turkey strikes syria

[PrivateFirstClass]

 

When you started going off on the thinly-veiled-anti-Semitic Zionist conspiracy theories, you basically ruined your credibility- just so you know.

 

Oh, and PrivateFirstClass, put a sock in it. If Russia is corrupted by "Zionism", the why is it probably the most anti-Semitic nation on earth? Your arguments are utterly illogical and completely contradictory. I see you haven't responded to my posts elsewhere on the forum. What happened? Got backed into a corner?

lol of course russian government is anti-semitic, why ? simple :

judaism rejects zionism, zionism has NOTHING to do with judaism, even many jews are against israel and zionism, and what does it tell us ? right ! every government in this world is anti-semitic since they are puppets of zionists and israel is a zionist state, so israel is anti-semitic and all its zionist lobbies and bankers etc.... so your argument was not an argument, it was just another fail like all your other posts.

 

so now you know why russia (and all other governments of the world) are anti-semitic but pro-zionists.

 

anti-zionism is NOT anti-semitism !

pro-zionism IS anti-semitism.

anti-semitism is racism.

anti-zionism is a feat !

 

i haven´t replied on your posts because i do not wan´t to talk with a brick wall that is undestroyable, but this question with russian government and anti-semitism was such a big fail, i had to answer with the brick wall again.

 

also, this has nothing to do with an anti-semitic conspiracy, but you should take your anti-islamic, anti-semitic & anti-american conspiracy theories you take from BBC or CNN (for example the official 9/11 conspiracy theory & how stupid are you to believe everything what the TV says after 11 years?!) and just get out of here, your posts are everytime such a fail, if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts and proves and now see how much bullsh*t you postet.....

[EscoLehGo]

if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts and proves and now see how much bullsh*t you postet.....

Do it then, what's stopping you? Alex Jones' copyright lawyers?

[Captain VXR]

Sivispacem is hardly a brick wall, he provides well reasoned backed up arguments, not conspiracy theory drivel. YOU are the brick wall, PrivateFirstClass.

Some criticisms of zionism are anti-semitic, the ones you use tend to be. Some are not, for example it is not anti-semitic to say that Israeli settlers in the West Bank shouldn't be able to steal land rightfully owned by Palestinian people.

 

Most 9/11 truther arguments are easily disproved, but I bet your paranoid ass won't accept that. Also, how can you claim that FSA is Al Qaeda when your signature says otherwise. Either you're crazy or a crap troll. Furthermore, generally correct spelling and grammar are not exactly hard to achieve, so eitheryu put little thought and effort into your posts, or you are less intelligent than the average 6 year old.

[Captain VXR]

if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts and proves and now see how much bullsh*t you postet.....

Do it then, what's stopping you? Alex Jones' copyright lawyers?

LOL, I can feel his rage building from here!

[GreatGig]

if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts and proves and now see how much bullsh*t you postet.....

If you succeed in doing this, I will eat an item of your choice. Anything at all. Seriously.

[sivispacem]

 

judaism rejects zionism

No it doesn't. Some orthodox Jews reject Zionism- as is outlined in this explaination, but the majority do not. Anti-Zionism is in the vast majority of manifestations anti-Semitic. See article here. As I've explained to you a vast number of times, the fact that the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theorists that you so actively support are pretty much solely the work of undesirables ranging from closet anti-Semites to full-blown neo-Nazi scum-of-the-earth.

 

 

even many jews are against israel and zionism, and what does it tell us?

Quantify "many". If you can demonstrate, statistically, that more Jews are against the existence of Israel as a state than are in favour of it, then I will happily concede this point. But you can't because it isn't true. So, in essence, it tells us nothing.

 

 

every government in this world is anti-semitic since they are puppets of zionists and israel is a zionist state

I do love your toddler logic. Zionism is, or was, supported by the majority of Jews. Ergo, it cannot be anti-Semitic. You struggle to understand that something that goes against some interpretations of Judaism is not inherently "against" it. The claims that a Jewish movement is intrinsically anti-Jewish are absurd to the point of comedy. I put it to you that you don't actually understand what anti-Semitism is, as the way you appear to define it when addressing it as a subject bears no relevance to the actual definition of the term.

 

In order for Zionism to be anti-Semitic, it would have to express hatred for, encourage discrimination towards, or wish destruction on Judaism as a whole. It does not, ergo by that definition it cannot be anti-Semitic and your entire argument is rendered null and void.

 

 

anti-zionism is NOT anti-semitism !

Actually, in most cases it is.

 

 

i haven´t replied on your posts because i do not wan´t to talk with a brick wall that is undestroyable

Is this a guarded acknowledgement that you have a habit of losing debates to me? Or just another example of you throwing your toys out of the pram and screaming at the top of your voice "I'm not playing any more"?

 

 

anti-islamic

anti-semitic

anti-american

You really are grasping at straws here.

 

 

how stupid are you to have developed a rational understanding of the subject matter, based on years of academic study and employment, which makes me more qualified to discuss these issues than every single conspiracy hack in the world combined, as opposed to me who only believes a source if they have absolutely no grounding or experience in the subject on which they choose to speak, no obvious qualification to discuss these issues, and nothing to bring to the table other than spurious nonsense.

There, I fixed this for you.

 

 

your posts are everytime such a fail

Then why can't you ever produce something resembling a rebuttal? Why is your default response to descend into ad-hominem attacks or blanket allegations with absolutely no evidence to support them? Is this a case of you being unwilling to respond like an intelligent, sensible and rational being, or just deciding not to?

