of his dictatorial governance.
 
The rebels, nor Al-Qaeda wouldn't even exist in Syria had Assad made appropriate reforms years ago. They are merely a reaction to the poverty of his dictatorial governance.

as far as the middle east is concerned, Syrians had it good. You have to realise that democracy is not for everyone. Most Syrians i speak to, Sunnis included, like Assad and reckon they're better off under his leadership than the alternative. But America knows best. If it wasn't for Western backing this "rebellion" would have been over by now.
 
as far as the middle east is concerned, Syrians had it good. You have to realise that democracy is not for everyone. Most Syrians i speak to, Sunnis included, like Assad and reckon they're better off under his leadership than the alternative. But America knows best. If it wasn't for Western backing this "rebellion" would have been over by now.

I'm sure Syrians had it better than how they might have it under Al-Qaeda rule, but the situation would never have escalated to where foreign forces became involved had Assad simply made the appropriate changes in governance years ago, or at a minimum heeded the calls of the original group of Syrians who started protesting following the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. All of this happened before ISIS, Nusrah, et al were relevant in the discussion, and could've been mitigated early on.
 
I'm sure Syrians had it better than how they might have it under Al-Qaeda rule, but the situation would never have escalated to where foreign forces became involved had Assad simply made the appropriate changes in governance years ago, or at a minimum heeded the calls of the original group of Syrians who started protesting following the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. All of this happened before ISIS, Nusrah, et al were relevant in the discussion, and could've been mitigated early on.

The Syrian protests were nothing near of the scale seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Assad enjoyed majority support and the minority who protested had their movement hijacked by jihadists backed by the United States and Gulf Arab states which had exacerbated it into a sectarian civil war. Yet despite the support of the latter, the jihadist insurgency has more or less been dealt with, hence we're seeing many of them flock over the border into Iraq where its easier prey.
 
I'm sure Syrians had it better than how they might have it under Al-Qaeda rule, but the situation would never have escalated to where foreign forces became involved had Assad simply made the appropriate changes in governance years ago, or at a minimum heeded the calls of the original group of Syrians who started protesting following the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. All of this happened before ISIS, Nusrah, et al were relevant in the discussion, and could've been mitigated early on.
Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon for that matter) are major targets for Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda has always been involved in those countries regardless of how the government deals with the political situation there. Maliki didn't crush any protests and Iraq is one of the most democratic countries in the region. Same picture, same result.

By the way, how did Al-Sisi deal with the protests against the government? What's the difference there?

b4cdcd86-4b26-40e5-9181-b95323dececd_16x9_600x338.jpg
 
The Syrian protests were nothing near of the scale seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Assad enjoyed majority support and the minority who protested had their movement hijacked by jihadists backed by the United States and Gulf Arab states which had exacerbated it into a sectarian civil war. Yet despite the support of the latter, the jihadist insurgency has more or less been dealt with, hence we're seeing many of them flock over the border into Iraq where its easier prey.

"Majority support" in a totalitarian dictatorship is basically meaningless. We all know what happened when a few people started demanding their rights in Dar'a, and subsequently with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.
 
No, the one responsible is the one who is funding Al-Qaeda, supplying them with weapons, and sending them in tens of thousands to Syria to topple a regime that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Israel don't like.

What's happening is pretty clear. Hiding behind the "dictator/uprising" excuses doesn't really carry much weight anymore. Syria is just another Afghanistan, where the US (and its allies) want to fight an enemy (Assad) with the hands of the extremists (after supplying them with money and weapons), calling them "freedom fighters" and then "peace makers" in the process, until the job is done and then say "Oops, we didn't know that will happen", 10 years later..

Fool me once...

And by the way, Al-Qaeda was involved since the beginning. Remember the carbombs that were exploding and some were saying "Assad was doing that to claim there is Al-Qaeda involvement"? It just became harder to keep it a secret with each day passing and with Assad showing more and more resistance.

Spot on.
 
"Majority support" in a totalitarian dictatorship is basically meaningless. We all know what happened when a few people started demanding their rights in Dar'a, and subsequently with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.

Now we don't, you're absorbing interpretations you want to hear as gospel. You're accusing me of being inconsistent in the Israel thread, though if you showed the slightest bit of contempt as to what's happening in Bahrain for example, or towards the more despotic theocracies the Gulf then your stance would come across as more sincere. If Assad was a US scrooge like Al-Sisi or almost all the Gulf Arab states, then you'd hail him as a secularist champion and a bulwark against terrorism.
 
Now we don't, you're absorbing interpretations you want to hear as gospel. You're accusing me of being inconsistent in the Israel thread, though if you showed the slightest bit of contempt as to what's happening in Bahrain for example, or towards the more despotic theocracies the Gulf then your stance would come across as more sincere. If Assad was a US scrooge like Al-Sisi or almost all the Gulf Arab states, then you'd hail him as a secularist champion and a bulwark against terrorism.

If what is happening in Bahrain was even remotely near the scale of what's happening in Syria, I'm sure it would get more attention. Unlike you, I don't discriminate on these things based on sectarian flavors.
 
