Syria (merged)

[Skashion]

Hmmmmmmmmmm again rather simplistic, your right there were a plethora of left wing terrorist groups, they all tended to implode with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the hijackings and kidnappings and spectacular terrorist actions got them precisely where? So they were replaced with a plethora of Islamic groups.

I specifically mentioned Nasser and Mossadegh and you start talking about terrorist groups. Why?

 

[Skashion]

Oh my fucking god!!! Mark I don't want to be rude mate because I know you mean well but these links are a joke man!

Erm, Josh, it's his vicar brother again. Do not respond. Just ignore him. He is an utter idiot who thinks only his unproven God (the lack of proof and the self-contradictory nature of The Bible is of course no barrier) can provide objective morality, When people start claiming only their religion is right, and provides the correct God-given morality, you cannot possible hold a logical conversation. They're surrendered logic to belief.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I very much hope I'm wrong and it's all brinksmanship bollocks but you'd have to be certifiable to think Cameron and Obama have suddenly found a conscience - albeit a highly illogical one that thinks 100,000 deaths by knives, bullet wounds, fire and explosions is ok but gas is a no-no. Whatever the reason military action if it does happen, it isn't because 335 civilians died from gas. It isn't for humanitarian reasons at all. Most likely it would be to see Assad lose and thus isolate Iran.

There is a reason that Chemical warfare is viewed very differently to conventional warfare. The consequences of doing nothing will send a green light to those who have considered using nerve agents but have not done so because of the consequences.

Syria is one of only 5 states who are non signatures to the Chemical Weapons Convention. To allow this to go unchecked would be morally abhorrent and would signal a free for all.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Oh my fucking god!!! Mark I don't want to be rude mate because I know you mean well but these links are a joke man!

Erm, Josh, it's his vicar brother again. Do not respond. Just ignore him. He is an utter idiot who thinks only his unproven God (the lack of proof and the self-contradictory nature of The Bible is of course no barrier) can provide objective morality, When people start claiming only their religion is right, and provides the correct God-given morality, you cannot possible hold a logical conversation. They're surrendered logic to belief.

Well spotted Skash

 

[Skashion]

There is a reason that Chemical warfare is viewed very differently to conventional warfare. The consequences of doing nothing will send a green light to those who have considered using nerve agents but have not done so because of the consequences.

Syria is one of only 5 states who are non signatures to the Chemical Weapons Convention. To allow this to go unchecked would be morally abhorrent and would signal a free for all.

Having a red line for chemical weapons is nonsense as it is perfectly simple to kill on a mass scale with conventional means. Take Darfur, or Rwanda for instance. Millions killed, little to no action. Oh, chemical weapons weren't used. Well, the dead millions sure do appreciate the fact they were killed by conventional weapons. Green light for conventional weapons. When did conventional weaponry ever harm anybody? A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. Indeed, Stalin, however, you need to add a footnote. It goes like this.

A single death is a tragedy*; a million deaths is a statistic

*If the death is caused by chemical weapons.

 

[Bovril]

Not had time to read much of the thread but can imagine the usual left wing doom mongers reactions to this. How can we sit back and let a regime commit genocide again, Have we not learnt the lessons from Rwanda, former Yugoslavia etc etc ??? quite sad, disgusted in Labour who are basically acting like the Russians and practically vetoing any proposals that the current Govt. propose, when it was Blair who illegally commited murder in Iraq without any UN led mandate etc etc YCMIU !!! Blair should be taken to a war crimes tribunal for what he did.... is he not the UN envoy for middle east peace ?? and yet he is sat on a boat on holiday... I do not want to see any British blood spilt again (I have at first hand seen enough having been to Afghan lots of times) but there are kids being killed by an evil regime for fucks sake !!