 

 

if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts

Go on then. I expect these "facts" to be properly referenced, properly sourced, open for reasonable academic discussion, and produced by people with an obvious grounding in the subject at hand to at least a postgraduate level or equivalent working experience- and in the case of equivalent working experience, I want categorical proof that people who claim to work for governments or security services actually do, because the vast majority of people who claim to are fantasists- people like "Dr" Doug Rokke do not constitute a reliable source, for instance.

[EgyptianStar]

I don't think the rebels are moderate. They haven't been winning the population over by using guerrilla tactics.What do you think will happen if the Assad or the Syrian Government collapses. Their will be a power vacuum. The Alwhaite community will surely be wiped up by the Sunni Rebel force. The Christian community will fall victim to the Al Qaeda and Jihadist forces. Syria is already secular. The Government was already diverse that included people from different religious sects and backgrounds. If the majority of the Syrians supported the Rebel force then the Syrian military would have already abandoned the government. The majority of the Syrian infantry is from the Sunni Community. They've rejected the Rebel message. If this conflict was indeed about reforms then this conversation between the two parties would be decided on the negotiating table rather with a AK-47. The lack communication, the lack of commitment by Syrian Rebels when the Six point peace plan was implemented only showed the level of Radical groups inside the Free Syrian Army. They continued with their operations, the Syrian Military has no choice but to respond. You can't expect a government to surrender a city to a self claimed liberators. Who are the Liberating? The Syrian people from Syrians?. I could think of many nations who were far worse oppressed then Syria. The justification for a full blown Civil war is unreal.

 

 

And Even if Syria and Turkey and Syrian had Frosty Relations before the Conflict. That does not justify arming and supporting a rebel group against a sovereign nation. The Syrian Government is well within its right to call out nations who are harboring terrorist and providing for them. If Turkey wanted to play a role in the conflict certainly sending mediators would have helped the Syrian people.

 

As for NATO intervention that would be grave and costly mistake that would only prolong the conflict and effectively end any hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. I rise the question : Why would NATO send Bombs to Libya, a conflict that killed almost 30,000. Why not send Mediators?. We're all so quick to justify intervention that we forget that real people are stuck in the middle and they face the brunt of the conflict. If NATO wants to see itself as legitimate organization they must first exhaust every measure before an Intervention takes place.

 

 

If I lose Credibly for being Anti-Zionist. Then you lose Credibly for calling me Anti-Semtic. I have never or ever will be Anti-Semtic. My views against Zionism is not directed against Jews. My views are against a Militant Zionist movement that has hijacked the movement and made it into a political far right party. Militant Zionism is what killed Yitzhak Rabin. This formed of Extreme Zionism is what am against. And not everything that opposes your view point is a conspiracy theory.

 

 

Lets keep the Discussion civil without resorting to calling each other racist. Lets act like Adults.

Edited October 6, 2012 by EgyptianStar

[EgyptianStar]

Show solidarity with Syrian People they are the ones who bare the burden of the conflict. A peaceful solution is the only solution. And we must endorse peace.

[K^2]

anti-zionism is NOT anti-semitism !

pro-zionism IS anti-semitism.

Zionism isn't inherently antisemitic, though, yes, a lot of Zionists are and I can see how you'd make the connection. But that's besides the point. More importantly, just because you are antisemitic, doesn't make you a Zionist. Current Russian government is not even technically antisemitic. There are a lot of Jewish people that are a part of it. Neither are Russian people as a majority antisemitic. The trouble is that there are a number of excessively nationalistic groups in Russia right now, ranging from mildly xenophobic to outright Neo-Nazi groups. Because nationalist groups tend to be strongly pro-government, these groups are strongly supported by the government to maintain illusion of popular support of said government. It goes back to the fact that Russian government is not strictly legitimate at the moment, if you look at it from by the people, for the people perspective. Under a government with true popular support, Russia would be a fairly tolerant nation. Soviet culture did have some positive influences, and national tolerance was a big part of it.

 

Unfortunately, yes, that did not fully extend to Jewish population. USSR government was, in fact, antisemitic and Zionist. I don't want to get into reasons for that, but it has to do with fact that Communism and big banks don't mesh. Needless to say, that just isn't a factor in modern Russia. So while your claim of antisemitism of Russian government has a good deal of merit with caveats explained above, calling them Zionist is just silly. If anything, Russia has done a lot to attempt to undermine position of Israel as a state, supporting many nations that do not even recognize it as such. The government is almost as anti-Zionist as you can get without going full-Iran about it.

[Creed Bratton]

if i would debunk one post from you, one pge would be filled with facts and proves and now see how much bullsh*t you postet.....

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'd LOVE to see you try. If I know anything, it's that sivis doesn't post baseless sh*t. Sure, sometimes he's too serious which makes him an ideal target for trolls, but you're not a troll. You're just a fool.

[sivispacem]

 

I don't think the rebels are moderate.

On what are you basing that judgement, though? The FSA is comprised of around 120,000 fighters, led by colonel who defected, and largely composed of ordinary citizens. Now, unless you are suggesting that a large proportion of this 120,000 or so people had Islamist sentiments before the conflict, I don't think you can argue that the majority of rebels are anything other than moderates in a religious sense. Interestingly, the commanders of the Free Syrian army don't see the Islamist minority as anything more than a hindrance. If violent Islamic extremism was as endemic in the FSA as nay-sayers suggest, then why is the strategic and operational leadership of the organisation, as well as pretty much the entirety of its political arm (the SNC) composed of moderates, secularists and Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated conservatives?

 

 

They haven't been winning the population over by using guerrilla tactics.

