The Syrian Civil War

[GTAknowledge]

1. Go look back on all of Assad's recent speeches and his recent actions. Everything he is doing right now is aimed at removing the rebels and bringing about the change which the people wanted.

Recent actions like what? Committing crimes against humanity? As I've already said, his objective isn't to "remove the rebels" -if it was, he would be facing the small numbers of opposition fighters in direct conflict. No, his aim is to entirely destroy all opposition, violent or otherwise. He's basically trying to eradicate all dissenting voices and appease the moderates who are neither here nor there. It's exactly the same as happened in Libya- lots of discussion of "political reform" but very little movement on it, and all the while the military and security apparatus annihilate anyone posing any kind of alternative political view.

 

 

There already have been 2 big terrorist attacks in the 2 biggest cities in Syria, Damascus and Aleppo, which killed many and injured hundreds. The 2 biggest cities in Syria still strongly support Assad. Luckily this helps in letting the military do it's job of monitoring the surroundings of the town and catch suspected terrorists, because nobody inside these cities wants to ruin what they have now, peace and stability. My cousin, a soldier in Lebanon, was part of the military group who caught rebels near my town in Lebanon. My entire family witnessed it. They killed some and some escaped. The army recovered plans for mass bombings on heavily populated public areas in Damascus.

Two terrorist attacks is not proof of a destabilisation campaign. Two an hour would be; the operational reality of what's happening in Syria bears absolutely no similarity to your very naive, prejudicial and ill-informed views on what it may all "mean". And, again, though the "personal touch" is nice, it's completely without merit or factual basis. The fact I cannot find any reference to these events that you describe (which would in reality be quite public as almost every correspondent and reporter who is objectively viewing events in Syria is currently stationed in Lebanon- so such occurrences would find their way into the public domain) doesn't necessarily mean that you're lying or incorrect, but if you want to me to take your claims at all seriously you'd better damn well show me some evidence to support them, because without any kind of proof they're entirely fictional and imaginary. Anyone can claim some "close" yet vague and unaccountable source of information to try and bolster their argument.

 

 

As i just said, the two biggest cities in Syria still strongly support Assad, aswell as other big cities and MANY small towns, which together make up over 65% of the population.

I don't disagree. There is still a significant degree of popular support for Assad even given the current situation, but one must question whether that's support that's unwavering and unconditional, or whether it's a product of fear- either of the regime or of the unknown. Remember, it wasn't military victories that cemented the success of the Transitional National Council in Libya, it was the foundation of a legitimate political opposition. Now, we're a long way from seeing that in Syria but there's certainly a popular demand for opposition to Assad, even if the vocal or actionable aspects of that support lies in a few geographical areas rather than across the entire nation. You've also got to make a distinction between those who active "support" Assad, and those who are assumed to support him because they are largely quiet on the issue or just want to get on with their daily lives. If Libya is the blueprint by which we analyse the effectiveness of the Syrian opposition, the establishment of a functioning and acceptable political alternative rather than rag-tag paramilitaries without political direction will represent the turning point in the conflict. That's why I believe that Assad is so scared of the uprising in Homs, and why he's waging a campaign of total annihilation in the opposition controlled parts of the city.

 

 

The major religious leaders also strongly support Assad.

Amongst Alawites and the Christian population, sure. Amongst the rest of the Syrian populace, I'm not so sure.

 

 

The overall military still strongly supports Assad (apart from the few who left).

Because they're the tool of his power. Many of those in high ranking positions are close personal friends of Assad- that's what happens with a despot, he promotes his friends. The average front-line troops? I reckon they're only accountable to whoever pays them. And with defections still occurring at a rapid rate, that "few" is becoming increasingly large, whilst the "overall" becomes steadily weaker.

 

 

The only city that greatly opposes Assad is Homs, which is greatly populated with armed rebels.

I though we already established that ordinary civilians in Homs outnumber armed rebels at least 90:1?

 

 

Throw in Iran and Hezoballah's backing of Assad and influence in the country, and it will be near impossible for anyone else to lead the country without Assad being there. That is the same views shared by all the Syrians i know.

Largely irrelevant. The fact that Iran would rather Syrian implode than Assad give up power is only of any real importance if you're discussing the aftermath of the conflict. Their support role is currently minimal by all accounts; they've got enough domestic issues to deal with without getting embroiled in a rapidly approaching civil war.

 

 

Go there yourself if you want to see for yourself. I know people who went in and who left without the military interfering with them. They weren't armed and didn't look like rebels so they had no trouble.

It's a nice story with one crucial flaw. I don't believe you, and I doubt anyone else does either.

 

 

2. So, this is all assumptions then. No evidence to suggest either to be true.

No completely objective evidence, no, but plenty of circumstantial evidence, supposition and educated prediction. The flaws in the "opposition fighters" argument are sufficient enough to discredit it to anyone whose studied strategic theory or has any understanding of military logistics, and without that argument what's the alternative? I mean, even if evidence, circumstantial or otherwise is ignored, the logical and technical flaws in the argument you present mean that an educated observer would discount it or at least find it suspect or improbable. I must hasten to add that I've never categorically said that the rebels didn't carry out the attacks, only that I find the mechanisms used in the attacks and their overall strategic benefit highly suspect. That's an independent assessment from an educated and familiar individual, nothing more.

 

 

3,4,5: So you have no evidence to prove me wrong, but just think it's wrong. Ok. There has been no independent reporters allowed in the country and no way of verification if indeed any of them got in. So, for you to say that my family and friends, who are witnessing this daily, are unreliable sources, is just stupid because you have no better sources.

Actually, there have been independent reporters in the country, even thought they're technically not supposed to be. One of the BBC's Middle East correspondents was in Homs for a number of days recently before leaving the city and returning across the border into Lebanon. The reports he issued and footage that was shown corroborated other accounts presented by resistance fighters in Homs. What about the other sources of information- the experts who come from the region, those who've fled into Lebanon and Turkey, and the intelligence providers who are getting their information "from the horses mouth", that is from their own personnel deployed in Syria running fact-finding missions and close protection for non-governmental agencies? What about the non-governmental agencies themselves, who have absolutely no motivation in taking sides in the conflict and who are deployed in the battle-zones? There's plenty of "evidence" for both sides- after all, everything can be treated as "evidence"- it's just that your supposed evidence comes from unnamed individuals with murky and barely tangible links to the conflict- one minute they're Lebanese outside observers, the next they're Syrian army generals- and the lack of verification, lack of validity, individual perspectives and difficult to dispute accusations of personal prejudice and bias just can't stand up to any kind of criticism. Even if there was no evidence to support my statements at all, then your arguments would remain entirely flawed.

 

 

So how do you know these things then:

 

 

Also, armed rebels are outnumbered in Homs by approximately 90:1;

 

 

The quality and quantity of armaments being used by the Free Syrian Army is low, and as I've already made quite clear they don't have many weapons capable of defeating heavy armour.

In the case of the first, I don't. It's a predictive assessment made based on statements from the Free Syrian Army, and based on the measured population of Homs. It's also a very conservative estimate indeed. When figures for FSA strength vary between 10,000 and 30,000, and the number of those actively involved in the violence in Homs varies between 1,000 and 5,000, I've taken the highest figures for the sheer reason that even if they are exaggerated, then my argument isn't weakened- in fact it's strengthened. If I give the maximum number of opposition fighters based on estimates, and use the minimum estimates for those still left in Homs, and still come up with a figure of 90:1, then it shows that regardless of how inaccurate those figures may be, my argument still has integrity as I've used the "worst possible estimate" from the point of view of my argument and it's still so high a ratio that the argument stands.

 

In the case of the second, because trained soldiers act in relatively predictable ways. For instance, I've been able to quite accurately gauge the strategic intentions of the Syrian armed forces (and by association the political administration) based on their tactical and operational behaviour in a given political climate. Some of it comes from pure rationality, like "if they possessed heavy weapons they'd be using them, and if they were using them there would be evidence to suggest they are". If there was heavy armour available to the rebels, they'd be using it, and they're not. If they had weapons capable of destroying tanks and heavily armoured vehicles, they'd be making use of them to target Syrian military forces. When even the Syrian government and military spokespeople dismiss the opposition forces as "lightly armed and poorly equipped", you can safely bet that they don't possess the capability. I mean, think about it logically- how are defectors going to get hold of tanks and artillery pieces? They'd be rapidly targeted by air power and destroyed long before they could reach any kind of safety. Most of the time, these individuals are left with nothing more than their service weapon and the clothes on their backs- and often not even the former. So please explain to me how they've managed to obtain this capability?

 

 

You're contradicting yourself here. You say that soldiers can't be sure of the power of the rebels but then you state like a fact how many there are and the types of weaponry they have?

It's not a contradiction anyway. I'm not exposed directly to the fog of war, the Syrian armed forces are. The likelihood is that they've not been trained extensively in urban combat against an irregular enemy because that kind of conflict by it's nature is extremely unpredictable, and therefore difficult to train for. It's to be expected that the Syrian armed forces are drastically overestimating the capability of their foe; one because it draws them in a positive light and two because it support the regime's cause internationally and domestically. That isn't to say that, if they were to attack Homs wholesale, they would experience any difficulty in destroying opposition as they likelihood is that they wouldn't, but small-scale skirmishes, limited kinetic operations and the blurring of lines between combatant and non-combatant make it incredibly difficult for an armed force to judge the strength of an adversary.

