The Syrian Civil War

[Robinski]

Well, for one, it was actually two people (Rémi Ochlik was killed alongside Colvin) but it's much more a statement of intent than killing someone who's actively rebelling. The whole thing's been horrific from the start, and personally I've stated my dissatisfaction about the West picking and choosing its battles in the Arab Spring in numerous topics over the past year. But what specifically targeting and killing journalists says is that Syria (for clarity when I say "Syria" I mean the government) knows what it is doing is wrong and that the rest of the world will condemn it. Previously, they could have claimed that they legitimately saw this as quelling violent civil unrest or terrorism, but now that they've targeted outside observers they're overtly trying to cover up something they're doing. And nobody tries to cover up something if they see nothing wrong with it.

 

Anyway, here's a video I saw yesterday that I found really interesting. A really close insight into what the rebel side are encountering on a day-to-day basis.

 

[sivispacem]

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.

If it was purely the accidental result of a mistarrget strike, I woyld be inclined to agree. Even an incident of a single soldier's unlawful action (as was the case when Colvin lost her eye) I would be more understanding. But in this case it does appear that the Syrian security forces are intentionally targeting foreign non-combatants who are afforded special protection under the laws of war. That's a war crime, plain and simple.

[Oddsock]

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.

What Robinski and sivis just said is my train of thought.

[GTAknowledge]

 

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.

 

...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?

 

Show me the map the Guardian did and where the government confirmed it, or showed a similar map?

 

 

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.

 

No, i said that the new government is doing the same thing, but it was never made into a big deal like it was for Gaddafi.

 

And didn't say Gaddafi didn't do those things, i said the new government is also doing it. So to say ghaddafi is bad and the rebels/new government is good would be a ignorant statement.

 

 

"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.

 

Libya in 2010 > Libya in 2012.

 

The bad things that were occuring under Gaddafi were being reduced. Now that the new government has come in, it's like Libya has gone bacl to the 90's when the country was more stricter. Not to say Gaddafi in 2010 was good by any means, but i strongly think he is nowhere near as bad as this new government who committed the worst possible crimes against humanity from day 1.

 

 

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.

 

What type of evidence can i provide of the Syrains i know? Give me a reasonable way and i will do it to prove my experience to be true.

 

 

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?

 

Well their background is Syrians of all religions who have either lived in Syria under Assad or live there right now. I would trust them because what the people who live here are telling me matches closely to what those in the country are telling me.

 

I can't analyse the situation the traditional way in this case because evidence and news is too unreliable and propaganda from both sides is too strong. In this case, i would rather listen to those i know who are family then to listen to what CNN or the media has to say. It is rare to find a specific connection what what the media is saying and what is actually happening.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, it was until the rebels began desalinizing the country. And it's nowhere near as bad as Iraq or Afghanistan. The 2 biggest cities in Syria still operate normally. Only when the rebels make their way to these cities will it then be unsafe.

 

 

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.

 

Were did you get 1.1% from?

 

Average for Syria for the past 10 years: 3.3%

 

Average for Lebanon for past 10 years: 2.6%

 

Average for Israel for the past 10 years: 3.3%

 

 

I think their economy, in terms of growth, was doing very good compared to other country's. Even Israel experienced negative growth, but Syria didn't.

 

In fact, Syria was the only country in the past 10 years in the region that did not have negative growth, which further shows the stability the country had.

 

Syria's Current Unemployment rate: 8%

Lebanon's Current Unemployment rate: 18%

Jordan Current Unemployment rate: 13.4%

Turkey's Current Unemployment rate: 10%

 

Also, every time i visit Lebanon, i'm almost always forced to cross the border to buy goods because it's more then half the price in Syria than Lebanon. Ridiculously cheap. So i really can't see the high inflation you talked about.

 

I know in 2007/2008 the inflation rate went up a lot, but usually is stays around 2-3%%. Given that they have the lowest unemployment rate compared to a lot of other country's, obviously spending will be up and generally inflation would be a little higher as well.

 

And yes, i know it's not hard not to grow, but your saying the late 1980's. Bashar's took power in 2000. Since then the economy has grown better then ever.

 

Now that NATO has put sanctions on the country, prices will go up, unemployment will rise and growth will drop. More civilian deaths because of NATO.