Again, there's so much conflicting information on this that its hard to assess. Syria isn't a populous country, and in terms of military representation the FSA accounts for more than half the entire, and closer to two thirds of the combat, force of the regular, "official" Syrian army. It's near impossible to gauge popular support- not like the state is in any position to run a straw poll, is it- but if we look at the Syrian demographics you could quite reasonably estimate that a larger proportion of the population are if not actively supporting the rebels, are less hostile to them than the regime. The Druze, Christians and Alawites tend to support the government- the former two out of fear of a non-secular Islamist successor regime and the latter as the ethno-religious subgroup from which the Assad family come. That leaves around 16 million of the Syrian population who are Sunni, or other Islamic minorities not represented under the mystical Shia banner. Even if you hypothesise that only one quarter of this group are favourable towards the rebel cause, that would demonstrate rough parity between active support for Assad and for the rebels. In reality, and based on internal recruitment into the FSA, its highly likely that a far larger proportion of this 16 million are sympathisers or active supporters of the opposition movement.

 

 

What do you think will happen if the Assad or the Syrian Government collapses. Their will be a power vacuum. The Alwhaite community will surely be wiped up by the Sunni Rebel force. The Christian community will fall victim to the Al Qaeda and Jihadist forces.

This goes on the assumption that after the collapse of the government violent radical and fundamentalist groups would gain any traction. They barely did in Libya, a nation with a far greater history of direct involvement in violent Islamism, and responses to Islamist violent activity post-revolution in Libya have been overwhelmingly negative. I see no real evidence that the Islamists have any pre-existing political support to speak of in Syria, and therefore suggestions that a collapse of the Syrian government would lead to a violent anti-Christian and anti-Alawite insurrection are mere hyperbole. It has little to no basis in fact- it's pure scaremongering; a conceited attempt primarily by the regime and its supporters abroad to discredit what is largely a moderate movement and imply that a Syria controlled by the iron fist of the Assad dynasty would be a safer place than a political free one, quite aside from the fact that the vast majority of the 42,000 or so casualties of the conflict, including 40-odd foreign nationals and at least 30,000 civilians, have been caused by government forces.

 

 

Syria is already secular.

Agreed, but this is again largely a tool used by the government to try and discourage support from foreign powers. The claim "we are secular, and the rebels are not" implies that the rebels are an Islamist movement, which all evidence suggests is entirely untrue. The simple fact of the matter is that anyone with even a basic understanding of regional politics has no fear of the moderate and conservative Islamic political movement which has seen the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as the driving force behind representative democracy in the Arab world. This movement has in every example maintained equal rights for Christians and other ethnic minorities, in the case of Egypt maintained a strong and secure relationship with Israel, to the point of conducting combined military operations against Islamist militias in the Sinai, and has shown no evidence of dissolving into a violent, anti-Christian or anti-Western Islamist dystopia which the hawks and pessimists predicted. As such, it's a straw man to use the "Syria is secular" argument because secularity is absolutely insignificant as long as religious groups in nations maintain equal rights, and in terms of individual freedoms a moderate Islamic democracy with freedom of worship is vastly preferable to a secular autocracy.

 

 

If the majority of the Syrians supported the Rebel force then the Syrian military would have already abandoned the government.

The majority of the Syrian infantry is from the Sunni Community.

This assumes that the majority of the members of the Syrian armed forces are, in fact from the Sunni community. Despite your insistence that this is the case, it's pure, if you excuse the expression, bollocks. Of the 200,00 career soldiers and other members of the Syrian armed forces approximately 140,000 of them are Alawite- a total of around 70%. The Syrian government do have the ability to conscript civilians into their force,- of course, therefore Sunni majority but they're either decided not to exercise or has been unable to exercise this, probably due to popular resistance to them. Your argument would be a reasonable and rational one if it were not based on at the best inaccurate, and at the worst deliberately misleading, statistics. This is a serious danger to the credibility of the comments you make because it shows wilful ignorance of the facts or intentional attempts at deception.

 

 

They've rejected the Rebel message.

Because, as my source above shows, almost three quarters of those fighting for Assad are members of the Alawite community and therefore actively support him.

 

 

The lack communication, the lack of commitment by Syrian Rebels when the Six point peace plan was implemented only showed the level of Radical groups inside the Free Syrian Army.

I don't know how short your memory is, but I don't recall the Free Syrian Army violating the April ceasefire by shelling civilian areas and attacking foreign aid workers. I also don't recall any of the clauses of the six-point plan being introduced by the Syrian government- who as the primary aggressor held the main responsibility for implementing it. The lack of communication is entirely understandable based on the fact that the primary aim of the rebel movement is to remove Assad from power, which is a step beyond the pale when all the regime are willing to offer is a few token and largely irrelevant political changes- in fact, aren't even willing to agree to a transitional government made up of members of both sides, which even China and Russia have suggested is the way forward in Syria.

 

 

They continued with their operations, the Syrian Military has no choice but to respond.

Both sides violated the cease fire; to imply that it's entirely the responsibility of one aggressor with the other posing a legitimate response does nothing other than demonstrating existing personal bias.

 

 

I could think of many nations who were far worse oppressed then Syria.

Largely irrelevant. Egypt was subject to significantly less oppression than Syria- as was Tunisia- and both have been subject to popular revolutions. The only distinguishing factor between these nations and Syria is that in both these cases the government did not fully exercise their mandate for the use of violence against their own people. The primary influencing factor in the idea that, in both Libya and Syria, the governments behaved illegally and therefore lost their legitimate monopoly on violence inside their borders. This is arguable; I'm not a lawyer and it can be debated from both angles. But the simple fact of the matter is that exercising the monopoly on violence against civilians because of their political beliefs or views is a flagrant violation of international law.

 

 

The justification for a full blown Civil war is unreal.