 

 

Again, based on the rebels they have killed and from what they have seen, i'm sure that the Syrian soldiers know more about who they are up against then you do, especially since your main sources, independent reports, are not yet published in numerous amounts to see if they are true.

What, so you're saying that the "three thousand" armed combatants your "sources" in Syria claim to have killed is a more accountable figure than even the Syrian government's figure of 750? I see you didn't explain to me the fact your own "estimates", presumably obtained from these aforementioned "sources", place the figures of combatants killed in the violence at roughly five times that of the highest publicly released statement from any side? How do you explain that then?

 

 

Anyways, some news.

 

President al-Assad Receives Copy of the New Draft Constitution

 

Assad has said the constitution needs changing since the conflicts began and promised change. He is in the process now of delivering change to bring about more Freedom to the country.

Oh yes, because it's going to be possible to hold a referendum on a new Syrian constitution whilst his forces commit crimes against humanity and ever increasing numbers of his own population take up arms against him. That doesn't seem very democratic to me at all- he's claiming he can hold a referendum in "11 days"; well, either things in the major cities aren't anywhere near as bad as you imply they are with your talk of seemingly "constant" terrorist attacks or Bashir al-Assad is a master of spinning a yarn to try and deflect political pressure away from his direct accountability in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

You're living in a dream world.

1. Changes to the constitution to bring about more freedom, as was originally requested by protestors.

 

Also, Libya is a ghetto now. A guy i knew who lived there moved out as soon as the rebels began attacks (because he was Lebanese Christian but posed as a Muslim because his surname was commonly Muslim and was able to work in Libya during the time Gaddafi was leader). He went back in December and the town he was staying in was basically gone. 3/4 had been ruined by airstrikes and the very few people in the town now are living in fear of being jailed and tortured because of their towns previous high population of Gaddafi fighters.

 

Just today these reports were in the media:

 

Libya militias threatening stability, says Amnesty

 

Amnesty: Libyan militias commit war crimes

 

 

Armed militias now rule much of Libya, Amnesty International said Wednesday, accusing them of torturing detainees deemed loyal to the ousted regime of Moammar Gadhafi and driving entire neighborhoods and towns into exile.

 

Amnesty International quoted detainees as saying "They had been suspended in contorted positions; beaten for hours with whips, cables, plastic hoses, metal chains and bars, and wooden sticks and given electric shocks with live wires and taser-like electroshock weapons."

 

At least 12 detainees had died since September after torture, Amnesty said. "Their bodies were covered in bruises, wounds and cuts and some had had nails pulled off," the group said.

 

This uprising ruined Libya. The Egyptian uprising ruined Egypt.

 

The Syrian people, majority, are aware of the consequences of letting the rebels gain power. People want CHANGE! As in a change of the way the country operates. Changing the leader will not change anything, as has been seen in previous uprisings. Instead of Anti-Assad protestors being treated badly, it will be the Anti protestors of the new government.

 

Also lol at "committing crimes against humanity". The rebels are doing the same things and worse to those who support Assad. Blaming Assad as the bad guy and the rebels as the good is just so stupid.

Both have done bad things (and i think the rebels have done worse). But to replace one with another will not solve anything.

 

 

 

The fact I cannot find any reference to these events that you describe (which would in reality be quite public as almost every correspondent and reporter who is objectively viewing events in Syria is currently stationed in Lebanon- so such occurrences would find their way into the public domain) doesn't necessarily mean that you're lying or incorrect, but if you want to me to take your claims at all seriously you'd better damn well show me some evidence to support them, because without any kind of proof they're entirely fictional and imaginary.

 

I don't mind if you believe me or not. I'm just here to share the side of the story most people will not hear in the media. I'm not defending Assad, i'm only trying to show that those he is up against are criminals. I strongly believe what those inside are telling me because they are seeing it themselves and will meet with them soon in real life when i go to Lebanon. As you know, getting any form of media or research inside of Syria for verification is very difficult at the moment. Will need to wait for that.

 

 

 

I don't disagree. There is still a significant degree of popular support for Assad even given the current situation, but one must question whether that's support that's unwavering and unconditional, or whether it's a product of fear- either of the regime or of the unknown.

 

I'm confident most of those supporters truly support Assad because they like him. I am yet to meet any Syrian living here who doesn't support him. Here if they want they can say they hate Assad or he is bad, but they still support him. Everytime there is a rally in the city here for Assad it keeps getting bigger every time. People here are actually very fearful of the rebels and what they have done. Some have had family kidnapped, killed and some fear the rebels taking over their town. However, ALL agree that if the Military was stationed in their town, they wouldn't be as stressed.

I know it's easy to just say that the Syrian people are like those in North Korea where supporting the government is a must, but having visited the country and knowing so many people who lived under the Assad government, including many family member and my own parents, i can say confidently that the majority of the population supports Assad not because of fear, but because they truly want him as leader because of the stability and peace the country had, which is something rare to achieve in the Middle East.

 

 

 

Amongst Alawites and the Christian population, sure. Amongst the rest of the Syrian populace, I'm not so sure.

 

The top Muslim cleric/Grand Mufti in Syria, who is Sunni (the religion of the majority of the population and the religion of most of the rebels) is Ahmad Bader Hassoun, who strongly supports Assad.

 

He gave a powerful speech 2 days ago where he pleaded for the rebels to stop ruining their own country and almost cried. During the speech in a mosque, the head of the Christians walk in and sat on the floor beside all the other Muslim leaders and followers. Was really good to see how well they all get along.

 

He is passionately against the rebels because they killed his own son.

 

Son of Syria's grand mufti dies of his wounds

 

 

Saryah Hassoun, the son of Syria's grand mufti Ahmed Hassoun, died late Sunday of his wounds just hours after being shot by armed terrorist groups along with a university professor in northern province of Aleppo.

 

Hassoun and Mohammad al-Omar, a history professor at Aleppo University, was shot on their way to the university.

 

All the top religious people in Syria support Assad.

 

 

 

I though we already established that ordinary civilians in Homs outnumber armed rebels at least 90:1?

 

What? You used that ratio, with no evidence, for the rebel to military ratio, not civilians.

 

 

 

It's a nice story with one crucial flaw. I don't believe you, and I doubt anyone else does either.

 

Go there yourself and stop relying on electronic words and media reports to dictate what is really happening on the other side of the world.

 

 

 

2.

No completely objective evidence, no, but plenty of circumstantial evidence, supposition and educated prediction.

 

Ok.

 

 

3. Those who fled obviously will report bad things to match the mainstream media's storyline of the events. But if you want to rely on one BBC reporter and other unverified claims, then do so.

 

 

 

What, so you're saying that the "three thousand" armed combatants your "sources" in Syria claim to have killed is a more accountable figure than even the Syrian government's figure of 750? I see you didn't explain to me the fact your own "estimates", presumably obtained from these aforementioned "sources", place the figures of combatants killed in the violence at roughly five times that of the highest publicly released statement from any side? How do you explain that then?

 

Since when did you all of a sudden trust government figures? And it was a guess by me and a guess in the government figures. I never said it was true. I strongly believe though that over 1,500 at the least, have been killed. Probably over 250 witnessed from people i've talked to.

 

 

 

Oh yes, because it's going to be possible to hold a referendum on a new Syrian constitution whilst his forces commit crimes against humanity and ever increasing numbers of his own population take up arms against him. That doesn't seem very democratic to me at all- he's claiming he can hold a referendum in "11 days"; well, either things in the major cities aren't anywhere near as bad as you imply they are with your talk of seemingly "constant" terrorist attacks or Bashir al-Assad is a master of spinning a yarn to try and deflect political pressure away from his direct accountability in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

Yes, Assad should not try and change anything. He should step aside and go against what 65%+ of the population want and hand over the power to the Muslim Brotherhood and their rebels. Then everything will be fine and everyone will live in a happy free country.

 

Stop ignoring the other side of the story. The rebels have also committed crimes against humanity. They are bad people which nobody, except for the extremist Sunni Muslims, want to be in power.

 

I'm not the one living in the dream world, you are. I acknowledge BOTH sides are not good. But you seem to praise the rebels who are terrorists and are killing and torturing innocent people. I guess they can do that because they are "freedom fighters". I guess kidnapping innocent people from small towns, robbing them, beating them and then chopping up their bodies as a sacrifice is considered good by you? You consider these things a good step towards achieving freedom?

[Dingdongs]

 

Go there yourself and stop relying on electronic words and media reports to dictate what is really happening on the other side of the world.

 

So you and I (perhaps not you since you live in Australia and she's your Queen too, but for argument's sake) could stand firmly and say that Queen Elizabeth II is not celebrating her Diamond Jubilee, and that no one in Britain is doing anything to celebrate it because they're busy fighting a cyborg invasion.

 

It sounds ridiculous, but what you're essentially saying is that you cannot trust news and you have to be there yourself to make any determination of what's going on in the world. Do you not yet realize how insane you sound?

[GTAknowledge]

 

Go there yourself and stop relying on electronic words and media reports to dictate what is really happening on the other side of the world.

 

So you and I (perhaps not you since you live in Australia and she's your Queen too, but for argument's sake) could stand firmly and say that Queen Elizabeth II is not celebrating her Diamond Jubilee, and that no one in Britain is doing anything to celebrate it because they're busy fighting a cyborg invasion.

 

It sounds ridiculous, but what you're essentially saying is that you cannot trust news and you have to be there yourself to make any determination of what's going on in the world. Do you not yet realize how insane you sound?