If what is happening in Bahrain was even remotely near the scale of what's happening in Syria, I'm sure it would get more attention. Unlike you, I don't discriminate on these things based on sectarian flavors.
The percentage of people who protested in Bahrain was far more than it was in Syria, it's not even close (it might help if you checked the facts before talking). The military escalation in Syria was only because of Al-Qaeda's involvement. Are you suggesting that the Bahrainis should seek the help of a terrorist organization so they can "get more attention"? Are their rights less important because they rejected the idea of using terrorist tactics to ask for their rights?

Unlike you, we don't discriminate on these things based on the US and Israel's relations with the rulers.
 
The percentage of people who protested in Bahrain was far more than it was in Syria, it's not even close (it might help if you checked the facts before talking). The military escalation in Syria was only because of Al-Qaeda's involvement. Are you suggesting that the Bahrainis should seek the help of a terrorist organization so they can "draw some attention"? Are their rights less important because they rejected the idea of using terrorist tactics to ask for their rights?

Unlike you, we don't discriminate on these things based on the US and Israel's relations with the rulers.

I don't though. If there's a legitimate grievance by a particular people it should be heard - that's my view on these things.
 
If what is happening in Bahrain was even remotely near the scale of what's happening in Syria, I'm sure it would get more attention. Unlike you, I don't discriminate on these things based on sectarian flavors.

Thats because the Bahraini forces (rueld by a minority dictator btw, who unlike Assad does NOT enjoy popular support) with the help of the Saudi military violently put down the Bahraini protests, the protesters had no chance. On the other hand, almost every Arab state along with the US and Turkey had poured weapons and funding into these jihadist rebels, thereby violently exacerbating the situation. I'm a secularist, I don't discriminate on 'sectarian flavours', otherwise I'd ignore the Palestinian plight considering they're Sunni Arabs who've sided with the FSA in the past.
 
Thats because the Bahraini forces (rueld by a minority dictator btw, who unlike Assad does NOT enjoy popular support) with the help of the Saudi military violently put down the Bahraini protests, the protesters had no chance. On the other hand, almost every Arab state along with the US and Turkey had poured weapons and funding into these jihadist rebels, thereby violently exacerbating the situation. I'm a secularist, I don't discriminate on 'sectarian flavours', otherwise I'd ignore the Palestinian plight considering they're Sunni Arabs who've sided with the FSA in the past.

As I said, if the Bahraini Royals are oppressing their people then they need to either implement reforms or face being overthrown. All of the regimes in the area are going to face a similar fate sooner or later if they don't modernize their dictatorial ways .
 
The Syrian protests were nothing near of the scale seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Assad enjoyed majority support and the minority who protested had their movement hijacked by jihadists backed by the United States and Gulf Arab states which had exacerbated it into a sectarian civil war. Yet despite the support of the latter, the jihadist insurgency has more or less been dealt with, hence we're seeing many of them flock over the border into Iraq where its easier prey.

I'm sure Syrians had it better than how they might have it under Al-Qaeda rule, but the situation would never have escalated to where foreign forces became involved had Assad simply made the appropriate changes in governance years ago, or at a minimum heeded the calls of the original group of Syrians who started protesting following the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. All of this happened before ISIS, Nusrah, et al were relevant in the discussion, and could've been mitigated early on.

Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon for that matter) are major targets for Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda has always been involved in those countries regardless of how the government deals with the political situation there. Maliki didn't crush any protests and Iraq is one of the most democratic countries in the region. Same picture, same result.

By the way, how did Al-Sisi deal with the protests against the government? What's the difference there?

b4cdcd86-4b26-40e5-9181-b95323dececd_16x9_600x338.jpg

This. Not to mention the protests (that are still going on) in Bahrain that we hear nothing about. I also love how Saudi fecking Arabia want democracy for the people in Syria when they don't even let their women vote...
 
as far as the middle east is concerned, Syrians had it good. You have to realise that democracy is not for everyone. Most Syrians i speak to, Sunnis included, like Assad and reckon they're better off under his leadership than the alternative. But America knows best. If it wasn't for Western backing this "rebellion" would have been over by now.


In the long term it surely has to be. Otherwise we are accepting that billions of people can't ever have any real say in their governance which means they will be poorly governed. The idea that poverty in the developing world can be reduced without tackling poor governance is a pipe dream.
 
In the long term it surely has to be. Otherwise we are accepting that billions of people can't ever have any real say in their governance which means they will be poorly governed. The idea that poverty in the developing world can be reduced without tackling poor governance is a pipe dream.

in the very long term, yes. but the way things are at the moment, no they aren't. These are countries divided on sectarian, tribal and even ethnic lines and only a strong leader can keep that kind of stuff under control. i'm Lebanese so I know what i'm talking about, at times I wish we had a strong dictator.
 
These conflicts unfortunately seldom garner interest or outrage, and I'd even wager most people on earth aren't even aware of the atrocities committed there.

You couldn't say the same for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis are already attracting vehement opposition to their operations, imagine what would happen of they were to go full on genocide.