 

 

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.

 

Because is is ignored by the media and is such a restricted country. Saudi Arabia has such little freedom that even speaking out against the government will have your entire family killed. The Western media has not talked about it, but you can be sure that many real innocent people have been killed in Saudi Arabia for trying to start a protest.

 

Saudia Arabia Intensifies its Crackdown on Protesters

 

 

Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry has defended the regime’s ruthless repression of anti-government protests on Monday and threatened to use an “iron fist” against protesters.

 

“It is the state's right to confront those that confront it first... and the Saudi Arabian security forces will confront such situations ... with determination and force and with an iron first,” the ministry said in a statement on Monday.

 

lol the Saudi's openly say they will kill anyone who dares challenge the government.

 

Assad's government compared to Saudi Arabia is good. lol. So much restrictions on freedom and human rights violations in Saudi Arabia that the media ignores, of course, because the US and Saudi Arabia have great relations. They work together to bring down Assad when the Saudi Government is a million times worse.

 

 

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.

 

There is no reason for rebels to kill innocent people, rob them, assault them, cut their bodies up, torture them and commit mass murder. Assad's goal is to kill rebels and anyone linked to them. The rebels goal is to kill civilians.

 

 

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.

 

????? I knew this event happened on the day it happened. The point is the Grand Mufti's son was killed by rebels as he was leaving University. Why does it matter what site i quote when ALL are saying the same thing. "The Grand Mufti's son was killed by rebels".

 

 

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?

 

When talking about Homs, you said the rebels were outnumbered 90:1.

 

Then you said that there was 5,000 rebels in Homs. Rebels are the FSA, armed civilians and anyone firing at the military.

That would then mean that the amount of soldiers there would be 450,000 (to correlate to yur 90:1 ratio), which is basically the entire military.

 

So, you are wrong. The ratio, in Homs is nowhere near 90:1.

 

 

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.

 

Because the government told them not to enter? It's their country and they can allow who they want in. Visitors on vacation to the country, which would be you, are allowed in.

 

 

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?

 

The rebels have vowed NOT to stop killing in the name of "Allah". Assad has made many offers to stop IF they stop. They won't.

If Assad stops now, the rebels will spread, more innocent people die and go missing and the entire country will becomes a mess. Assad is trying to contain the rebels and kill them off. After this, which he hopes will bring the country to a reasonable level of stabilization, changes to the law and government will take places in the goal of bringing about more choice and freedom to the people which the protestors wanted.

 

 

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

 

I can't trust any of them yet as it's hard to verify because so many have different stories and information. It's near impossible to see what the rebels are doing because it's not visible to the public. Kidnappings happen quietly when people are working, family mass killings happen mostly in smaller towns, torture and cutting up of bodies occur in secret hideouts of the rebels. The rebels snipers are hard to sopt, and chances are if you see them, they see you and will kill you.

 

It's hard to report on the rebels and they will only allow you to interview them and not watch there real actions. But the military can be seen by all reporters. Obviously it's going to look one sided from a journalists perspective.

 

What about these journalists in this video? Much of what they say is very close to what the Syrians in the country are seeing and telling me, so to me, it's more believable given i have people who can confirm it to me.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Well they have tried to negotiate. Assad has called for the rebels to stop, they won't and said they will continue. Why is it Assad should stop firing at them? Why don't they stop first? And also stop the random killings and kidnappings.

 

 

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

 

The Syrian Law gives authority for the military to protect civilians from the rebels. Shelling a rebel strong hold is considered to be defense of the country by the military. So killing rebels is not terrorism.

 

 

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.

 

The fact that you put Assad in the wrong in most of what you say. For example a few points above, you want the Military to be the one to stop the attacks first? Why not the rebels first when they are the one's committing the crimes and breaking the laws of Syria?

 

And how you tried to say that the people protesting want Prosperity when that is exactly what Assad has been working for 10 years to achieve.

Edited February 25, 2012 by GTAknowledge

[sivispacem]

 

Show me the map the Guardian did and where the government confirmed it, or showed a similar map?

Daily briefs of targeted military strikes can be found on NATO's Operational Media Updates page, in chronological order. Fill your boots.

 

 

No, i said that the new government is doing the same thing, but it was never made into a big deal like it was for Gaddafi.