Syria is a different situation because the media is restricted in entry to the country and NOTHING the media is saying can be verified.

 

They are only showing you one side of the story, and it is often exaggerated. Watching the news here, all i hear is "Assad is bad and the rebels are good". They show footage of the military bombing buildings, without saying why, and then change scenes to show an interview with a rebel who "is fighting for freedom".

 

 

They don't mention that the military is attacking a rebel hideout like the raw footage voice over shows or Arabic media reports. They don't mention that the rebels are responsible for hundreds of crimes such as bombings, assassinations, murders, torture, illegal smuggling of weapons, theft and many other crimes they have committed.

 

 

Generally, the media is only reliable in awaring you on a situation. So yes, there is a conflict in Syria. You don't need to travel to the country to find that part out. But the little details, which are important, are always left out or manipulated, and you likely won't see them unless you know people living in the country or are there yourself.

 

 

In this case, sivispacem doesn't have any multiple verified reliable sources, and he likely won't for a while. He is going by assumptions and predictions for most of his arguments here.

 

I just want people to see the truth about the rebels. If i knew all the things i am saying is wrong, then i wouldn't waste my time writing it up. But because so many people i know living in the country and those here are all saying the same thing, it shows me that the media is leaving a lot of important things out about the rebels and their actions.

[3niX]

Well...

 

 

Syria is a different situation because the media is restricted in entry to the country and NOTHING the media is saying can be verified.

And why exactly is that so? Why would they restrict the media if they had nothing to hide?

 

They don't mention that the rebels are responsible for hundreds of crimes such as bombings, assassinations, murders, torture, illegal smuggling of weapons, theft and many other crimes they have committed.

And Ive no doubt the Syrian media is doing the same thing in regards to the Syrian army. Whats your point?

 

Allies bombed the sh*t out of Dresden, it was a horrible crime against humanity but still doesnt negate the crimes the nazis committed. Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

In this case, sivispacem doesn't have any multiple verified reliable sources, and he likely won't for a while. He is going by assumptions and predictions for most of his arguments here.

You havent really proved that your sources are any more reliable than his.

[GTAknowledge]

Well...

 

 

Syria is a different situation because the media is restricted in entry to the country and NOTHING the media is saying can be verified.

And why exactly is that so? Why would they restrict the media if they had nothing to hide?

 

They don't mention that the rebels are responsible for hundreds of crimes such as bombings, assassinations, murders, torture, illegal smuggling of weapons, theft and many other crimes they have committed.

And Ive no doubt the Syrian media is doing the same thing in regards to the Syrian army. Whats your point?

 

Allies bombed the sh*t out of Dresden, it was a horrible crime against humanity but still doesnt negate the crimes the nazis committed. Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

In this case, sivispacem doesn't have any multiple verified reliable sources, and he likely won't for a while. He is going by assumptions and predictions for most of his arguments here.

You havent really proved that your sources are any more reliable than his.

@3niX

 

 

And why exactly is that so? Why would they restrict the media if they had nothing to hide?

 

Because the media will only make situations worse because they will NOT report the truth, even if they saw it. If they are making things up now and exaggerating, what makes you think they will tell the truth and change their entire theme of the events?

Al Jazeera is caught daily lying about crimes committed by the military. Assad has said he does not trust any media affiliated with the West in any way, and given the huge difference in Arabic news and English news, i can see why. No media can be trusted to give the truth. Just like Libya where is was easy for reporters to go in and they still strongly sided with the rebels and never mentioned the crimes they were committing until after it was all over.

 

 

However, he has allowed some reporters in like this video, and some others who are Middle-Eastern. He would prefer a civil discussion to show his side of the story instead of Western reporters running around and likely siding with rebels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Ive no doubt the Syrian media is doing the same thing in regards to the Syrian army. Whats your point?

 

Allies bombed the sh*t out of Dresden, it was a horrible crime against humanity but still doesnt negate the crimes the nazis committed. Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

My point is that the media is strongly favoring the rebels and strongly demonizing Assad, when the truth is the rebels are just as bad, or worse. Why has the media chosen to side with the rebels if nothing can be verified?

 

 

 

You havent really proved that your sources are any more reliable than his.

 

How am i supposed to? My sources are mostly people living in the country.

 

[3niX]

Well...

 

 

Because the media will only make situations worse because they will NOT report the truth, even if they saw it.

And what makes you have such a cynical view?

 

Surely, part of the problem could also lie in the fact that they dont have any valid access to the other side of the argument. They can only report on what they have access to... in this case its the refugees.

 

 

No media can be trusted to give the truth.

Thats a rather absolute statement... What makes you think so?

 

 

My sources are mostly people living in the country.

It would help if you didnt make so vague claims and then later change what youve said. Also, he said, she said isnt really a valid source from our perspective (otherwise wed have to trust anyone who makes claims of having been there).

[sivispacem]

 

1. Changes to the constitution to bring about more freedom, as was originally requested by protestors.

Apparently so, but you've still not explained to me how he's going to conduct a referendum on the proposed changes in an eleven day period when significant portions of his population are resisting him, some through violence. It makes the whole statement seem extremely improbable; quite apart from anything else, because organising such an event at such short notice in a democratic Western country where elements of the population aren't trying to bring down the regime is hard enough. And I don't feel that proposing a referendum on changes to the Syrian constitution whilst mercilessly besieging hundreds of thousands of his own citizens is the measure of a reasonable man with any democratic desires.

 

 

Also, Libya is a ghetto now. A guy i knew who lived there moved out as soon as the rebels began attacks (because he was Lebanese Christian but posed as a Muslim because his surname was commonly Muslim and was able to work in Libya during the time Gaddafi was leader). He went back in December and the town he was staying in was basically gone. 3/4 had been ruined by airstrikes and the very few people in the town now are living in fear of being jailed and tortured because of their towns previous high population of Gaddafi fighters.

Oh, a "guy you know" said this? Come on, you can do better than that. "Three quarters...ruined by airstrikes"- kind of hard to quantify when there's publicly released information about the sorties undertaken by NATO aircraft. You see, that's the advantage with accountable governments- they often publish information like that willingly. In fact, The Guardian did a nice little map of airstrikes conducted and their respective targets which rather disproves your statement.

 

 

Just today these reports were in the media:

 

Libya militias threatening stability, says Amnesty

Again, it's a straw man. I've never said "Libya is all fine and peachy"; what I've said is that the processes undertaken by the Libyan rebels were incredibly effective at removing their leader, and that due to popular support they possessed a mandate to do so. I've disputed your comments about it being "terrorists and mercenaries", to paraphrase, and I've addressed your allegations that the whole thing was a US sponsored and funded coup (which is obvious manure) but I've never made the claim that everything in Libya is just swimming. It's not; it's pretty evident it isn't and this post-conflict stabilisation process is bound to be the most difficult time, with all sides vying for power, some though the democratic channels and some through violence. And it's entirely plausible to say that Libyan militias committed "war crimes"- though in the most technical sense they cannot be accused of "war crimes" as they're not an armed state actor- I mean, these are individuals with little to no effective military training. I just don't quite understand the point you're making here or what relevance it has to your argument.

 

 

Amnesty: Libyan militias commit war crimes

 

 

At least 12 detainees had died since September after torture, Amnesty said. "Their bodies were covered in bruises, wounds and cuts and some had had nails pulled off," the group said.

Statements like this rather pale in significance when you realise that Gaddafi, if Human Rights Watch are to be believed, personally oversaw the massacre of almost 1300 political prisoners at Abu Salim in 1996. That's not saying that the actions of the remaining militia groups in Libya are in any way morally justified, but it's a demonstration of just how bad things were before the uprising in terms of human rights abuses. I mean, if one were to do a "whose who" parade of figures responsible for massacres and human rights violations in Libya, you wouldn't start seeing militia or TNC figures until you were many, many pages into that list.

 

 

This uprising ruined Libya.

Loaded statement- utterly valueless.

 

 

The Egyptian uprising ruined Egypt.

Loaded statement, utterly valueless and intrinsically biased. Your only objection to events in Egypt is that you're a Middle Eastern Christian and as such have an illogical and unquantifiable fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, who speak quite effectively for the vast majority of Egyptians.

 

 

The Syrian people, majority, are aware of the consequences of letting the rebels gain power. People want CHANGE! As in a change of the way the country operates. Changing the leader will not change anything, as has been seen in previous uprisings. Instead of Anti-Assad protestors being treated badly, it will be the Anti protestors of the new government.

Again, I fail to see the relevance here. I've already explained quite clearly that the Assad's plans for change are largely going to be ineffective or ineffectual as long as he keeps massacring his own people. Yes, there's awareness of the potential for further unrest and a "fear of the unknown" but how much of that is crafted from the yarns spun by SANA and the other Syrian state-owned media sources, and how much of it comes from experience? I mean, aside from those living in relatively close proximity to Homs, very few people in Syria have been exposed to any kind of violence perpetrated by the anti-Assad forces. They only have the state-run, partisan media to base their perceptions on, so how else are they likely to respond. Pose the question "do you think Assad should go" and I guarantee you'd get a majority saying yes (as I showed is the case elsewhere in the region)- as I've said before, it's only a hard-line who support him, the vast majority just want prosperity and security.

 

 

Also lol at "committing crimes against humanity". The rebels are doing the same things and worse to those who support Assad. Blaming Assad as the bad guy and the rebels as the good is just so stupid. Both have done bad things (and i think the rebels have done worse). But to replace one with another will not solve anything.