You'll have to ask the tens of thousands of fighters whether they think that excessive use of violence against unarmed civilians, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by state actors and the mass torture and murder of children by the government and government affiliated non-state actors constitutes reasonable grounds for a violent response. Case history is peppered with civil wars that have broken out over much less.

 

 

And Even if Syria and Turkey and Syrian had Frosty Relations before the Conflict. That does not justify arming and supporting a rebel group against a sovereign nation.

Conventionally, no, but there are several points of contention here. One is the question over whether the Syrian government maintain their monopoly on violence and legitimacy as a governing party. The fact that even the Russian and Chinese delegates who vetoed UNSC resolutions designed to hold the Syrian authorities to account over their actions suggest that a transitional government, comprising members of both sides of the conflict be implemented suggests that even they concede that the Syrian government in its current incarnation has lost its mandate on the reasonable and legitimate use of force. That calls into question the sovereignty of the Ba'athist regime in Syria. Additionally, Turkey has a vested national security interest in a peaceful and stable Syria, which gives them reasonable grounds to intervene how they see fit to bring the conflict to a conclusion. Finally, there's nothing stopping the Syrian authorities referring Turkey and other nation states to the UN Security Council or other bodies with accusations that they are assisting illegitimate violent non-state actors- which is a violation of international law- yet they have decided not to do so. Why, I wonder? Also, the irony is not lost on me that Syria has spent the best part of thirty years funding Hezbollah and other violent organisations in the region.

 

 

The Syrian Government is well within its right to call out nations who are harboring terrorist and providing for them.

Again, the same points of contention apply here. Turkey could quite reasonably argue that their indirect involvement in the conflict on one side or the other constitutes a legal, rational an acceptable use of their power in protecting their sovereignty, security and/or overseas assets.

 

 

As for NATO intervention that would be grave and costly mistake that would only prolong the conflict and effectively end any hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

There's no hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. There have been plenty of opportunities for such but the hardening of attitudes inside the resistance movement has been caused by increased violence and war crimes committed by the Syrian state. I agree that a direct NATO intervention would be costly and undesirable, but only because the circumstances are incredibly complex. The justification for intervention is less clear cut than it was in Libya predominantly because many of the actions being committed are those of subnational groups with an affiliation to foreign powers- that applies to both sides. The conflict is already basically a proxy war between Iran + Russia and Turkey + Arab League nations.

 

 

Why would NATO send Bombs to Libya, a conflict that killed almost 30,000.

Your mistake here is the attempt to draw parity between the military intervention and the final casualty figure (I find your figure quite suspect too, given that the UN Human Rights Council gave a figure of 15,000 near the end of the war, and the final figure given by the TNC was 25,000 at its completion. So for the sake of argument, lets plump for a figure of 22,500, between the two and accounting for the fact that the UNHRC figures don't go to the end of the year). It's incredibly misleading as the vast majority of casualties resulted directly from actions committed by the state security forces. If you extend the casualty figures for the months of the war up until the NATO intervention and apply them to the end of the conflict, then you can see what an absurd fallacy this argument is. Allow me to break it down:

 

The first violence between Gadaffi supporters and security services, and opposition figures, began on the 14th February. NATO combat operations began on the 20th March. Please excuse the use of Wikipedia here, as it's the only conclusive breakdown of day-by-day casualty figures I can find. See article here

 

In the first month of the conflict, between the 14 February and the 20th March, the lowest estimated casualty figures were (all individuals sourced in the article):

 

Combatant (including resistance fighters)- 3,945

Civilian- 763

Total- 4,708

 

That means, according to the lowest available figures, almost 5,000 people were killed in the first month of the conflict. If we take the highest figures, this jumps to 7,743

 

Now, taking the lower estimate, a period of around one month saw 20.9% of all the casualties of the conflict. The conflict lasted pretty much exactly 8 months. This means that the average proportion of casualties in any given month after NATO intervention was 11.3%- around half of that before intervention. If you take the highest recorded figures, the first month accounts for 34.4% of all casualties in an 8 month conflict. I don't know about you but I think this shows quite effectively that in any average one-month period after the NATO intervention, there were less violent deaths than in a given one-month period before it. Now, correlation does not equal causation but it's still quite compelling evidence.

 

 

Why not send Mediators?.

Mediators are great for settling disputes before they turn violent. They aren't a great deal of use once each side has begun the wholesale slaughter or even destruction of the other.

 

 

We're all so quick to justify intervention that we forget that real people are stuck in the middle and they face the brunt of the conflict.

And, based on the statistics above, there would be considerably less of these "real people" left in Libya if the conflict had continued in its initial trajectory.

 

 

If NATO wants to see itself as legitimate organization they must first exhaust every measure before an Intervention takes place.

This is a very strange statement. The entire purpose in an organisation like NATO, like any good small business, is to be flexible and agile in its ability to react to threats and opportunities. If you want a lumbering, monolithic organisation that works gradually through a long list of proposed actions whilst tens of thousands of people get slaughtered, then look to the United Nations. You also have to remember that the UN gave NATO a mandate to use force in Libya. Legally speaking, this is as legitimised as a conflict can be. If you want to question the legitimacy of international bodies, first look to the UN which sanctioned the operation.

 

 

I have never or ever will be Anti-Semtic. My views against Zionism is not directed against Jews.  My views are against a Militant Zionist movement that has hijacked the movement and made it into a political far right party.

Allow me to explain myself then.

 

This is the initial comment to which I objected

 

 

NATO and the Zionist regime want to destroy Iran's main ally in a domino effect before attacking Tehran but they will fail.