Perhaps that's because this kind of unrest is entirely to be expected in the transitional phase of any nation that's seen significant amounts of civil unrest?

 

 

And didn't say Gaddafi didn't do those things, i said the new government is also doing it. So to say ghaddafi is bad and the rebels/new government is good would be a ignorant statement.

Again, I've never said that. You implied that Gaddafi was a favourable option to the TNC, which is the case if you compare, say, 2010 with 2012 but certainly not if you compare 2011 with 2012. As I've said before, if you're talking pure casualty figures you'd need many years of the unrest we've seen over the last 4 months to reach the level perpetrated by Gaddafi's security apparatus over a course of 2011.

 

 

Libya in 2010 > Libya in 2012. The bad things that were occuring under Gaddafi were being reduced. Now that the new government has come in, it's like Libya has gone bacl to the 90's when the country was more stricter. Not to say Gaddafi in 2010 was good by any means,

This is an incredibly misleading statement. Sure, compare Libya during a time when no civil unrest existed to a second time in the immediate aftermath of 8 months of violent unrest- that makes plenty of logical sense. You can't say "oh, Gaddafi presided over 2010 when considerably less Libyans were dying violently by his hand than are currently dying violently, so he's empirically better than the alternative" and entirely ignore the fact that he killed tens of thousands of his own people in a period of a few short months in 2011. It's a logical fallacy of the most astronomic proportions.

 

 

but i strongly think he is nowhere near as bad as this new government who committed the worst possible crimes against humanity from day 1.

Also, please show where the Libyan rebels have been accused of crimes against humanity. The UN accused both sides of committing war crimes, but there's a huge step up from war crimes to crimes against humanity in ICC terminology. Crimes against humanity requires tangible evidence of a campaign designed to entirely eradicate one social, political or ethnic group from a nation.

 

 

What type of evidence can i provide of the Syrains i know? Give me a reasonable way and i will do it to prove my experience to be true.

Well, you could demonstrate they don't have any direct or indirect connection to the existing regime. That would be pretty much the only way of deeming them impartial witnesses and therefore the only way their statements could be taken as anything other than rhetoric.

 

 

Well their background is Syrians of all religions who have either lived in Syria under Assad or live there right now. I would trust them because what the people who live here are telling me matches closely to what those in the country are telling me.

Well forgive my scepticism but I don't trust them as effective sources of evidence. The fact that all the information you derive from them seems to be rhetoric and hearsay, very little of which is reflected in any kind of reporting coming out of Syria- even that by the Syrian government and her allies- just demonstrates to me that there's a campaign of propaganda being engaged in. I find it deeply ironic that you accuse almost all media outlets and even private intelligence providers of having an ulterior agenda yet fail to acknowledge that the very views you repeatedly present as informed and impartial fact are almost entirely driven by rhetoric and propaganda.

 

 

I can't analyse the situation the traditional way in this case because evidence and news is too unreliable and propaganda from both sides is too strong. In this case, i would rather listen to those i know who are family then to listen to what CNN or the media has to say. It is rare to find a specific connection what what the media is saying and what is actually happening.

A intelligent and rational individual would acknowledge the difficulty in verifying information and would instead substitute individual source veracity for weight in numbers. Which, frankly, and especially after the events of the past 3 or so days, is something that it's very unlikely they Syrian government would be able to do anything to achieve. When journalists with decades of experience writing on conflict are claiming that the situation in Syria is amongst the worst cases of state-sponsored brutality they've ever seen, they're not doing so out of rhetoric. There's absolutely no need for individual like Marie Colvin to misrepresent information. there's also no reason the Syrian armed forces should directly target them unless they're trying to silence independent criticism of their actions.

 

 

Yes, it was until the rebels began desalinizing the country. And it's nowhere near as bad as Iraq or Afghanistan. The 2 biggest cities in Syria still operate normally. Only when the rebels make their way to these cities will it then be unsafe.