Care to quantify this? You can say that "you think" that what the rebels have done is worse but exactly how can you demonstrate that? The statistics are pretty one-sided when it comes to acts of violence, and I don't hear the rebels being threatened with indictment to the UN Court of Human Rights for Crimes Against Humanity. So, on exactly what grounds can you justify your statement- or is it one of personal viewpoint poorly disguised as fact? I don't see the rebels laying siege to cities. I also don't see them shooting unarmed civilians in the streets, shelling urban areas or quite literally gunning down defectors in their dozens. These are all crimes reported by various sources across the board as having been perpetrated by the Syrian government, and there's little one can do to deny these accounts- many of which have been corroborated by NGOs working on the ground in Syria or in Lebanon and Turkey. And you're quite right to say that "replacing one with the other won't solve anything" because there's currently no organised political opposition in Syria; no effective alternative government and no other power laying a claim to maintain the rule of law.

 

 

I don't mind if you believe me or not. I'm just here to share the side of the story most people will not hear in the media. I'm not defending Assad, i'm only trying to show that those he is up against are criminals. I strongly believe what those inside are telling me because they are seeing it themselves and will meet with them soon in real life when i go to Lebanon. As you know, getting any form of media or research inside of Syria for verification is very difficult at the moment. Will need to wait for that.

You are trying to defend Assad though. The crux of your argument has basically been "everyone in Syria supports Assad, he's done no wrong as all those who have been tortured and killed by his security forces are all terrorists or foreign fighters anyway so it doesn't matter". It's entirely composed or propaganda and falsehoods. I agree that he still possesses some popular support, though as I've said how much of that is true support and how much is out of fear, either of the regime or of the unknown, is unclear. My arguments have principally been focused on the conduct of his security apparatus who are at the end of the day the responsibility of the leader, and to determining his intentions through their actions. I can only presume that you keep attempting to misrepresent statements I've made as meaning something entirely different, or making presumption about what I think of the rebels based on what I think of Assad's policy to them, because you have no way of disputing the analyses I'm making on the conduct of his armed forces and by default his policies towards political opposition.

 

 

I'm confident most of those supporters truly support Assad because they like him. I am yet to meet any Syrian living here who doesn't support him. Here if they want they can say they hate Assad or he is bad, but they still support him. Everytime there is a rally in the city here for Assad it keeps getting bigger every time. People here are actually very fearful of the rebels and what they have done. Some have had family kidnapped, killed and some fear the rebels taking over their town. However, ALL agree that if the Military was stationed in their town, they wouldn't be as stressed.

I'm not. He sees almost no popular support anywhere else in the region aside from in Lebanon, even though many countries share similar demographics and there's still significant support for nationalistic Ba'athist ideology. Again, you say that people "fear the rebels and what they've done"- Syria is a closed police state; it's quite unlikely that many of its citizens are actually exposed to any information about the actions of the rebel fighters that isn't directly from the mouths of the Syrian government, and as the Syrian government have far bigger things to worry about than polling their population to establish popular support- the threat of insurgency, the ever-growing opposition movement and violent resistance to name but three- then I think you may struggle to quantify this.

 

 

I know it's easy to just say that the Syrian people are like those in North Korea where supporting the government is a must, but having visited the country and knowing so many people who lived under the Assad government, including many family member and my own parents, i can say confidently that the majority of the population supports Assad not because of fear, but because they truly want him as leader because of the stability and peace the country had, which is something rare to achieve in the Middle East.

Oh, I'm not suggesting they're like those of North Korea. More like those of, say, Iran or China. But your "stability and peace" argument basically descends into "fear of the unknown" if you boil it down. I mean, he's not exactly providing stability and peace for those in Homs at the moment, is he? Or the 100,000 or so political prisoners the regime has taken in the last year. So, he's only providing stability and peace if you're part of a privileged group who happen to be on the right side of him; if you oppose him (whether peacefully or violently), then you'll get neither. It's a bit of a catch 22- you can either have peace and prosperity but no political self-determination, or you can campaign for political self-determination and get shot, shelled or electrocuted. It's not at all surprising that so many are steadfastly towing the government line in public.

 

 

The top Muslim cleric/Grand Mufti in Syria, who is Sunni (the religion of the majority of the population and the religion of most of the rebels) is Ahmad Bader Hassoun, who strongly supports Assad.

That's probably why he's the top Muslim cleric. Religion is extremely politicised in the region, remember. And, again, check your sources. Posting evidence from a Chinese website saying that the son of Hassoun was killed by "terrorists"? Well, that might be their interpretation, but remember China was one of the powers that vetoed the UNSC resolution condemning Syria. Remember also that China has significant interests in Syria. Is it in the Chinese interest to portray the Syrian opposition as terrorists? Yes, it is.

 

 

What? You used that ratio, with no evidence, for the rebel to military ratio, not civilians.

Actually, no I didn't. Your total incapability to understand rudimentary mathematics is astonishing. I'll break it down for you.

 

Recorded population of Homs- approximately 1.2 million

Population of Homs currently- approximately 900,000

Percentage of Hom's urban mass currently under siege- approximately 50%

Total number of people in the military firing line- approximately 450,000

 

Total number of armed rebel fighters in Homs- a maximum of 5,000 according to FSA figures.

 

450,000 / 5,000 = 90

 

Giving a ratio of 90 civilians to 1 armed opposition fighter.

 

 

 

I don't think it could be much easier to understand.

 

 

Go there yourself and stop relying on electronic words and media reports to dictate what is really happening on the other side of the world.

Oh yes, because a white British national with no credible links to the nation, let alone it's rulers, is even going to make it past customs. Even if I were to, what do you think it would accomplish? Do you think I'd be able to get into Homs to see the violence being perpetrated by Assad's forces? Do you think I'd even be allowed to roam Damascus freely, or go to the sites of any of the apparently "opposition-conducted" attacks? Do you not think that the secret police or the paid Assad supporters would probably attempt to have me lynched as a foreign spy?

 

 

3. Those who fled obviously will report bad things to match the mainstream media's storyline of the events. But if you want to rely on one BBC reporter and other unverified claims, then do so.

I'm sorry, but in this argument no-ones claims are truly verified. We're both relying on unverified and potentially biased claims. However, I've got the weight of experience, the rational analysis and the weight of most of the academic, professional and international communities behind me, as well as a far wider range of sources presenting roughly similar arguments. Something you evidently seem to lack, as your arguments have fluctuated on an almost line-by-line, and certainly a day-by-day, basis.

 

 

Since when did you all of a sudden trust government figures? And it was a guess by me and a guess in the government figures. I never said it was true. I strongly believe though that over 1,500 at the least, have been killed. Probably over 250 witnessed from people i've talked to.

I don't. The point I'm making is that the only evidence that actually supports your argument contradicts your figures. Basically, I'm using the fact that you seem to be inflating figures to an even greater degree than the Syrian government are to cast doubt on your ability to analyse statistics and to form rational arguments. Because if you can't be trusted to tow your own side's line without embellishing figures to make your argument look more credible, then neither your argument nor any analysis you make of the situation can be trusted. Like I've said before, your "sources" are complicit in the violence; of course they want you thinking they're shooting armed insurgents rather than protesters en masse.

 

 

Yes, Assad should not try and change anything. He should step aside and go against what 65%+ of the population want and hand over the power to the Muslim Brotherhood and their rebels. Then everything will be fine and everyone will live in a happy free country.

You're missing the point. It's an entirely hollow gesture. He's not going to be capable of holding a free and fair referendum as he's promised, not least because he's got about 3% of his entire national population under siege and another 0.5% imprisoned without trial or charges. Again, your prejudices about the Muslim Brotherhood and latent anti-Islamic bias severely damage your argument; your understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood is astonishingly similar to that of the most hawkish Washington hacks, which is an irony not lost on me.

 

 

Stop ignoring the other side of the story. The rebels have also committed crimes against humanity. They are bad people which nobody, except for the extremist Sunni Muslims, want to be in power.

I've never once claimed that the rebels are intrinsically "good"; I've claimed that they're not as complicit in violence against civilians as the Syrian armed forces and security apparatus are, which is a fair assessment given the scenario, but yet again you seem to be making straw men instead of arguing with my actual points, probably because you can't really justify your own arguments unless it's by contradicting things that I haven't actually said. But go on, I'll humour you- point to me exactly where the Syrian opposition have been guilty of crimes against humanity. Lets look at the Rome Statute definition shall we?

 

 

are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

I don't think the actions of the rebels are condoned by a government or de facto authority. I also can't see any evidence tu suggest that they are anything other than isolated and sporadic events.

 

 

I acknowledge BOTH sides are not good.

By claiming that the government are perfectly within their power to lay siege to large portions of a major city and heavily shell civilians? Yes, that's really an acknowledgement that the Syrian authorities are acting improperly. As an aside, can you point to exactly where I praised the actions of the rebels?

 

 

But you seem to praise the rebels who are terrorists and are killing and torturing innocent people.

I've already explained that they're not according to any accepted definition of terrorism. If you want to classify them as "terrorists" you can, but you're wrong.

 

 

I guess they can do that because they are "freedom fighters".

Show me where I've called them "freedom fighters". In fact, show me where I've praised them in any terms. There's essentially no such thing as a "freedom fighter"; everyone is a mercenary for a cause of some kind, whether it's personal, political or economic. Again, idiotic straw men on your part.