Now, this is a very suspect comment in my view. First, it alleged that NATO as an organisation is already involved, directly or indirectly, in the conflict in Syria. One, or perhaps two, NATO powers may be involved to some degree, but that does not represent full-blown organisational involvement. The second suspect insinuation is that Israel has any role in the conflict in Syria as it currently stands, which is a statement without any evidential basis supporting it. If your earlier insinuations about the Free Syrian Army being a veil for al-Qaeda are true, then why would the only Middle Eastern great power clandestinely support and fund an organisation who places as pretty much their number one aim the complete destruction of the state of Israel? It's completely illogical. Then, there is the loading of your statement. It suggests a conspiracy between NATO and Israel- specifically "militant Zionism"- to undermine other states. Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds suspiciously like a component part of the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, which is blatantly anti-Semitic. Also, people who tend to use the term "Zionist" to refer to the state of Israel (in ignorance to the fact that since the foundation of the state of Israel the true "Zionist" movement has died out in Israeli political circles, and remains a vestige of a few lone crack-pots who are about as representative of Judaism and the state of Israel as al-Qaeda are of Sunni Islam), as well as recycling the old "Jewish World Domination" conspiracy theory drawn from the Elders of Zion farce tend to be labelled as anti-Semitic. Unless, of course, you fundamentally oppose the state of Israel, which depending on your reasons and rationality for doing so could also be a sign of covert anti-Semitism. So hopefully you can see the rationality behind my comment, and I'm more than happy for you to contest it.

 

 

And not everything that opposes your view point is a conspiracy theory.

I'm fully aware of that. But ideas based on hyperbole and hearsay, without real evidential basis, that tend to take derogatory views on actions, states, organisations and individuals do tend to be. Especially when they appear to imply component parts of existing, well-established conspiracy theories.

Edited October 7, 2012 by sivispacem

[Dingdongs]

Excuse me but did you just say Jews are against the existence of Israel...?

[GunWrath]

Quite possible this should be moved to D&D?

[sivispacem]

Excuse me but did you just say Jews are against the existence of Israel...?

Me or PrivateFirstClass? I certainly didn't...

[Icarus]

Excuse me but did you just say Jews are against the existence of Israel...?

Me or PrivateFirstClass? I certainly didn't...

Occam's razor would say he was referring to PFC.

[sivispacem]

Excuse me but did you just say Jews are against the existence of Israel...?

Me or PrivateFirstClass? I certainly didn't...

Occam's razor would say he was referring to PFC.

Very true but context suggests otherwise, hence the post

[Dingdongs]

Come on sivis, you know me better than to think that I would think you would think something so retarded.

[Node]

Goodbye PrivateFirstClass you are the weakest link.

[ghost of delete key]

Here's how WWIII will have started:

 

 

 

Syria got Hungary and went to get Turkey, but was Russian and slipped on Greece.

 

That's when Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

Really.

[EgyptianStar]

 

On what are you basing that judgement, though? The FSA is comprised of around 120,000 fighters, led by colonel who defected, and largely composed of ordinary citizens. Now, unless you are suggesting that a large proportion of this 120,000 or so people had Islamist sentiments before the conflict, I don't think you can argue that the majority of rebels are anything other than moderates in a religious sense. Interestingly, the commanders of the Free Syrian army don't see the Islamist minority as anything more than a hindrance. If violent Islamic extremism was as endemic in the FSA as nay-sayers suggest, then why is the strategic and operational leadership of the organisation, as well as pretty much the entirety of its political arm (the SNC) composed of moderates, secularists and Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated conservatives?

 

The Free Syrian Army is not even an organized fighting force. So the number of 120,000 is either based entire fighting force or based on FSA numbers. Their are so many small fighting groups that refuse to join forces with the defected soldiers of the Syrian Army Hence they aren't really in the Free Syrian Army. The Free Syrian Army has admitted they have welcomed the foreign fighters because they have experience fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against the US and NATO. They bring weapons, and tactics that are unconventional and deadly. No whether the SNC claims to be moderate or secularist they claim to represent the Free Syrian Army and that means embracing the Foriegn and Jihadist fighters among them. The Free Syrian Army has to reject any foreign fighters who have their own agenda after the fight with Assad is over.

 

 

Again, there's so much conflicting information on this that its hard to assess. Syria isn't a populous country, and in terms of military representation the FSA accounts for more than half the entire, and closer to two thirds of the combat, force of the regular, "official" Syrian army. It's near impossible to gauge popular support- not like the state is in any position to run a straw poll, is it- but if we look at the Syrian demographics you could quite reasonably estimate that a larger proportion of the population are if not actively supporting the rebels, are less hostile to them than the regime. The Druze, Christians and Alawites tend to support the government- the former two out of fear of a non-secular Islamist successor regime and the former as the ethno-religious subgroup from which the Assad family come. That leaves around 16 million of the Syrian population who are Sunni, or other Islamic minorities not represented under the mystical Shia banner. Even if you hypothesise that only one quarter of this group are favourable towards the rebel cause, that would demonstrate rough parity between active support for Assad and for the rebels. In reality, and based on internal recruitment into the FSA, its highly likely that a far larger proportion of this 16 million are sympathisers or active supporters of the opposition movement.

 

 

The Syrian population is only 20 Million people. If 16 Million people supported the opposition I rise the question which opposition. Do the majority of Syrians want a civil war. Does the majority of Syrian Sunni Population support a Armed full scale rebellion against the regime in the process killing follow Syrian men in the military and support a conflict that has killed 30,000 of their brethren . Or do the majority of Syrians support a opposition based on reforms and negotiating which the main goal of the "Revolution". The people never wanted war but the speed at which it grew was unprecedented.