Um, I think you'll find it is- even if you ignore the alleged deaths of security personnel. The UN stopped counting in Syria at about 5,800; independent organisations working to assess the situation have put the death toll at circa 7,500, with a number of other sources claiming over 8,000 have died. Lets say 6,500 for the sake of argument, of whom if Syrian government sources are to be believed around 580 have been "armed terrorists" to use their terms. Around 3,200 people died in Iraq last year (an average of a little less than 9 a day). 3,021 were killed in Afghanistan- and that figure includes Taliban fighters and Afghan security personnel. That means the death toll in Syria over the last 12 months (excluding entirely uncertainty around security forces casualties) appears to be several hundred higher than the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if one includes security forces in those figures.

 

So, statistically, you're wrong.

 

 

Were did you get 1.1% from? Average for Syria for the past 10 years: 3.3%

Having double checked my figures, you're right here- I gave figures for the period 1991-2000.

 

 

Also, every time i visit Lebanon, i'm almost always forced to cross the border to buy goods because it's more then half the price in Syria than Lebanon. Ridiculously cheap. So i really can't see the high inflation you talked about.

All that demonstrates is that wages are higher in Lebanon than they are in Syria. In fact, drastically higher. The average monthly wage in Syria equates to $242. The absolute minimum wage for a full-time worker in Lebanon is $466 a month.

 

 

Now that NATO has put sanctions on the country, prices will go up, unemployment will rise and growth will drop. More civilian deaths because of NATO.

Oh, it's NATO's fault if Syria experiences economic stagnation? Nothing to do with the fact they've killed thousands of their own citizens and essentially isolated themselves to the entire international community? What about the other states who have put sanctions on them? The African Union? The Arab League? What about the overwhelming statements in the UN General Assembly, where 137 nations openly condemned Syria and only 12 voted against?

 

 

Because is is ignored by the media and is such a restricted country.

So you're claiming that it's routine for Saudi Arabia to kill hundreds of its own citizens every month? I'm fully aware of the crackdown. I'm also fully aware of the cross-border raids into Northern Yemen to combat AQAP. But it's not anything like on the scale of what's happening in Syria.

 

 

There is no reason for rebels to kill innocent people, rob them, assault them, cut their bodies up, torture them and commit mass murder.

I've seen far more evidence suggesting the Syrian security forces are culpable in torture and mass murder than the rebels are.

 

 

When talking about Homs, you said the rebels were outnumbered 90:1.

No. You've basically completely misunderstood what I've been saying. My point was that there is no legitimate military reason for an artillery bombardment in a city where innocent civilians outnumber rebels by almost 100 to 1. It's a suggestion of a policy of genocide rather than a rational military policy to remove violent resistance. I can't be helped if you're completely incapable of understanding what is quite a simple idea.

 

 

Because the government told them not to enter? It's their country and they can allow who they want in. Visitors on vacation to the country, which would be you, are allowed in.

Actually, they can't. Reporters are afforded special protection from violence according to the laws of war. There is a particular and special exemption preventing the targeting of journalists which basically decrees that, as these individuals movements and locations can be actively tracked through their reporting, any attempt to target these locations is seen as a flagrant violation of the laws of war which protect civilian non-combatants and any evidence that journalists in particular are being targeted it treated as a war crime.

 

 

It's hard to report on the rebels and they will only allow you to interview them and not watch there real actions. But the military can be seen by all reporters. Obviously it's going to look one sided from a journalists perspective.

What about all the footage that's been shot by foreign cameramen and recorded by foreign journalists? That rather contradicts this statement.

 

 

Well they have tried to negotiate. Assad has called for the rebels to stop, they won't and said they will continue. Why is it Assad should stop firing at them? Why don't they stop first?

I fail to see any evidence that Assad has tried to negotiate with any political figure of the resistance movement. Remember, this is an individual who until yesterday wouldn't even consider a bilateral cease fire to permit the evacuation of wounded women and children.

 

 

The Syrian Law gives authority for the military to protect civilians from the rebels. Shelling a rebel strong hold is considered to be defense of the country by the military. So killing rebels is not terrorism.

Okay, so you're changing your definition. Quite apart from the fact that one could mount a pretty reasonable argument that the Syrian government no longer possess their mandated right to the use of violent force (due to their previous actions and the international response to them), "shelling a rebel stronghold" is only a legitimate military action if every action within the power of the Syrian authorities to mitigate civilian casualties has been undertaken. This is blatantly not the case- see my earlier comments about civilians massively outnumbering combatants. Ergo, the very shelling of Homs is a war crime in itself.