 

 

I guess kidnapping innocent people from small towns, robbing them, beating them and then chopping up their bodies as a sacrifice is considered good by you?

Show me where I've claimed this, too. I've said that I doubt many of the official accounts of crimes committed by the opposition fighters, but I've never tried to justify what criminal actions they have committed.

[sivispacem]

I know double posting isn't kosher, but felt that this needed to be added to the thread.

 

From The Telegraph

 

 

Marie Colvin killed: Syrian forces had pledged to kill 'any journalist who set foot on Syrian soil'

 

Syrian forces murdered journalist Marie Colvin after pledging to kill "any journalist who set foot on Syrian soil", it has emerged.

 

The 55-year-old Sunday Times reporter was killed alongside French photographer Remi Ochlik, 28, in a rocket attack on the besieged city of Homs this morning. Now communication between Syrian Army officers intercepted by Lebanese intelligence staff has revealed that direct orders were issued to target the makeshift press centre in which Colvin had been broadcasting. If journalists were successfully killed, then the Syrians were told to make out that they had died accidentally in firefights with terrorist groups, the radio traffic revealed. Just before she died, Colvin had appeared on numerous international broadcast networks including the BBC and CNN to accuse Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad's forces of murder'.

 

In her broadcasts on Tuesday night, Colvin had accused the Syrian Army of perpetrating the "complete and utter lie that they are only targeting terrorists." Describing what was happening as "absolutely sickening", Colvin said: "The Syrian army is simply shelling a city of cold, starving civilians."'Other sources in Damascus confirmed that Syrians, including senior Army officers and Al-Assad himself, would have been able to watch Colvin's broadcasts.

 

So now Syrian military forces are intentionally targeting foreign correspondents to prevent the truth of the situation getting out? That's certainly how it looks from here.

[OchyGTA]

Sivi, you seem to be an expert, so to speak, on these sort of situations. What do you think the response of our government will be to a British citizen being killed by Syrian forces?

[sivispacem]

 

Sivi, you seem to be an expert, so to speak, on these sort of situations. What do you think the response of our government will be to a British citizen being killed by Syrian forces?

Marie Colvin is/was an American, but I'll answer anyway, on behalf of the French photographer killed and correspondent wounded alongside her in the attack on the ad-hoc media centre. John McCain summed it up quite well yesterday when he referred to a policy of providing covert assistance for opposition fighters in Syria. There's little if any evidence to suggest that we're doing it already, but I imagine that it's on the cards for arms and weapons to be smuggled to rebels by their allies in the Arab League and I imagine that the Western powers will provide technical and logistical assistance, and perhaps even donate arms, to that cause. But then again, it's hard to see how they're going to be able to get the heavy armour capable of taking on Assad's forces. The other side of it is likely to be intelligence sharing- with the US and other Western powers having essentially gained the capability to conduct electronic surveillance anywhere in the world at a whim, it's quite likely that some of this capability will be re-tasked and military intelligence supplied to commanders of the Free Syrian army via their links to opposition politicians abroad.

[OchyGTA]

My mistake, I thought she was British.

 

I suppose covert assistance is the most sensible option. I doubt military intervention will ever be considered then?

[sivispacem]

I doubt military intervention will ever be considered then?

Depends on a whole myriad of other factors. Not likely from a British perspective, but my well be from a French one- they seem quite keen on military intervention and did (and profited from) most of the legwork in Libya. Still, even then, it will probably be covert long-range strikes on key military infrastructure, rather than low-level interdiction and tank plinking.

[GTAknowledge]

sivispacem.

 

1. So, what do you want him to do. Changing the law to give more freedom and choice to the people and meet the protestors original demand won't work, in your opinion.

 

Stepping down won't work because he still has the support of the majority who will simply do the same as what's happening now to the new government.

 

So tell me, what is the solution?

 

 

In fact, The Guardian did a nice little map of airstrikes conducted and their respective targets which rather disproves your statement.

 

So, this is verified how?

 

 

I just don't quite understand the point you're making here or what relevance it has to your argument.

 

Well my point is that all the things used against Gaddafi to ruin his image (that he killed and tortured his own people) is almost identical to what the new government is doing now. It was a failure and i expect the same to occur in Syria if Assad is removed from government. That's my point.

 

Statements like this rather pale in significance when you realise that Gaddafi, if Human Rights Watch are to be believed, personally oversaw the massacre of almost 1300 political prisoners at Abu Salim in 1996. That's not saying that the actions of the remaining militia groups in Libya are in any way morally justified, but it's a demonstration of just how bad things were before the uprising in terms of human rights abuses. I mean, if one were to do a "whose who" parade of figures responsible for massacres and human rights violations in Libya, you wouldn't start seeing militia or TNC figures until you were many, many pages into that list.

 

In modern times, Libya had changed a lot. Just have a read of this report by the UN Human Rights Council on Libya in early 2011:

 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcou...A-HRC-16-15.pdf

 

Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights.

 

Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights.

 

Jordan welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in the promotion and

protection of human rights, including the establishment of institutions, particularly in the

judiciary system. Jordan praised progress in the fields of health, education and labour, as

well as the increased attention to the rights of women. Jordan noted the participation of

women in public life, including decision-making, and emphasized the fact that women held

one third of all judicial posts.

 

 

Libya was improving it's human rights record yearly with time. They were slowly changing towards a better society. Now that the new government took over and implemented parts of Sharia Law, it's like Libya has gone back to 80's and 90's where torture and killings were acceptable, where women have less rights and the freedom in the country is minimum. I'm not saying that recently under Gaddafi torture didn't occur, but it was becoming less with time. However the new government seems to be all for torture and killing of anyone against them.

 

 

They only have the state-run, partisan media to base their perceptions on, so how else are they likely to respond. Pose the question "do you think Assad should go" and I guarantee you'd get a majority saying yes (as I showed is the case elsewhere in the region)-

 

Your poll would be relevant except that even those who don't live in Syria anymore or Syrians who were not born there ALL want Assad to stay. There is no obligation or fear for those Syrians living in Australia. Yet they still crowd the streets with their rally's for Assad.

 

as I've said before, it's only a hard-line who support him, the vast majority just want prosperity and security.

 

Security? LOL. Syria was the safest country in the Middle-East and no country around it would even think of attacking it given how strong their military is. The thing everyone loved about Assad being President was the Security, Peace and Stability he brings.

 

Also LOL at prosperity. Since Assad took power back in 2000, the country has only grown stronger economically and poverty has declined dramatically. If you visited Damascus in 2000 and visit now, you would see a massive change.

 

 

 

And since Assad became President, Syria never experienced any negative periods of Economic Growth.

 

Assad offered everything a good President would offer. All that you could fault him on is his aggression towards opposition. Though that didn't effect the majority of the population so nobody cared apart from the extremist Muslims who can't stand to live in a country that's not governed by Sharia Law like Saudi Arabia. Syria has 100000 times more freedom than Saudi Arabia. It's human rights record is 100000 times better.

 

Our Unemployment in Lebanon is at like 18% lol. With Assad, Syria was dominating economically.

 

Assad offered a good economy, peace, safety, security and stability. You cannot use those arguments against him.

 

Care to quantify this? You can say that "you think" that what the rebels have done is worse but exactly how can you demonstrate that?

 

Just from the fact that nobody i know has been affected by the military, but that some of my family have been robbed and assaulted by rebels and some have friends or family who have been kidnapped. And these are in small villages who don't protests and keep to themselves. Assad would never attack these peaceful people or their towns. The rebels have attacked them with no reason to at all. They basically have kidnapped and murdered people for no reason. Innocent farmers who have zero connection to Assad.

Assad at least says he is killing rebels because he deems them terrorists and that some innocent people will die along the way. But the rebels have no excuse for killing innocent village people who are not involved with politics at all.

 

You are trying to defend Assad though. The crux of your argument has basically been "everyone in Syria supports Assad, he's done no wrong as all those who have been tortured and killed by his security forces are all terrorists or foreign fighters anyway so it doesn't matter".

 

I'm not defending Assad. I didn't say everyone in Syria support him. I didn't say he didn't do wrong things. I'm only showing you the side of the story the Western media doesn't talk about.

 

If you made this thread and supported Assad, then i would be here writing stuff about the bad things Assad has done. No side is good.

I'm not. He sees almost no popular support anywhere else in the region aside from in Lebanon, even though many countries share similar demographics and there's still significant support for nationalistic Ba'athist ideology. Again, you say that people "fear the rebels and what they've done"- Syria is a closed police state; it's quite unlikely that many of its citizens are actually exposed to any information about the actions of the rebel fighters that isn't directly from the mouths of the Syrian government, and as the Syrian government have far bigger things to worry about than polling their population to establish popular support- the threat of insurgency, the ever-growing opposition movement and violent resistance to name but three- then I think you may struggle to quantify this.

 

So why have i NEVER met anyone here, whether Christian or Muslim, who is against Assad? I know easily over 100 Syrians here and every new one i meet i ask about Assad.

 

 

But your "stability and peace" argument basically descends into "fear of the unknown" if you boil it down.

 

 

No it doesn't? There is peace and stability in the country because Assad has made it clear that all religions must work together and have respect for each other. When my grandpa (A Priest) escaped to Syria from Lebanon during the war could walk around the Shia neighborhoods and they would kiss his hand and show extreme respect to him. During the Shia leaders speech a few days ago, the head of the Christians came into the Mosque and sat down on the floor besides the muslims.