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Not had time to read much of the thread but can imagine the usual left wing doom mongers reactions to this. How can we sit back and let a regime commit genocide again, Have we not learnt the lessons from Rwanda, former Yugoslavia etc etc ??? quite sad, disgusted in Labour who are basically acting like the Russians and practically vetoing any proposals that the current Govt. propose, when it was Blair who illegally commited murder in Iraq without any UN led mandate etc etc YCMIU !!! Blair should be taken to a war crimes tribunal for what he did.... is he not the UN envoy for middle east peace ?? and yet he is sat on a boat on holiday... I do not want to see any British blood spilt again (I have at first hand seen enough having been to Afghan lots of times) but there are kids being killed by an evil regime for fucks sake !!

and by evil rebels who certain factions of said rebellion would happily commit a 7 million man genocide should they get the opportunity.

no thanks.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Josh, question for you and touching what I was earlier saying, why do you chose that going into war is a bad thing purely from what you chose to believe ?

Oh my fucking god!!! Mark I don't want to be rude mate because I know you mean well but these links are a joke man!

The third one is arguing 'Iraq is a better place'. 50 people died today in the suburbs due to car bombs! 100s of people are dying a week pal, depleated uranium was used in the war and the babys are being born deformed and with massive tumors (I take it you haven't seen the pictures). I can't believe anyone would try and say it was a good idea to invade, let alone a better fucking country.

7. Then came 9/11 which underlined the world-wide terrorist threat and highlighted how failing anti-West states could be used as sanctuaries and attack bases for jihadists.

That's a quote from the first link!?!? WTF! Iraq had fuck all to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein was very strict on terrorists and allowed none to operate in the country as he seen them as a threat.

In fact the whole list on that website is laughable? I can't actually believe you posted it. I'm sure we have spoken about iraq before so I shan't waste more time explaining the history of Saddam and the west to you.

I really can believe you've posted these links.

It is very easy to judge the outcome of something, when the alternative cannot be seen, no involvement in the Middle East would have had consequences as well.

You must realise that weather you take a passive stance or an aggressive one, both will have implications

How many will die on your hands of a policy of negotiation ? If the government took that option how many millions would be accusing the government of incompetence and in-compassion, they would be branded murderers for allowing innocents to die while we watch....

Every action and every action not taken has a consequence

I'm not sticking up for America nor am I saying the war was legal, neither am I saying the opposite

I just think you take the easy view of wait until a decision is made and jump on the consequences, I also think that the Middle East is a highly complicated and violent region that we cannot either ignore or be heavy handed towards and that put in government your simple answer of speak to the UN etc you would soon realise the predicament you are in.....fine stay out of it....but on your hands be it of the millions of children who you fail to protect.


" The third one is arguing 'Iraq is a better place'. 50 people died today in the suburbs due to car bombs! 100s of people are dying a week, depleted uranium was used in the war ,baby's are being born deformed . I can't believe anyone would try and say it was a good idea to invade, let alone now a better country. "


On the day before the invasion.....

Masoud Barzani led the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an ethnic Kurdish revolutionary group fighting Baathist oppression. After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq.


I suppose your going to argue with a world-renowned expert on global security and terrorism issues correspondent, would love to see you argue your case with him....

<a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100207810/the-bbc-just-cannot-accept-that-iraq-is-a-better-place-without-saddam-hussein/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/conco ... m-hussein/</a>


Also...

the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.


This is defiantly worth a read....but read the conclusion first, no bias on either side here.....

<a class="postlink" href="http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/life-in-iraq-before-and-after-invasion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... asion.html</a>

' This is only a review of a few factors in the lives of average Iraqis. They can only tell so much as there are large variations from province to province, between rural and urban areas, and between classes. What the numbers provided do show is mixed living standards before and after the invasion. Per capita GDP is better now than before 2003, but not up to the level it reached in 1980. Life expectancy and child malnutrition have declined, but infant mortality is back to what it was in the 1980s. Education and inflation have both gotten better, but the economy overall is in a worse state for those looking for work. In most of those categories, Iraq also ranks at near the bottom compared to its neighbors.