 

 

The fact that you put Assad in the wrong in most of what you say. For example a few points above, you want the Military to be the one to stop the attacks first? Why not the rebels first when they are the one's committing the crimes and breaking the laws of Syria?

Because he is. From a purely strategic perspective, there is absolutely no justification for the scale, type or ferocity of the assault he is conducting on Homs. This isn't a statement claiming that the rebels are empirically good and Assad is empirically bad; terms like this are unhelpful. My argument is that, by his use of siege tactics, he is giving away his true strategic objective which is the total annihilation of all opposition, whether peaceful or violent. You don't indiscriminately shell a city for weeks at a time if you have any intention of targeting a small number of armed resistance fighters. Ergo, his goal is not to destroy violent opposition, but to destroy all opposition. This intentionally brings civilians into the firing line and makes them targets in the eyes of his forces. Ergo, he's guilty of war crimes at the very least, and if the strategic decisions he has made are an indicator of overall policy (and there's no reason to suggest they aren't) then crimes against humanity too.

 

 

And how you tried to say that the people protesting want Prosperity when that is exactly what Assad has been working for 10 years to achieve.

It was more the "safety and security" aspect. Regardless of what you say, Assad and his security apparatus have killed many times more innocent civilians than the rebels have- that much is abundantly clear from a whole multitude of sources. That isn't the behaviour of an individual who seeks prosperity and security for his citizens.

[Slamman]

I would have expected a US Intervention, but I guess, after Libya, we felt it not the best thing, still, it's just horrible to have to live anywhere near there. There's no aid getting in while the fighting continues. Last I heard there maybe a window to allow some aid, but it's rather hopeless

[Theodoro]

It would be helpful to give weapons to the opposition, but it might also give way to Assad to treat it as a full on military campaign.

 

The conflict can't be solved the same way as it was in Libya with air strikes, because in Syria, the majority of the fighting is close quarters in the cities. In Libya it was across a barren desert. The collateral would be too high.

 

 

[Dingdongs]

It would be helpful to give weapons to the opposition, but it might also give way to Assad to treat it as a full on military campaign.

 

The conflict can't be solved the same way as it was in Libya with air strikes, because in Syria, the majority of the fighting is close quarters in the cities. In Libya it was across a barren desert. The collateral would be too high.

Arming the opposition is probably not a good idea considering they have no leadership structure and we don't even know who is leading it.

[OchyGTA]

*cough* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17255912 *cough*

 

Western leaders still gonna let this sh*t slide huh?

[Typhus]

Some news today, very bizarre news, but it's worth posting.

Apparently Assad's private e-mails have fallen into the hands of the media, and a lot of them seem almost surreal given his actions. He sends his wife love songs, enjoys a YouTube video 'humourously' reenacting the battle of Homs with biscuits and jokes about the prospect of making any kind of democratic reforms.

Also, whilst the people suffer, his wife is busy ordering thousands of pounds worth of furniture. It all seems oddly reminiscent of the Ceausescu family, living in an opulent bubble whilst their downfall creeps closer and closer.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2...ails/53541330/1

[Icarus]

It all seems oddly reminiscent of the Ceausescu family, living in an opulent bubble whilst their downfall creeps closer and closer.

Remember how it ended for the Ceausescu's, though.

 

[Dingdongs]

Some news today, very bizarre news, but it's worth posting.

Apparently Assad's private e-mails have fallen into the hands of the media, and a lot of them seem almost surreal given his actions. He sends his wife love songs, enjoys a YouTube video 'humourously' reenacting the battle of Homs with biscuits and jokes about the prospect of making any kind of democratic reforms.

Also, whilst the people suffer, his wife is busy ordering thousands of pounds worth of furniture. It all seems oddly reminiscent of the Ceausescu family, living in an opulent bubble whilst their downfall creeps closer and closer.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2...ails/53541330/1

Also reminds me of the Marcos family in the Philippines. Imelda Marcos was a big fan of shoes.

[GTAknowledge]

Going to post a quick update of some things you might not have seen in Western Media. Forgot about this thread and just saw it bumped up.