 

 

 

This goes on the assumption that after the collapse of the government violent radical and fundamentalist groups would gain any traction. They barely did in Libya, a nation with a far greater history of direct involvement in violent Islamism, and responses to Islamist violent activity post-revolution in Libya have been overwhelmingly negative. I see no real evidence that the Islamists have any pre-existing political support to speak of in Syria, and therefore suggestions that a collapse of the Syrian government would lead to a violent anti-Christian and anti-Alawite insurrection are mere hyperbole. It has little to no basis in fact- it's pure scaremongering; a conceited attempt primarily by the regime and its supporters abroad to discredit what is largely a moderate movement and imply that a Syria controlled by the iron fist of the Assad dynasty would be a safer place than a political free one, quite aside from the fact that the vast majority of the 42,000 or so casualties of the conflict, including 40-odd foreign nationals and at least 30,000 civilians, have been caused by government forces.

 

Libya has a small population of 6 Million. And the post revolution of that conflict will differ greatly then a Syrian Post- Revolution. A collapse of the Syrian government will lead to the disbanding of the Syrian Military Structure. The Police force will also disappear. It will leave a fractured Syrian Opposition who have no leader no experience or knowledge and how to form a Government, No State Security pitted against a Free Syrian Army comprised of Many fighting groups, Brigades, and Foreign Fighters who surely fight amongst one another and the Alawite and Christian community will be punished for not supporting the Rebellion earlier. Just like in Iraq the Christian community was destroyed by Al Qaeda fighters and Jihadist after the forced Collapse of the Iraqi government that lead disbanding of the Iraqi Military and Police force which left nobody to protect them. That's why even the United States say the Syrian Military must be still be in place after Assad Government Collapses a repeat of Iraqi Civil war would be a great tragedy.

 

 

Agreed, but this is again largely a tool used by the government to try and discourage support from foreign powers. The claim "we are secular, and the rebels are not" implies that the rebels are an Islamist movement, which all evidence suggests is entirely untrue. The simple fact of the matter is that anyone with even a basic understanding of regional politics has no fear of the moderate and conservative Islamic political movement which has seen the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as the driving force behind representative democracy in the Arab world. This movement has in every example maintained equal rights for Christians and other ethnic minorities, in the case of Egypt maintained a strong and secure relationship with Israel, to the point of conducting combined military operations against Islamist militias in the Sinai, and has shown no evidence of dissolving into a violent, anti-Christian or anti-Western Islamist dystopia which the hawks and pessimists predicted. As such, it's a straw man to use the "Syria is secular" argument because secularity is absolutely insignificant as long as religious groups in nations maintain equal rights, and in terms of individual freedoms a moderate Islamic democracy with freedom of worship is vastly preferable to a secular autocracy.

 

 

Your Missing the Third Element of this Conflict I suggest you watch this Documentary it highlights that a Third Fighting Force is operating inside Syria. Syria Third Element Please disregard the title of the video it was upload by someone other then the maker.

 

 

 

Mediators are great for settling disputes before they turn violent. They aren't a great deal of use once each side has begun the wholesale slaughter or even destruction of the other.

Mediators would have been great when the Protest started. Mediators would have been better sent by Turkey then Arms, and a safe haven for the Fighters. The conflict wasn't always violent and could have been prevented.

 

 

 

I do not Object to existence of the State of Israel. I object to a radical right-wing Zionist government. Which you cannot deny has been in Power since the assassination of Rabin. Their hasn't been any real peace process since. illegal settlements have doubled. Which even the UN condemns often on deaf ears. If you think Israel stands nothing to gain from the Syrian conflict you looking at it wrong. The Syrian government has been friendly with Iran. They have mutual agreements ranging in many sectors. Syria also helps Hezbollah in Lebanon. All am Saying is the speed of which the conflict grew, with the amount of arms flowing into Syria and fighters is helping others. hint Israel against Iran.

 

Now my view is that the Israel government is dangerous and unstable with it comes to Foreign affairs. I do Not like them nor do I respect anyone part of the Government. I oppose the use of Violence against Nuclear Scientist inside Iran by Mossad. The blockade on Gaza, the illegal settlements. The Walls, and the hundreds of checkpoints inside Palestine. Now if that makes my an Anti-Semtic person, I Find that highly offensive. And I object to it.

 

[sivispacem]

 

The Free Syrian Army is not even an organized fighting force. So the number of 120,000 is either based entire fighting force or based on FSA numbers.

This source claims "over 100,000" as of August 9th. The primary source is a Free Syrian Army commander and defector from the regime. It's notoriously difficult to provide exact number for irregular forces but there's nothing to indicate that this is untrue.

 

 

Their are so many small fighting groups that refuse to join forces with the defected soldiers of the Syrian Army Hence they aren't really in the Free Syrian Army.

Which suggests the actual number of combatants may well be considerably above the estimate I provided, and ergo so would be popular support.

 

 

The Free Syrian Army has admitted they have welcomed the foreign fighters because they have experience fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against the US and NATO.

Care to provide a source for this? It contradicts the article I posted which indicates that the operational leadership of the Free Syrian Army actually see foreign jihadists as a distraction, regardless of their ability to fight.

 

 

They bring weapons, and tactics that are unconventional and deadly.

All insurgencies, by their very nature, are unconventional. And all weapons, by their very definition, are deadly.

 

 

No whether the SNC claims to be moderate or secularist they claim to represent the Free Syrian Army and that means embracing the Foriegn and Jihadist fighters among them. The Free Syrian Army has to reject any foreign fighters who have their own agenda after the fight with Assad is over.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. If foreign jihadists are fighting on the side of the Free Syrian Army and by association Syrian National Council, that does not necessarily mean that the SNC is representative of their views. If you allow me to use an analogy, it would be akin to claiming that the Iranian and Russian forces, including Basij paramilitary irregulars from Iran who are operating in a combat role alongside the regular Syrian armed forces are also by association represented by the Syrian government, and this is plainly false. Foreign fighters have joined the conflict to assist in repelling the advances of the regime and to embark in a war of liberation- they have no connection to the Syrian state present or future, and therefore to claim that their views must by default be represented by the political arm of an organisation that by your own admission is fractured and disorganised seems like a logical fallacy, unless you are willing to apply the same caveats to irregular foreign combatants fighting on the side of the Syrian government too.