.............Those who want to argue that the U.S. intervention has improved Iraq or not can find numbers to **argue both sides.** What everyone can hopefully agree upon is that Iraqis deserve much better.

" ARGUE BOTH SIDES "

 

[Skashion]

Here's the people who stand to gain power if Assad goes:

DUBAI - An al-Qaida-affiliated rebel commander in Syria has pledged to target communities of Syrian President Bashar Assad's Alawite minority with rockets in revenge for an alleged chemical attack near Damascus, according to an audio recording seen on Sunday.

"For every chemical rocket that has fallen on our people in Damascus, one of their villages will, by the will of God, pay for it," Abu Mohammad al-Golani of the al-Nusra Front said in the recording posted on YouTube. "On top of that we will prepare a thousand rockets that will be fired on their towns in revenge for the Damascus Ghouta massacre."

The Syrian opposition has accused government forces of an attack on insurgent-held suburbs of the capital last week where poison gas appears to have killed hundreds of people.

"To the bereaved mothers of the children and the people of Ghouta, I say that your blood is a debt that we and every mujahid (Islamic holy fighter) have to pay," Golani said in the recording entitled, "An eye for an eye".

Nusra's Sunni Muslim fighters have claimed responsibility for the deadliest bombings in the two-and-a-half-year-old Syrian conflict and their brigades have led some of the most successful rebel offensives against Assad's forces.

The group has been formally designated a terrorist organization by the United States, a step which Washington said was vindicated by a declaration in April that it was merging with al-Qaida's Islamic State of Iraq group. Washington now says Nusra is little more than a front for al-Qaida.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Syrias-Nusra-threatens-to-target-Alawites-over-alleged-chemical-attack-324190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Syrias ... ack-324190</a>

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmHStForxWA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sysV8VpOa_8[/youtube]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/17/gunmen-indiscriminately-massacre-christians-in-syrian-village-women-children-among-dead/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08 ... idiot-dead/</a>

There are no good guys in Syria. However, the devil we know is Assad, we know he wants to cling to power, we know he will be brutal to retain it, but we also know, before this civil war, now not so civil, that Syria was relatively stable and peaceful with Syria's minorities being protected by a fairly secular regime, albeit one who had to rob the Sunni majority of democratic rights to do so. The rights of Shiites, Christians and Kurds to life, far outweighs rights to democracy. Democracy is not unlimited. Rights are needed to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. If Al Nusra takes power, as seems the only other alternative to Assad, those minorities are at severe risk and will almost certainly face genocide. They're already being massacred. If Assad wins, the deaths most likely will stop pretty immediately. If Al Nusra wins, it's probably just the beginning.

Sources both on Al Nusra's power and on Syrian support for Assad both come from NATO:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/07/19/nato-assad-russia-and-iran-are-prevailing-in-syria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/07/19/ ... -in-syria/</a>

The NATO assessment asserted that most of the Syrians involved in the revolt — including those in the Free Syrian Army — were no longer fighting the Assad regime. Instead, the bulk of combat has been assumed by foreign fighters, most of them affiliated with Al Qaida.

Support for Assad and WHY: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/</a>

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

“The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt,” the source said. “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad.”

 

[Bovril]

Not had time to read much of the thread but can imagine the usual left wing doom mongers reactions to this. How can we sit back and let a regime commit genocide again, Have we not learnt the lessons from Rwanda, former Yugoslavia etc etc ??? quite sad, disgusted in Labour who are basically acting like the Russians and practically vetoing any proposals that the current Govt. propose, when it was Blair who illegally commited murder in Iraq without any UN led mandate etc etc YCMIU !!! Blair should be taken to a war crimes tribunal for what he did.... is he not the UN envoy for middle east peace ?? and yet he is sat on a boat on holiday... I do not want to see any British blood spilt again (I have at first hand seen enough having been to Afghan lots of times) but there are kids being killed by an evil regime for fucks sake !!

and by evil rebels who certain factions of said rebellion would happily commit a 7 million man genocide should they get the opportunity.

no thanks.