 

 

- Homs has been taken over by the Military. They drove out the majority of the terrorists. Now they are going door to door confiscating weapons and assisting people with their needs:

 

 

 

 

 

- One of Syrian best champion boxers was sh*t dead by a random attack by rebels. Another killing of an innocent man. This video apparently captures his killing:

 

 

 

 

 

- Kofi Annan visted Syria a few days ago for talks with President Assad. The talks didn't lead to much yet:

 

 

 

 

 

 

- More exposing of lies done by Al-Jazeera. There was also a few showing CNN lies. Here is a video that was aired on arabic television. The Lebanese leader of the Al-Jazeera network quit because he said money is not enough for people's lies. He is aware of what Al-Jazeera will make him do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- More videos showing random killings of civilians by armed terrorist rebels:

 

Randomly shooting at a taxi:

 

 

 

 

Continuously shooting at a man on the ground. The man looks like a civilians. Likely refused to join their fight or stood up for the government:

 

 

 

 

Corner the man in, hit him and kill him. The actions of freedom fighters:

 

 

 

 

 

Just yesterday, the 1 year anniversary of the Syrian conflict. Easily around 5 million people marched in support of Assad in the major cities. Obviously the media will not report this at all, or show the city with the lowest population and say a "few thousand" showed up. Watching TV now, the marching will continue for a few days and the crowds just get bigger and bigger. Some footage:

 

 

 

[AlexGTAGamer]

Anyone else see this news report on landmines being laid near the Syria-Lebanon and Syria-Turkey borders?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17349593

 

Assad sure cares about the civilians, instead of letting them flee from the conflict, he wants to see them horribly maimed.

Edited March 16, 2012 by AlexGTAGamer

[sivispacem]

 

- Homs has been taken over by the Military. They drove out the majority of the terrorists. Now they are going door to door confiscating weapons and assisting people with their needs:

By which you mean slaughtering large numbers of people on a daily basis, surely? Why else would they stall humanitarian entry into the city for a week when it was abundantly clear that the Free Syrian Army had engaged in a tactical retreat? Plenty of evidence for this, from plenty of sources- The Guardian, Al Arabiya, Huffington Post, Albawaba, Al Jazeera and CNN to name but a few.

 

But let me guess, everything that's posted by any organisation not agreeing with your view is just evidence of Western interference and complicit or implicit support for the rebels, am I right?

 

 

- Kofi Annan visted Syria a few days ago for talks with President Assad. The talks didn't lead to much yet:

Perhaps that's because he's too interested in writing his contribution to "modern despot weekly" whilst his country collapses around his ears? Or perhaps it's because he's rather averse to the idea of a second observer mission after the first one accused him of culpability in the mass murder of civilians, and he's in the process of being indicted to the UN Court of Human Rights?

 

As usual, everything else you've posted is pure hyperbole, propaganda or completely without veracity.

[GTAknowledge]

2 terrorist attacks occurred in Damascus today. Soldiers and civilians were killed and government buildings damaged (the targets). Another bomb went off in a moving car, though i don't think it had any affect. It was apparently going to other government buildings. The attacks are very similar to previous terrorist attacks in the country.

 

 

[Dingdongs]

 

As usual, everything else you've posted is pure hyperbole, propaganda or completely without veracity.

 

[AlexGTAGamer]

^^

 

More on that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17412700

 

As usual the blame is going backwards and forwards between Assad's government and the Rebels.

 

Also old news but still interesting:

Syria deputy oil minister resigns to join opposition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17295748

[Dingdongs]

^^

 

More on that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17412700

 

As usual the blame is going backwards and forwards between Assad's government and the Rebels.

 

Also old news but still interesting:

Syria deputy oil minister resigns to join opposition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17295748

Your links aren't from Russia Today so it's not acceptable. I found a link from the CCP's newspaper "People Daily" though that may be enough for GTAKnowledge.

 

http://english.people.com.cn/90780/7734392.html

 

 

[sivispacem]

The attacks are very similar to previous terrorist attacks in the country.

Yes, in that they somehow miraculously found holes in extremely heavy defences and were capable of causing large amounts of damage to government facilities that only hours before were so well defended as to be practically penetrable to VBIEDs. Funny that.

[GTAknowledge]

 

The attacks are very similar to previous terrorist attacks in the country.

Yes, in that they somehow miraculously found holes in extremely heavy defences and were capable of causing large amounts of damage to government facilities that only hours before were so well defended as to be practically penetrable to VBIEDs. Funny that.