 

 

The Syrian population is only 20 Million people. If 16 Million people supported the opposition I rise the question which opposition. Do the majority of Syrians want a civil war.

I fear you are missing the point here. I never claimed that 16 million Syrian citizens supported the opposition, just that 16 million Syrian citizens have no intrinsic bias towards supporting the regime. A large proportion of those involved probably just want peace, and care not one jot who delivers it.

 

 

Does the majority of Syrian Sunni Population support a Armed full scale rebellion against the regime in the process killing follow Syrian men in the military and support a conflict that has killed 30,000 of their brethren . Or do the majority of Syrians support a opposition based on reforms and negotiating which the main goal of the "Revolution". The people never wanted war but the speed at which it grew was unprecedented.

A large proportion of them must, by default. If the Free Syrian Army in its most regular form can stake a claim to at least 100,000 combatants, that's already a sizeable number of supporters. Many times that number are likely to be offering material operational and strategic assistance to the FSA but not directly involving themselves in the conflict. In Vietnam, the physical strength of the PAVN logistical network and cadre system outnumbered direct combatants by a huge margin- with an army of around 212,000 in 1965, there were an estimated 3 million North and South Vietnamese citizens providing material assistance to the fighting forces, and probably many times that number sympathisers- and that's aside from any material assistance provided by other states. Remember, the Syrian government has the ability to conscript around 300,000 additional combatants into their armed forces by decree, yet this decree has either not been enacted or has been enacted and has not been heeded by the citizenry. Why would that be? Could it be a case of the Syiran government knowing they do not carry the momentum of popular support in the conflict? It's highly likely as I can see no other reason why they would not use this decree, especially given the severe difficulty they've been having in urban fighting against a smaller, irregular force- remember, manpower is the main fulcrum in fighting irregularly, and an entrenched irregular fighting force can take anywhere between 5 and 10 regular combatants operating in a typical command structure to achieve parity of response- again, strategic theory case studies from Vietnam indicate this. Yes, there are unanswered questions regarding the actual level of support for the rebel movement, particularly for the political leadership- but the rebel ability to recruit effectively and the logistical requirements of engaging in entrenched irregular urban warfare mean that there must be a very large number of citizens- around a million and a half, if one extrapolates the ratio from Vietnam and the VCI- providing direct material assistance to the rebels.

 

 

A collapse of the Syrian government will lead to the disbanding of the Syrian Military Structure. The Police force will also disappear. It will leave a fractured Syrian Opposition who have no leader no experience or knowledge and how to form a Government, No State Security pitted against a Free Syrian Army comprised of Many fighting groups, Brigades, and Foreign Fighters

Can you please indicate to me how this, in any way, is different to Libya? Also, you have to remember that the vast majority of foreign fighters in Libya left at the conclusion of the conflict- and as such have played no role in the conflict even when a fledgling government did not exist. Also, strategic realities currently mean that the Syrian political resistance figures do not have a "safe haven" in Syria. If we again use the example of Libya, after the fall of Benghazi and the failed Gaddafi siege, a free city was created which provided an environment for political figures to re-enter the country- the current Libyan security forces and police, though still in a fledgling state, were created by the opposition government in Libyan territorial borders before the resolution of the conflict- ergo some security apparatus existed at the time of Gaddafi's death and was able to keep most though not all of the sectarian tensions under wraps. Remember, also, that Libya is historically a much more religiously conservative place than Syria, with a higher proportion of radical and fundamentalist believers and a smaller and historically persecuted non-Muslim minority. I don't see any real evidence that violence would break out against other sectors of society- perhaps the Alawites being an exception but that's a product of several decades of them being granted rights and privilege above that of the rest of the population. It's purely an estimation and in my view not a particularly accurate one.

 

 

Just like in Iraq the Christian community was destroyed by Al Qaeda fighters and Jihadist after the forced Collapse of the Iraqi government that lead disbanding of the Iraqi Military and Police force which left nobody to protect them.

I think this is a gross simplification. There are two factors not at play in Syria that were in Iraq which go a great deal of the way to explaining not only the formation of AQI and the various Martyr Brigades, Shia militias and other sub-national groups. One was the direct involvement of Western foreign powers, combat forces and the direct funding by Western organisations of the Awakening Council, who were seen as both a tribal adversary and American lackey by the violent sub-national groups. Christians were subject to violence as they were guilty by religious association with the apparent "crusaders". The second is the history of sectarian violent between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, in which other minorities were involuntarily embroiled. Neither of these factors is a major contributing factor in Syria as far as anyone can see, and its also worth mentioning that the fact that the Syrian resistance movement is quite extensively composed of military figures, whom would form a reasonable basis for a security-force-in-waiting. The fact that many of the Iraqi military and police members were effectively expelled from their jobs was a contributing factor in resentment towards the Western powers and the Iraqi government.

 

 

Your Missing the Third Element of this Conflict I suggest you watch this Documentary it highlights that a Third Fighting Force is operating inside Syria. Syria Third Element Please disregard the title of the video it was upload by someone other then the maker.