 

You people who have never visited Syria think it's from fear. It's not. There is huge respect towards every Syrian, no matter what religion you are. They are very Patriotic people.

 

 

That's probably why he's the top Muslim cleric. Religion is extremely politicised in the region, remember. And, again, check your sources. Posting evidence from a Chinese website saying that the son of Hassoun was killed by "terrorists"? Well, that might be their interpretation, but remember China was one of the powers that vetoed the UNSC resolution condemning Syria. Remember also that China has significant interests in Syria. Is it in the Chinese interest to portray the Syrian opposition as terrorists? Yes, it is.

 

lol that was just a random article that came up on google when i clicked it. It was reported the same way in Western media.

 

 

Actually, no I didn't. Your total incapability to understand rudimentary mathematics is astonishing. I'll break it down for you.

 

Recorded population of Homs- approximately 1.2 million

Population of Homs currently- approximately 900,000

Percentage of Hom's urban mass currently under siege- approximately 50%

Total number of people in the military firing line- approximately 450,000

 

Total number of armed rebel fighters in Homs- a maximum of 5,000 according to FSA figures.

 

450,000 / 5,000 = 90

 

Giving a ratio of 90 civilians to 1 armed opposition fighter.

 

 

 

I don't think it could be much easier to understand.

 

LOL yer, the entire Syrian army is only around Homs. Ok.

 

There is probably 20,000-30,000 soldiers who's focus is Homs.

 

So the ratio is nowhere near 90:1, in Homs

 

 

 

Oh yes, because a white British national with no credible links to the nation, let alone it's rulers, is even going to make it past customs.

I know many Australian-British people who traveled to Syria on their holiday to visit religious sights. They had no trouble getting in and enjoyed the country a lot. They were actually planning to go back and visit more religious sights but the troubles there now changed their mind.

 

 

Even if I were to, what do you think it would accomplish? Do you think I'd be able to get into Homs to see the violence being perpetrated by Assad's forces? Do you think I'd even be allowed to roam Damascus freely, or go to the sites of any of the apparently "opposition-conducted" attacks? Do you not think that the secret police or the paid Assad supporters would probably attempt to have me lynched as a foreign spy?

 

HAHAHA. This isn't North Korea. When i visited Syria, i went everywhere and anywhere i wanted in my own car and barely once saw the military or any government workers apart from the few police in the Streets of major cities, mostly directing traffic. There are probably more military checkpoints and random searches in Texas then there are in Syria. Seriously, your misconception of Syria is astounding.

 

 

I'm sorry, but in this argument no-ones claims are truly verified. We're both relying on unverified and potentially biased claims. However, I've got the weight of experience, the rational analysis and the weight of most of the academic, professional and international communities behind me, as well as a far wider range of sources presenting roughly similar arguments. Something you evidently seem to lack, as your arguments have fluctuated on an almost line-by-line, and certainly a day-by-day, basis.

 

My persona experience with the country and high level of contacts in the country now > Your generalized overall opinion on what might be happening based on history and experience with similar events.

 

 

I don't. The point I'm making is that the only evidence that actually supports your argument contradicts your figures.

 

How can it contradict my figures if the evidence is most likely false and unverified?

 

You're missing the point. It's an entirely hollow gesture. He's not going to be capable of holding a free and fair referendum as he's promised, not least because he's got about 3% of his entire national population under siege and another 0.5% imprisoned without trial or charges.

So, in your opinion, what should he do? (Was the first question i asked in this post anyways so ignore here).

 

 

've never once claimed that the rebels are intrinsically "good"; I've claimed that they're not as complicit in violence against civilians as the Syrian armed forces and security apparatus are,

 

Because they have not been reported by Western Media who are obviously biased. They are doing very bad things.

 

 

By claiming that the government are perfectly within their power to lay siege to large portions of a major city and heavily shell civilians?

 

Negotiations with the terrorists failed. They have no choice but to surround the city to capture or kill them. Innocent people will die. It happens everywhere.

 

I've already explained that they're not according to any accepted definition of terrorism. If you want to classify them as "terrorists" you can, but you're wrong.

 

I classify the murder of innocent people i know, kidnappings, assault and bombings as terrorism. At the least it is mass murder. Either way, they are criminals who have broken the law.

 

Show me where I've claimed this, too. I've said that I doubt many of the official accounts of crimes committed by the opposition fighters, but I've never tried to justify what criminal actions they have committed.

 

You're implying it by your defense of the rebels' actions.

 

 

 

 

And why isn't quoting working?

Edited February 23, 2012 by GTAknowledge

[lil weasel]

Heard on the News last night:

 

Not to worry, anymore as Anti-Gun (in the USA) Hillary wants to give weapons out to the people of Syria. But, only to the people revolting against the established government.

That will fix everything.

So all you Americans pack up your guns & ammo and donate them, (Just like we did during the WWII).

 

 

[AlexGTAGamer]

 

Heard on the News last night:

 

Not to worry, anymore as Anti-Gun (in the USA) Hillary wants to give weapons out to the people of Syria. But, only to the people revolting against the established government.

That will fix everything.

So all you Americans pack up your guns & ammo and donate them, (Just like we did during the WWII).

You could just imagine the posters.

 

I WantYOU

To donate ammunition to the Free Syrian Army.

 

But besides that, here's more news:

U.N. Panel Accuses Syria of Crimes Against Humanity

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/world/mi...fire-calls.html

[Voodoo]

On my first playthrough, I sided with the Stormcloaks.

 

 

[SIKKS66]

 

On my first playthrough, I sided with the Stormcloaks.

It's what every proud Nord ought to do.

 

f*ck the Imperials! f*ck the Emperor!

 

But seriously, way to lower the tone of a serious topic

[Miro]

 

And why isn't quoting working?

That's because you're using the codes wrong.

You have first to open the Quote tags, then Bold and Color.

You opened the Color, Bold and then the Quote which resulted a mess.

 

Here's a code that I hope will help you out.

 

 

Your text here.

 

 

Resulting...

 

 

Your text here.

 

Anyway, I've fixed your post, and simply edit your previous post with the Code below.

 

 

sivispacem.

1. So, what do you want him to do. Changing the law to give more freedom and choice to the people and meet the protestors original demand won't work, in your opinion.Stepping down won't work because he still has the support of the majority who will simply do the same as what's happening now to the new government.So tell me, what is the solution?

In fact, The Guardian did a nice little map of airstrikes conducted and their respective targets which rather disproves your statement.

So, this is verified how?

I just don't quite understand the point you're making here or what relevance it has to your argument.

Well my point is that all the things used against Gaddafi to ruin his image (that he killed and tortured his own people) is almost identical to what the new government is doing now. It was a failure and i expect the same to occur in Syria if Assad is removed from government. That's my point.

Statements like this rather pale in significance when you realise that Gaddafi, if Human Rights Watch are to be believed, personally oversaw the massacre of almost 1300 political prisoners at Abu Salim in 1996. That's not saying that the actions of the remaining militia groups in Libya are in any way morally justified, but it's a demonstration of just how bad things were before the uprising in terms of human rights abuses. I mean, if one were to do a "whose who" parade of figures responsible for massacres and human rights violations in Libya, you wouldn't start seeing militia or TNC figures until you were many, many pages into that list.

In modern times, Libya had changed a lot. Just have a read of this report by the UN Human Rights Council on Libya in early 2011:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcou...A-HRC-16-15.pdf

Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights.

Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights.

Jordan welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in the promotion andprotection of human rights, including the establishment of institutions, particularly in thejudiciary system. Jordan praised progress in the fields of health, education and labour, aswell as the increased attention to the rights of women. Jordan noted the participation ofwomen in public life, including decision-making, and emphasized the fact that women heldone third of all judicial posts.

Libya was improving it's human rights record yearly with time. They were slowly changing towards a better society. Now that the new government took over and implemented parts of Sharia Law, it's like Libya has gone back to 80's and 90's where torture and killings were acceptable, where women have less rights and the freedom in the country is minimum. I'm not saying that recently under Gaddafi torture didn't occur, but it was becoming less with time. However the new government seems to be all for torture and killing of anyone against them.

They only have the state-run, partisan media to base their perceptions on, so how else are they likely to respond. Pose the question "do you think Assad should go" and I guarantee you'd get a majority saying yes (as I showed is the case elsewhere in the region)-

Your poll would be relevant except that even those who don't live in Syria anymore or Syrians who were not born there ALL want Assad to stay. There is no obligation or fear for those Syrians living in Australia. Yet they still crowd the streets with their rally's for Assad.

as I've said before, it's only a hard-line who support him, the vast majority just want prosperity and security.

Security? LOL. Syria was the safest country in the Middle-East and no country around it would even think of attacking it given how strong their military is. The thing everyone loved about Assad being President was the Security, Peace and Stability he brings.Also LOL at prosperity. Since Assad took power back in 2000, the country has only grown stronger economically and poverty has declined dramatically. If you visited Damascus in 2000 and visit now, you would see a massive change.And since Assad became President, Syria never experienced any negative periods of Economic Growth.Assad offered everything a good President would offer. All that you could fault him on is his aggression towards opposition. Though that didn't effect the majority of the population so nobody cared apart from the extremist Muslims who can't stand to live in a country that's not governed by Sharia Law like Saudi Arabia. Syria has 100000 times more freedom than Saudi Arabia. It's human rights record is 100000 times better.Our Unemployment in Lebanon is at like 18% lol. With Assad, Syria was dominating economically.Assad offered a good economy, peace, safety, security and stability. You cannot use those arguments against him.