Cannot argue with what you are saying either, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Yugoslavia your damned if you do and damned if you don't !!! not sure what the answer is... we are a defence force these days not an Army and certainly not the world police.

 

[foetus]

The world's a messed up place.

Syria and the like seem beyond saving. No quick solution...only the death of lots of innocent people. Needs to be sorted out by Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows ala Liam Neeson and Bane in Batman. Start from scratch.

 

[SoDakBlue]

Here's a perfect example in sophistry. Since they have no proof that Assad's forces carried out the attack they change the debate to one of Assad's responsibility even if he didn't order the attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-assad-responsible-even-didnt-order-gas-attack-203204147.html

The United States said Wednesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad directly responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks against his people, even though he may not have issued orders himself.

As intelligence units zero in on precisely who may have ordered the atrocity that saw up to 1,300 Syrian civilians killed in apparent poison gas attacks on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the State Department insisted Assad himself was to blame.

 

[metalblue]

There is a reason that Chemical warfare is viewed very differently to conventional warfare. The consequences of doing nothing will send a green light to those who have considered using nerve agents but have not done so because of the consequences.

Syria is one of only 5 states who are non signatures to the Chemical Weapons Convention. To allow this to go unchecked would be morally abhorrent and would signal a free for all.

Having a red line for chemical weapons is nonsense as it is perfectly simple to kill on a mass scale with conventional means. Take Darfur, or Rwanda for instance. Millions killed, little to no action. Oh, chemical weapons weren't used. Well, the dead millions sure do appreciate the fact they were killed by conventional weapons. Green light for conventional weapons. When did conventional weaponry ever harm anybody? A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. Indeed, Stalin, however, you need to add a footnote. It goes like this.

A single death is a tragedy*; a million deaths is a statistic

*If the death is caused by chemical weapons.

Fundamentally the use of conventional weapons isn't a war crime by itself, unlike a chemical weapon. It boils down to having boundaries in war as bizarre as that may seem. The red line was set by Obama 12 months ago for use of chemical weapons, it wasn't a secret, it was crossed and the US can either look weak in the region by doing nothing or not by following through on this red line. The only question remaining is which side do we bomb (well we know we will either bomb the Syrian regime or do nothing).

This will be a very targeted response, well publicised with no aim for regime change. It is designed to ensure no misunderstanding and negate the dual dangers of handing the rebels a decisive upper hand and Iran getting itchy fingers and it descends into a region wide conflict...then we would be dragged into a proper shooting war. What can not be known for sure is if Iran will feel the same as the US given their recent rhetoric of sitting back and doing nothing (thus look weak) or follow through on their threat but I suspect that they will grumble a bit but ultimately do nothing to escalate the situation further.

 

[metalblue]

Here's a perfect example in sophistry. Since they have no proof that Assad's forces carried out the attack they change the debate to one of Assad's responsibility even if he didn't order the attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-assad-responsible-even-didnt-order-gas-attack-203204147.html

The United States said Wednesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad directly responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks against his people, even though he may not have issued orders himself.

As intelligence units zero in on precisely who may have ordered the atrocity that saw up to 1,300 Syrian civilians killed in apparent poison gas attacks on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the State Department insisted Assad himself was to blame.

Sophistry you say? The point being even if he didn't physically say "use chemical weapons on them" but it was still the regimes forces that launched the attack he will be held responsible. There was a CIA intercept that basically supports the theory this wasn't a Assad ordered attack but was a much lower-ranked decision but that is ultimately just semantics.

 

[Skashion]

Fundamentally the use of conventional weapons isn't a war crime by itself, unlike a chemical weapon. It boils down to having boundaries in war as bizarre as that may seem. The red line was set by Obama 12 months ago for use of chemical weapons, it wasn't a secret, it was crossed and the US can either look weak in the region by doing nothing or not by following through on this red line. The only question remaining is which side do we bomb (well we know we will either bomb the Syrian regime or do nothing).