You like to twist information don't you?

 

Have you been to Damascus? Do you know the exact location of these terrorist attacks? These facilities were not heavily guarded and are near main roads and markets. It's not hard to drive a car up to them and detonate a bomb? Hundreds of cars pass it daily. You realize civilians also died from the explosions?

 

I don't know what buildings you are talking about? This was not a heavily guarded military base.

 

 

 

Edit: Just got a call from friends in Aleppo, Syria. Another massive terrorist attack occurred. Should hear it on mainstream news soon.

Edited March 18, 2012 by GTAknowledge

[AlexGTAGamer]

Edit: Just got a call from friends in Aleppo, Syria. Another massive terrorist attack occurred. Should hear it on mainstream news soon.

More on that story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17421355

[Dingdongs]

 

The government routinely blames terrorists for bomb attacks

Let's keep these terrorist attacks coming, then.

[Slamman]

Watching the news tonight, people were exuberantly rejoicing the cease fire in the streets, it looked like Egypt all over again, but this maybe very short lived, and a long road to real peace, your thoughts??

[Dingdongs]

 

Watching the news tonight, people were exuberantly rejoicing the cease fire in the streets, it looked like Egypt all over again, but this maybe very short lived, and a long road to real peace, your thoughts??

I haven't seen anything about this. Can you post the article?

[Typhus]

Ceasefire. What a joke. It seems to imply that peace is more important than removing Assad. Peace can wait. All this does is give him time to regroup, give him time to muster and embolden an army which before the truce had been wavering in their loyalty. It gives him time to arrange escape plans so he avoids justice for his crimes. It basically gives him every opportunity to crush these people with even more ruthlessness when he's good and ready.

 

The UN has played right into his hands. I am aware that there is no taste for war, and I of course share their aversion to foreign intervention. But the notion of a ceasefire is insulting and shortsighted.

 

Surely Western nations could covertly funnel aid to the rebels without irking Russia and China too much?

[sivispacem]

It's not even holding that well. There was some footage being discussed with a forensic expert on the Beeb last night that claimed to be showing soldiers shooting unarmed protestors yesterday during Friday prayers- according to him, the date-stamp and time matched the correct position of the sun/shadows, metadata was all correctly identified, no signs of doctoring ect. Now in a conflict of propaganda, where nothing is truly verifiable, I think that's about as close as one can get to saying "yep, this is genuine"

[AtomicPunk]

The U.S. zionists have destroyed or destabilised the whole middle-east. Why? For Israel. The Mossad have agents that sneak into these countries and start a bunch of this sh*t. It's sickening that the world stands by and lets them do it. I live in America and I love my country but like most here I hate the government and what it has become. It is controlled by zionists. That is a fact. I don't hate jews so before the jewish crowd here swarms me, I just wanna let you know that. Israel has made threats that they will use nukes anytime they want. Israel has said things far more crazy than Iran has ever said. They also deny allowing weapons inspectors in but you don't hear nothing about that on the zio-controlled U.S. news media.

But don't worry, I think that it's all about to come to an end for the zionist bankers, Israel, and their evil doing friends because in the next several years there will be an uprising in America. Watch what happens when gas holds at where it is now for very long. It will be the bloodiest civil war ever fought. People are sick of it. If it ain't the neo-cons and zionists then it's the left-winged loon jobs.

 

If the American government keeps on attacking the world, it's only a matter of time before everyone bands together and fight back. Russia and China together would be the only way. Iran is next to be destroyed by the zionists because that's all you hear on the news and that's the same thing they done before they destroyed Iraq and murdered Sadam Hussein. They just murdered Qudaffi.

Edited April 15, 2012 by AtomicPunk

[GTA_stu]

 

Israel has made threats that they will use nukes anytime they want. Israel has said things far more crazy than Iran has ever said.

What the hell are you talking about? Israel have never threatened to use nuclear weapons whenever they want, and what exactly have they said that's worse than what Iran says? I normally respect other people's opinions, but you're just talking a load of rubish pal. You also talked about "reptilians" in another topic. Class A nut job.

[3niX]

Well...

 

 

It is controlled by zionists.

Oh god, not this drivel again...