Care to quantify this? You can say that "you think" that what the rebels have done is worse but exactly how can you demonstrate that?

Just from the fact that nobody i know has been affected by the military, but that some of my family have been robbed and assaulted by rebels and some have friends or family who have been kidnapped. And these are in small villages who don't protests and keep to themselves. Assad would never attack these peaceful people or their towns. The rebels have attacked them with no reason to at all. They basically have kidnapped and murdered people for no reason. Innocent farmers who have zero connection to Assad.Assad at least says he is killing rebels because he deems them terrorists and that some innocent people will die along the way. But the rebels have no excuse for killing innocent village people who are not involved with politics at all.

You are trying to defend Assad though. The crux of your argument has basically been "everyone in Syria supports Assad, he's done no wrong as all those who have been tortured and killed by his security forces are all terrorists or foreign fighters anyway so it doesn't matter".

I'm not defending Assad. I didn't say everyone in Syria support him. I didn't say he didn't do wrong things. I'm only showing you the side of the story the Western media doesn't talk about.If you made this thread and supported Assad, then i would be here writing stuff about the bad things Assad has done. No side is good.

I'm not. He sees almost no popular support anywhere else in the region aside from in Lebanon, even though many countries share similar demographics and there's still significant support for nationalistic Ba'athist ideology. Again, you say that people "fear the rebels and what they've done"- Syria is a closed police state; it's quite unlikely that many of its citizens are actually exposed to any information about the actions of the rebel fighters that isn't directly from the mouths of the Syrian government, and as the Syrian government have far bigger things to worry about than polling their population to establish popular support- the threat of insurgency, the ever-growing opposition movement and violent resistance to name but three- then I think you may struggle to quantify this.

So why have i NEVER met anyone here, whether Christian or Muslim, who is against Assad? I know easily over 100 Syrians here and every new one i meet i ask about Assad.

But your "stability and peace" argument basically descends into "fear of the unknown" if you boil it down.

No it doesn't? There is peace and stability in the country because Assad has made it clear that all religions must work together and have respect for each other. When my grandpa (A Priest) escaped to Syria from Lebanon during the war could walk around the Shia neighborhoods and they would kiss his hand and show extreme respect to him. During the Shia leaders speech a few days ago, the head of the Christians came into the Mosque and sat down on the floor besides the muslims.You people who have never visited Syria think it's from fear. It's not. There is huge respect towards every Syrian, no matter what religion you are. They are very Patriotic people.

That's probably why he's the top Muslim cleric. Religion is extremely politicised in the region, remember. And, again, check your sources. Posting evidence from a Chinese website saying that the son of Hassoun was killed by "terrorists"? Well, that might be their interpretation, but remember China was one of the powers that vetoed the UNSC resolution condemning Syria. Remember also that China has significant interests in Syria. Is it in the Chinese interest to portray the Syrian opposition as terrorists? Yes, it is.

lol that was just a random article that came up on google when i clicked it. It was reported the same way in Western media.

Actually, no I didn't. Your total incapability to understand rudimentary mathematics is astonishing. I'll break it down for you.Recorded population of Homs- approximately 1.2 millionPopulation of Homs currently- approximately 900,000Percentage of Hom's urban mass currently under siege- approximately 50%Total number of people in the military firing line- approximately 450,000Total number of armed rebel fighters in Homs- a maximum of 5,000 according to FSA figures.450,000 / 5,000 = 90Giving a ratio of 90 civilians to 1 armed opposition fighter.I don't think it could be much easier to understand.

LOL yer, the entire Syrian army is only around Homs. Ok.There is probably 20,000-30,000 soldiers who's focus is Homs.So the ratio is nowhere near 90:1, in Homs

Oh yes, because a white British national with no credible links to the nation, let alone it's rulers, is even going to make it past customs.

I know many Australian-British people who traveled to Syria on their holiday to visit religious sights. They had no trouble getting in and enjoyed the country a lot. They were actually planning to go back and visit more religious sights but the troubles there now changed their mind.

Even if I were to, what do you think it would accomplish? Do you think I'd be able to get into Homs to see the violence being perpetrated by Assad's forces? Do you think I'd even be allowed to roam Damascus freely, or go to the sites of any of the apparently "opposition-conducted" attacks? Do you not think that the secret police or the paid Assad supporters would probably attempt to have me lynched as a foreign spy?

HAHAHA. This isn't North Korea. When i visited Syria, i went everywhere and anywhere i wanted in my own car and barely once saw the military or any government workers apart from the few police in the Streets of major cities, mostly directing traffic. There are probably more military checkpoints and random searches in Texas then there are in Syria. Seriously, your misconception of Syria is astounding.

I'm sorry, but in this argument no-ones claims are truly verified. We're both relying on unverified and potentially biased claims. However, I've got the weight of experience, the rational analysis and the weight of most of the academic, professional and international communities behind me, as well as a far wider range of sources presenting roughly similar arguments. Something you evidently seem to lack, as your arguments have fluctuated on an almost line-by-line, and certainly a day-by-day, basis.

My persona experience with the country and high level of contacts in the country now > Your generalized overall opinion on what might be happening based on history and experience with similar events.

I don't. The point I'm making is that the only evidence that actually supports your argument contradicts your figures.

How can it contradict my figures if the evidence is most likely false and unverified?

You're missing the point. It's an entirely hollow gesture. He's not going to be capable of holding a free and fair referendum as he's promised, not least because he's got about 3% of his entire national population under siege and another 0.5% imprisoned without trial or charges.

So, in your opinion, what should he do? (Was the first question i asked in this post anyways so ignore here).

've never once claimed that the rebels are intrinsically "good"; I've claimed that they're not as complicit in violence against civilians as the Syrian armed forces and security apparatus are,

Because they have not been reported by Western Media who are obviously biased. They are doing very bad things.

By claiming that the government are perfectly within their power to lay siege to large portions of a major city and heavily shell civilians?

Negotiations with the terrorists failed. They have no choice but to surround the city to capture or kill them. Innocent people will die. It happens everywhere.

I've already explained that they're not according to any accepted definition of terrorism. If you want to classify them as "terrorists" you can, but you're wrong.

I classify the murder of innocent people i know, kidnappings, assault and bombings as terrorism. At the least it is mass murder. Either way, they are criminals who have broken the law.

Show me where I've claimed this, too. I've said that I doubt many of the official accounts of crimes committed by the opposition fighters, but I've never tried to justify what criminal actions they have committed.

You're implying it by your defense of the rebels' actions.

 

 

Sorry for going off-topic, carry on with the discussion.

Edited February 23, 2012 by miromiro

[AlexGTAGamer]

Oh this topic is about Skyrim now? If that's the case, send the Dovahkiin to Syria he'll sort things out.

 

-EDIT-

 

Aw, things are back to the way they were before now.

Edited February 23, 2012 by AlexGTAGamer

[Guns N R0se]

Imperial forever. Dirty Stormcloaks will die at the end of my blade!

[coin-god]

I don't find it funny.

[Mati]

Long live Talos! Long live Skyrim! Long live Ulfric! Long live Stormcloaks!

 

We'll fight to our dying breath! We shall grind them Imperials into dust!

 

Seems like things are back to normal.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Mati

[Robinski]

 

I know double posting isn't kosher, but felt that this needed to be added to the thread.

 

From The Telegraph

 

 

Marie Colvin killed: Syrian forces had pledged to kill 'any journalist who set foot on Syrian soil'

 

So now Syrian military forces are intentionally targeting foreign correspondents to prevent the truth of the situation getting out? That's certainly how it looks from here.

This makes me feel sick. How can they be pulling this sort of sh*t (i.e. they know what they're doing is so f*cked up they have to silence foreign reporters) while the rest of the civilised world sits on its collective hands. They aren't even trying to be subtle about it; rounding up journalists and sending them home, controlling their movements, hell even arresting them is subtler than outright killing them. The Syrian establishment is shameless and obviously gives no f*cks, yet we still sit around doing nothing. If you intervene in one instance like this, you set a precedent. To pick and choose the battles you fight when they're similar circumstances just proves that there are always ulterior motives.

 

Also, this might just be me being butthurt on the internet, but I'm a bit disappointed at the topic title, this sort of thing isn't exactly a joke. E:Nevermind.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Robinski

[Whiskey]

I really do hope her and her photographers murder does act as a catalyst for some kind of action against Assad's regime. It's sick how they can deliberately try to kill journalists and people still do nothing. I understand that it's complicated for some kind of intervention, but even strategical military strikes or covert ops can be enough to disrupt communication/supply lines.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Whiskey

[Rown]

Sorry if I'm confusing my British news outlets, but isn't the Telegraph the sh*tty ultra-sensational one?

 

That said I don't see this drastically affecting the present course. The US is unlikely to do a whole lot until after November at this rate. Unless there was another Libya-styled intervention... then we'd do the same thing again.

 

Anyone remember when the Arab Spring was going on and they said Syria would be the one that wouldn't see anything happen?

 

Rown

[Robinski]

 

Sorry if I'm confusing my British news outlets, but isn't the Telegraph the sh*tty ultra-sensational one?

You're probably thinking of the Daily Mail. The Daily Telegraph's not exactly The Times or the Guardian, but it's much closer to them than The Mail.

[sivispacem]

 

So, this is verified how?