I struggle to call that a "documentary". It's a load of footage taken from other sources, mostly under copyright, with a voice-over. It doesn't appear to be a professional work; there's no methodology and no evidence presented in it at all. Particularly spurious are the claims related to BAE Systems and the Saudi government- whilst meetings have taken place in the last year they've had nothing to do with attempting to increase the numbers of aircraft sold under the contract as that contract was finalised in 2006, with final send-off and the first aircraft being completed and delivered in 2008. What it's actually been about is the construction of a BAE facility in Saudi Arabia to enable the Saudis to partially assemble their own Typhoon aircraft, so the statements surrounding that are grossly misleading. And if common knowledge like that is distorted in an attempt to make an argument, I worry seriously about the credibility of the work.

 

 

The conflict wasn't always violent and could have been prevented.

At what point wasn't there some element of overt or covert violence in the conflict? From March 2011 the Syrian authorities were accused for mass torture, summary execution and improper use of force against unarmed civilians. That was well before the foundation of the Free Syrian Army in July. The simple fact of the matter is that it was the violent response to peaceful protest by the Syrian government which set the scene for a violent uprising leading to civil war. Had the regime not responded with violence, and not begun using artillery and heavy weapons against protesters even before a violent resistance had begun, then the conflict would have probably been resolved peacefully.

 

 

I object to a radical right-wing  Zionist government. Which you cannot deny has been in Power since the assassination of Rabin. Their hasn't been any real peace process since.

Um, actually I can. The only time when any progress has been made on the peace process after the death of Rabin was the two years before the Second Intifada. Everything Israel did in the years 1998-2000, included limited building of settlements, was entirely legal under the Oslo Accords and it was the Palestinian resistance movement who violated the accords by attacking Israeli civilians and military targets. It was the violence exercised against Israel by Palestinian terrorist organisations in direct violation of international accords that Israel had to that point obeyed every letter of which has caused the hardening in attitudes towards the concept of a Palestinian state and resulted in the lurch to the right of Israeli politics. This isn't an attempt to absolve Israel of their mistakes, particularly in 2006 in Lebanon and in Operation Cast Led in 2008/9, nor in the intermittent attacks in the Gaza Strip currently. But of the two best hopes for peace in Israel in modern times, one died with Rabin and the other with the start of the Second Intifada.

 

 

Which even the UN condemns often on deaf ears.

As I said, I'm not defending Israel's actions. I'm merely pointing out that it is totally absurd to allege that the changes in Israeli foreign and domestic policy in the last decade or so and the hardening attitudes towards the Palestinian state are solely a product of expansionist Israeli nationalism (I'm loathe to use the word "Zionism" as there is already a Jewish state, and it's done for emotive effect more than anything); much of it is a quite legitimate popular reaction against what is perceived by the Israeli population as an unwarranted and violent assault on the state of Israel at a time when significant progress had been made to a lasting solution. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian people, but very little for the violent organisations who involved themselves in the Second Intifada. You must also remember that these are the same organisation who, along with Hamas, waged a campaign of violence against Mahmoud Abbas' moderate government- based solely on his desire to see a two state solution (remember, he did say that the Arab rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan was the worst mistake that the Palestinian movement ever made) and have gone further in destabilising the Palestinian state than Israeli actions ever have.

 

 

If you think Israel stands nothing to gain from the Syrian conflict you looking at it wrong. The Syrian government has been friendly with Iran. They have mutual agreements ranging in many sectors. Syria also helps Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I never said Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of the Assad regime. I said Israel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by funding a movement that you claimed was one and the same with al-Qaeda. Of course Israel would be a beneficiary of the fall of the Assad regime. They are, however, hardly likely to see the net benefits of a civil-war-cum-proxy-war right on their doorstep involving their least favourite nations. So, we reach an impasse. Logically, if the Free Syrian Army and their supporters are by association Islamists, then it is truly and utterly illogical for Israel to be assisting and funding them.

 

 

All am Saying is the speed of which the conflict grew, with the amount of arms flowing into Syria and fighters is helping others. hint Israel against Iran.

I appreciate your professional annotations, but I respectfully disagree. If Israel was supplying and funding the Free Syrian Army, I'd be expecting to see them endowed with much more firepower than old-hat Kalashnikovs and RPG-7s. If there really was a true Israeli involvement, they'd be playing to win.

 

 

Now if that makes my an Anti-Semtic person, I Find that highly offensive. And I object to it.

It does not, but I still question your use of the word "Zionism" when it isn't really applicable.

[Scharkey]

Here's how WWIII will have started:

 

 

 

Syria got Hungary and went to get Turkey, but was Russian and slipped on Greece.

 

That's when Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

Really.

qft. hahah

[ghost of delete key]

 

I object to a radical right-wing  Zionist government...

I do Not like them nor do I respect anyone part of the Government...

Now if that makes my (sic) an Anti-Semitic person, I Find that highly offensive. And I object to it.

Hmmm... let's look closer -

 

 

if that makes me an Anti-Semitic person, I Find that highly offensive.

 

Wait...

 

 

an Anti-Semitic person, I Find that highly offensive.

 

Indeed, I find an anti-Semitic person highly offensive, as I find any racist. I detect an ironic self-loathing in there somewhere, but that's a case for your therapist.

 

Where do you get off claiming deep offense concerning the truth about yourself? Get over it.

 

This is exactly how these conflicts are protracted; they are antagonized by masses of people who believe their sh!t doesn't stink, yet have no clue exactly how full of sh!t they are.

 

Do you think Hitler or Ahmadinejad would take offense at being called anti-Semitic?

 

 

 

I think not.

[Pansy.]

And I thought Zionism was just some Rastafarian thing, Christ I need to learn.

[EscoLehGo]

And I thought Zionism was just some Rastafarian thing, Christ I need to learn.

Best post in this thread.