Yes I agree, the Palestinian cause has been marketed much better by journalist, idealistic University students, etc. If only a fraction of the outrage that being applied to 1,000 Palestinian deaths were extended to the 150,000 Syrian deaths, that war may have some hope of being resolved.
 
Yes I agree, the Palestinian cause has been marketed much better by journalist, idealistic University students, etc. If only a fraction of the outrage that being applied to 1,000 Palestinian deaths were extended to the 150,000 Syrian deaths, that war may have some hope of being resolved.

I'm in complete agreement. Maybe then we'd learn why arming and funding murderous, sectarian extremists was a bad idea (again). Maybe we shouldn't also forget the 100,000+ Iraqis and 25,000+ forgotten Afghans who've had to die for neo-Imperialism too.
 
I'm in complete agreement. Maybe then we'd learn why arming and funding murderous, sectarian extremists was a bad idea (again). Maybe we shouldn't also forget the 100,000+ Iraqis and 25,000+ forgotten Afghans who've had to die for neo-Imperialism too.

Except that Syria can be viewed independently from Iraq and Afghanistan, as the deaths are all down to Assad's failure to reform before outside forces became involved.
 
Except that Syria can be viewed independently from Iraq and Afghanistan, as the deaths are all down to Assad's failure to reform before outside forces became involved.

You always revive this debate to make the same tenuous point - no, Assad is not responsible for all the 150,000 deaths. The United States was very much responsible for the the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan though, and many more in Latin America, Philliphines and...you get the idea.

Using the numbers game isn't going to work for you considering your nation's impressive kill count since 1945.
 
You always revive this debate to make the same tenuous point - no, Assad is not responsible for all the 150,000 deaths. The United States was very much responsible for the the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan though, and many more in Latin America, Philliphines and...you get the idea.

Using the numbers game isn't going to work for you considering your nation's impressive kill count since 1945.

Its completely spot on. Assad is a dictator who in 2013 used Chemical weapons on his own population, which you apparently support by ignoring his complacency (obviously for sectarian reasons), and continues using barrel bombs to this day. You have zero credibility to criticize Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel when you support the use of chemical weapons as long as they're used in favor of someone you support.
 
You always revive this debate to make the same tenuous point - no, Assad is not responsible for all the 150,000 deaths. The United States was very much responsible for the the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan though, and many more in Latin America, Philliphines and...you get the idea.

Using the numbers game isn't going to work for you considering your nation's impressive kill count since 1945.
No, you can't blame America for anything.. It's all "war on terror" they are doing the world a great favour.
 
Its completely spot on. Assad is a dictator who in 2013 used Chemical weapons on his own population, which you apparently support by ignoring his complacency (obviously for sectarian reasons), and continues using barrel bombs to this day.

Fallujah's nice this time of year.
 
You always revive this debate to make the same tenuous point - no, Assad is not responsible for all the 150,000 deaths. The United States was very much responsible for the the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan though, and many more in Latin America, Philliphines and...you get the idea.

Using the numbers game isn't going to work for you considering your nation's impressive kill count since 1945.

We've been involved right alongside them...
 
We left it in good shape. Feel free to take this to another thread.

Is that how you define the thousands of deformed children that have been born and will continue to be born deformed?

I'm happy to take it into another thread but you always invite these responses by simply using the Syrian war as a means of trying to distort my moral compass.
 
Its completely spot on. Assad is a dictator who in 2013 used Chemical weapons on his own population, which you apparently support by ignoring his complacency (obviously for sectarian reasons), and continues using barrel bombs to this day. You have zero credibility to criticize Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel when you support the use of chemical weapons as long as they're used in favor of someone you support.
Thank you.

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government.

...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran


By the way, it is not yet proven or even close to being proven that Assad used chemical weapons. Even the US politicians are of the opinion that the chemical weapons were used "most probably" without his knowledge (as they publicly still think it was used by the army side). On the other side, there are many evidences showing the terrorist organisations in Syria in possession/most likely used chemical weapons in at least one other incident.

And by the way, whoever used them is a pig, and there is a difference between being pro-Assad, and anti-Alqaeda.
 
Thank you.

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran


By the way, it is not yet proven or even close to being proven that Assad used chemical weapons. Even the US politicians are of the opinion that the chemical weapons were used "most probably" without his knowledge (as they publicly still think it was used by the army side). On the other side, there are many evidences showing the terrorist organisations in Syria in possession/most likely used chemical weapons in at least one other incident.

And by the way, whoever used them is a pig, and there is a difference between being pro-Assad, and anti-Alqaeda.

Well that is something we can both agree on Danny.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Saddam, but I do agree that White Phosphorus, although not illegal, should be done away with against combatants due to negative effects on nearby civilians.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Saddam, but I do agree that White Phosphorus, although not illegal, should be done away with against combatants due to negative effects on nearby civilians.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

White phosphorous use in not illegal, but the same protocol III convention of chemical weapons gives the caveat of its use becoming illegal when used in proximity of civilians, which the US did.