...Well, it's verified because it's taken directly from the operational records distributed into the public domain by the military powers responsible for the operations. And not one jot of it has had any doubt cast on it by a credible authority. So under the circumstances I find myself asking the question how isn't it verified?

 

 

Well my point is that all the things used against Gaddafi to ruin his image (that he killed and tortured his own people) is almost identical to what the new government is doing now. It was a failure and i expect the same to occur in Syria if Assad is removed from government. That's my point.

Are you claiming that Gaddafi didn't kill and torture his own people? Because that doesn't really tally with reality. At no point have you really provided any information of any kind to suggest that Gadaffi wasn't involved in the mass killing of his people. Besides, I fail to see what this comment adds to the argument on Syria.

 

 

Libya was improving it's human rights record yearly with time. They were slowly changing towards a better society.

"Improving" being the operative word. The security situation in Somalia is "improving", but I still don't recommend going on holiday there. It also rather neglects the fact that Gaddafi essentially swore to murder every man, woman or child who opposed him, either passively or actively.

 

 

Your poll would be relevant except that even those who don't live in Syria anymore or Syrians who were not born there ALL want Assad to stay. There is no obligation or fear for those Syrians living in Australia. Yet they still crowd the streets with their rally's for Assad.

This is an entirely personal statement, badly disguises as fact. If, as you suggest, everyone who is Syrian either by birth or by residence supports Assad, then why can you not provide any evidence? Surely that's the first thing Assad and his supporters would want out in the open. Also, has it ever occurred to you that your viewpoint is shaped more by the backgrounds of the people you know than any objective ability to analyse the situation?

 

 

Security? LOL. Syria was the safest country in the Middle-East

Was being the operative word. Now, if most estimates are to be believed, you're more likely to die violently in Syria than you are in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

 

 

And since Assad became President, Syria never experienced any negative periods of Economic Growth.

No, but it's been averaging 1.1% growth a year over the last decade- considerably slower than most other regional powers. There's also very high annual inflation in comparison to economic growth- about five times. You can't just look at the headline statistics; they reveal little. Besides, after the economic mess Syria was left in during the late 1980s (thanks to expansionist foreign policy, a clandestine war in Lebanon with Israel and the costs of holding on to their occupied territory to the North), it's hard not to grow.

 

 

It's human rights record is 100000 times better (than Saudi Arabia).

I don't recall the last time Saudi Arabian armed forces killed 200+ unarmed civilians a week for a month. I also don't recall them being involved in large-scale summary executions of opposition activists. I also don't recall any time in recent history where they actively encouraged the murder of foreign nationals whose only role in the country is to provide an objective and unburdened perspective on events.

 

 

Assad offered a good economy, peace, safety, security and stability. You cannot use those arguments against him.

Historically, and aside from some of the minor issues highlighted above (and some more complex ones that I could go into), then I'd be inclined to agree with you- though I do note the lack of "freedom" in your list. But you can't claim that an individual is of merit based on their past when their present sees them committing crimes against humanity. It's basically akin to saying "Pol Pot was a great leader" whilst handily ignoring the Killing Fields- completely absurd.

 

 

Assad at least says he is killing rebels because he deems them terrorists and that some innocent people will die along the way. But the rebels have no excuse for killing innocent village people who are not involved with politics at all.

And why would Assad come clean and say "you know what, we have been killing vast numbers of innocent civilians without rhyme or reason? You're clearly so drawn in by his graven image and paper-thin propaganda that you'd defend him even if he was the Antichrist himself, so there's little sense in debating these points. In short, your argument has absolutely no credibility at all; if you can start producing evidence that all those engaged in armed resistance against him are terrorists then I will start listening to what you have to say, but until then he's just committing genocide and none of your musings (which are, in the grand scheme of things, roughly akin to Holocaust denial) are utterly irrelevant.

 

 

I'm not defending Assad.

Read the things you said above, and then re-assess this claim.

 

 

If you made this thread and supported Assad, then i would be here writing stuff about the bad things Assad has done. No side is good.

Oh, so you're playing devils advocate? That's not how it looks to an outside observer. If you were playing devil's advocate, you would concede on points where you genuinely had been beaten and had no legitiamte response, rather than descending broken-record-style into roundabout repetitions of essentially the same point, or ignorant straw-man-isms where you misrepresent everything I say as an illogical, alternate-dimension conclusion of exactly what a bigot might claim I was saying.

 

 

So why have i NEVER met anyone here, whether Christian or Muslim, who is against Assad? I know easily over 100 Syrians here and every new one i meet i ask about Assad.

Several pages back I posted a massive statistical report on support for Assad in the wider Arab region which completely disagrees with you. Might I suggest that the lack of these experiences says more about the people you associate with than the actual mood of the region?

 

 

You people who have never visited Syria think it's from fear.

Oh yes, because Syria is a united utopia that's not gradually imploding.

 

 

lol that was just a random article that came up on google when i clicked it. It was reported the same way in Western media.

And this sums up what's wrong with your posts. You've got no idea about sources or credibility; you just post whatever comes to had that happens to agree with your point of view. An intelligent and reasonable individual would factor the source and any intrinsic bias into what they were saying before they said it, rather than getting so unbelievably defensive about the quality of their sources and trying in vain to damage the reputation of everyone else's rather than defending the credibility of their own.

 

 

LOL yer, the entire Syrian army is only around Homs. Ok.

There is probably 20,000-30,000 soldiers who's focus is Homs.

So the ratio is nowhere near 90:1, in Homs

How thick are you? Read very carefully what I wrote again. Exactly what relevance does the number of Syrian armed forces personnel surrounding Homs have on the number of civilians that are in the firing line from government artillery?

 

 

I know many Australian-British people who traveled to Syria on their holiday to visit religious sights. They had no trouble getting in and enjoyed the country a lot. They were actually planning to go back and visit more religious sights but the troubles there now changed their mind.

 

HAHAHA. This isn't North Korea. When i visited Syria, i went everywhere and anywhere i wanted in my own car and barely once saw the military or any government workers apart from the few police in the Streets of major cities, mostly directing traffic. There are probably more military checkpoints and random searches in Texas then there are in Syria. Seriously, your misconception of Syria is astounding.

Before the country descended into civil war, sure. But the fact even independent foreign reporters- who are clearly protected under various international treaties- are not only having to be smuggled across borders but are also being actively targeted by the Syrian armed forces speaks volumes about what the likely response would be.

 

 

My persona experience with the country and high level of contacts in the country now > Your generalized overall opinion on what might be happening based on history and experience with similar events.

No it does not. Your personal experiences of the country at a previous time in which the armed forces weren't conducting crimes against humanity bears absolutely no relevance in the current situation. It's basically akin to claiming that you know everything there is to know about modern Iran because you went during the reign of the Shah. In short, it's an idiotic fallacy, a last gasp by an individual whose run out of counter-arguments to present.

 

Your argument is basically "I know better than every analyst, reporter and foreign affairs professional in the world, because I once went to a country that's now completely different".

 

 

How can it contradict my figures if the evidence is most likely false and unverified?

Because if your contradict those who tow the same line as you, what evidence you actually have- regardless of veracity- is entirely null and void and therefore so is your argument.

 

 

So, in your opinion, what should he do? (Was the first question i asked in this post anyways so ignore here).

Call off the siege, for one. Stop shelling Homs and Dera, and permit humanitarian assistance. Allow a UN fact-finding mission to enter the country to analyse allegations of war crimes by both sides, and crimes against humanity committed by Assad's forces. Engage in dialogue with the opposition. Establish due process for the commencement of democratic elections, overseen by the Arab League- which he can stand in all he wants. If he wants to show the world that he has the support of the people behind him, then what better way to do it?

 

 

Because they have not been reported by Western Media who are obviously biased. They are doing very bad things.

What about media sources who have no clear agenda? What about the various freelancers who have operated in Syria, including in Homs? What about, as I've said dozens of times, private intellgience providers whose only loyalty is to their customers and shareholders? You've not explained these away yet

 

 

Negotiations with the terrorists failed. They have no choice but to surround the city to capture or kill them. Innocent people will die. It happens everywhere.

Negotiations? Don't make me laugh. If the Syrian government won't even suspend the siege of a city to permit humanitarian assistance, they're not going to negotiate with their opponents.

 

 

I classify the murder of innocent people i know, kidnappings, assault and bombings as terrorism.

Good for you. You're wrong. Also, by your own definition, they Syrian government and armed forces are responsible for terrorism.

 

 

You're implying it by your defense of the rebels' actions.

Where have I explicitly defended the rebel's actions. Claiming that the Syrian government has lost their mandate to rule, have engaged in crimes against humanity and are responsible for genocide on a similar scale to Srebrenica is not a defence of the rebels. Claiming that the vast majority of rebels are dissolutional armed forces personnel, and disputing their involvement in terrorist activities highlighted intentionally by the Syrian government to discredit them, isn't an explicit defence of them either. So please highlight exactly where I have explicitly defended them.

[Oddsock]

I'm not really here for a big argument, but the deliberate killing of journalists is grounds for invasion in my opinion. Someone's gotta go in there and f*ck the Syrian military up for that kind of bullsh*t.

[Guns N R0se]

As much as I agree no military should be specifically targeting journalists, you have to admit the journalists accept some risk by going into a war zone, there's always the chance they could get shot.

[GTA_stu]

So when they kill thousands of their own people, it's not time to invade. But when 1 western person gets killed we should invade? I don't really see the logic there.