This will be a very targeted response, well publicised with no aim for regime change. It is designed to ensure no misunderstanding and negate the dual dangers of handing the rebels a decisive upper hand and Iran getting itchy fingers and it descends into a region wide conflict...then we would be dragged into a proper shooting war. What can not be known for sure is if Iran will feel the same as the US given their recent rhetoric of sitting back and doing nothing (thus look weak) or follow through on their threat but I suspect that they will grumble a bit but ultimately do nothing to escalate the situation further.

Without logic, it's meaningless. No-one can explain to me why 335 deaths caused by chemical weapons is worse than the million plus deaths in Darfur and Rwanda, or the 100,000 deaths by conventional means in Syria caused by both sides. You can spout of meaningless rhetoric about red lines and war crimes. You can't convince me with words, only logic and evidence. I'm not someone who thinks something is wrong because it's illegal. That kind of thinking is for the feeble-minded who can't think for themselves. If there's no logic, I couldn't give a fuck. Law can be extremely oppressive if it's just unjustified words used to enforce power over other human beings.

Oh noez, what if the US appears weak? Erm, I couldn't give a fuck. I'm not looking you for an explanation of what's going on. I certainly wouldn't come looking to you for one. So let's be clear, you are not helping me understand. I understand, most likely better than you do. It isn't to do with morality or humanity. That's why intervention doesn't make sense from those perspectives.

No, I'm definitely not coming to you for explanations I wasn't looking for, and your second paragraph confirms why I know I shouldn't. You see the world from your western bubble. Syria is threat. Iran is the threat. We've got to make sure Iran knows it can't get out of line... Iran hasn't invaded anyone in three hundred years! Did Iran overthrow the elected government of the United States or Britain? No, but we overthrew Mossadegh, Did Iran impose a dictator on us? No, it didn't, but we imposed the Shah on them. Britain and the United States have engineered countless regime changes, supported countless puppets with money and arms, invaded dozens of countries in the past three hundred years. The western powers are the aggressors, are the imperialists. I know I won't be able to convince you of those facts though. Facts cannot penetrate the bubble. The west is entitled to act as it sees in its own interests and if other countries oppose that - possibly on the basis that they don't want their elected leaders overthrown and replaced by dictators, or don't want to see their economic interests attacked, or their civilian planes shot down, THEY are the aggressors. No, I won't convince you. People who only see things from their side of the fence cannot be reasoned with. My country, right or wrong; it lives and breathes.

 

[metalblue]

Lot of words to say nothing that Skashion. Should boundries exist in war?

 

[Skashion]

Lot of words to say nothing that Skashion. Should boundries exist in war?

Funny, you accuse me of saying nothing... Red line, green light, war crimes. I'm hearing an awful lot of words here, nothing to back them up though. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why 335 deaths by gas (the provenance of which unproven) is worse than the many-fold more by conventional means. Someone explain the logic to me. Go on. Well, you see, it's a red line matter, if we don't do anything we'll be giving a green light to war crimes. Cheers.

 

[metalblue]

Lot of words to say nothing that Skashion. Should boundries exist in war?

Funny, you accuse me of saying nothing... Red line, green light, war crimes. I'm hearing an awful lot of words here, nothing to back them up though. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why 335 deaths by gas (the provenance of which unproven) is worse than the many-fold more by conventional means. Someone explain the logic to me. Go on. Well, you see, it's a red line matter, if we don't do anything we'll be giving a green light to war crimes. Cheers.

Should boundaries exist in war? Yes or no.

 

[Skashion]

Should boundaries exist in war? Yes or no.

I don't know what you're asking of me, or more importantly why.

 

[metalblue]

Should boundaries exist in war? Yes or no.

I don't know what you're asking of me, or more importantly why.

I'm asking if you agree with the concept of boundaries in war, such as those laid out in the geneva convention, or not? We'll get to the why.