Cannot believe the sheer hypocrisy of world leaders on Syria.
Its a shame that they didn't have personal dislike towards Bashar like they did Gaddafi because I think there would have been something done about the genocide of the sunni population a long time ago.
It is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. When did the Col. ever strap captured protesters to tanks and drive them through his own cities wreaking destruction and imposing death upon his people?
When did he order snipers to shoot dead children in their living rooms?
When did he fire upon field hospitals and foreign press buildings?
Now that the Col. is dead NATO seizes its operations, yet the civil war continues.
What was going on in Libya was a civil war. What is going on in Syria was a civil war that is keeling into genocide.
You would have thought that these stupid greedy ****s we call leaders would at least give the FSA the weapons needed to defend themsevles and the people they are failing to protect from obliteration. However Hilary won't allow this, no. She doesn't know who these rebels are she says, therefore will not arm them. You aren't giving them a nuke you idiot, what is the worst that would happen? Not that it even matters how well they know such groups, considering the last time her idiotic government armed a rebel group that they 'did know', that group became their worst enemy.
A little further back, that Rwandan government used loans from such governments to purchase equipment that fed a brutal civil war. What was different then?
I see no harm in turning a brutal one sided onslaught of people into a slightly less one sided one by at least arming them.
As Paul Conroy stated, the media has pulled out, once Baba Amr falls the regime has the means to move on to the next town and the next town, into the countryside where there are no cameras, no jounralists and no defences, they will beable to render an entire population non-existant and all under the cover of darkness.
But hey, I supose the good news is Bashar will maybe be hanged in and around 2050, probably just a few years before he would be due to die anyway, but it'll be the west's way of showing extreme leaders/groups that they cannot commit mass murder.
It is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. When did the Col. ever strap captured protesters to tanks and drive them through his own cities wreaking destruction and imposing death upon his people?
When did he order snipers to shoot dead children in their living rooms?
When did he fire upon field hospitals and foreign press buildings?
Now that the Col. is dead NATO seizes its operations, yet the civil war continues.
What was going on in Libya was a civil war. What is going on in Syria was a civil war that is keeling into genocide.
You would have thought that these stupid greedy ****s we call leaders would at least give the FSA the weapons needed to defend themsevles and the people they are failing to protect from obliteration. However Hilary won't allow this, no. She doesn't know who these rebels are she says, therefore will not arm them. You aren't giving them a nuke you idiot, what is the worst that would happen? Not that it even matters how well they know such groups, considering the last time her idiotic government armed a rebel group that they 'did know', that group became their worst enemy.
A little further back, that Rwandan government used loans from such governments to purchase equipment that fed a brutal civil war. What was different then?
I see no harm in turning a brutal one sided onslaught of people into a slightly less one sided one by at least arming them.
As Paul Conroy stated, the media has pulled out, once Baba Amr falls the regime has the means to move on to the next town and the next town, into the countryside where there are no cameras, no jounralists and no defences, they will beable to render an entire population non-existant and all under the cover of darkness.
But hey, I supose the good news is Bashar will maybe be hanged in and around 2050, probably just a few years before he would be due to die anyway, but it'll be the west's way of showing extreme leaders/groups that they cannot commit mass murder.
Scroll to see replies
First of all a No-fly zone can't be forced through the same way as it was last year for one simple reason: Russian/Chinese objection. There is no way in hell they will allow the same this time around, especially Russia considering its vested interests in the region. And what is more there is no further appetite for unilateral action.
That said one thing is certain; any UN backed military action would be counter-productive at this stage considering the Russian arms sales to Syria that are still happening. I believe that first Russia needs to be convinced that it should stop sending arms to such a volatile situation and then maybe the Syrian government will think twice before violently oppressing its people and will tend more towards peaceful resolution and eventual compromise.
So it would be unwise to expect that bombing a regime into submission will always lead to positive results. only when international force is absolutely necessary, as in was in the Libya scenario, is it remotely helpful towards the situation. And through necessity, action would be taken if the Syrian uprising takes a turn to the worse.
That said one thing is certain; any UN backed military action would be counter-productive at this stage considering the Russian arms sales to Syria that are still happening. I believe that first Russia needs to be convinced that it should stop sending arms to such a volatile situation and then maybe the Syrian government will think twice before violently oppressing its people and will tend more towards peaceful resolution and eventual compromise.
So it would be unwise to expect that bombing a regime into submission will always lead to positive results. only when international force is absolutely necessary, as in was in the Libya scenario, is it remotely helpful towards the situation. And through necessity, action would be taken if the Syrian uprising takes a turn to the worse.
(edited 12 years ago)
Problem is that the conflict can't be solved with air strikes as in Libya, since the majority of the fighting is close quarters in the cities where as in Libya it was across a barren desert. The collateral would be too high.
I'm getting sick of watching this bloodbath too. Unfortunately the UK wouldn't be up for a full on invasion. I would like to see a Turkish/possibly Jordanian invasion, backed up by air strikes from the Saudis and the other gulf states, as well as some NATO airpower and special forces. It's about building as big a coalition as possible to try and scare off Russia and China sufficiently. This has gone on for too long. Giving weapons to the resistance would help, but it might also encourage Assad to treat it as a full on military campaign.
I'm getting sick of watching this bloodbath too. Unfortunately the UK wouldn't be up for a full on invasion. I would like to see a Turkish/possibly Jordanian invasion, backed up by air strikes from the Saudis and the other gulf states, as well as some NATO airpower and special forces. It's about building as big a coalition as possible to try and scare off Russia and China sufficiently. This has gone on for too long. Giving weapons to the resistance would help, but it might also encourage Assad to treat it as a full on military campaign.
The West shouldn't be bothered. Arab problems for Arabs to solve.
Only reason the West isnt doing anything is coz of Oil. Syria hasnt got much but Libya did, so Libya is ok for intervention but Syria isnt. Same reason they went to war with Iraq.
It all comes down to Oil. Same thing happened in Bahrain. Civilians were being killed brutally. Just because they are strong allies of the US no on really bothered about it.
why neg? isnt it a logical conclusion?
It all comes down to Oil. Same thing happened in Bahrain. Civilians were being killed brutally. Just because they are strong allies of the US no on really bothered about it.
why neg? isnt it a logical conclusion?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ak137
The FSA are being armed by the West - the Qataris and Saudis are giving them weapons, which the West has payed for.
Yeah, this is what Assad claims. There is very little proof this is actually particularly widespread. The Free Syrian Army is a fairly pitiful force. Even if it was being armed, who can blame people? Assad attacked peaceful protestors for around six to seven solid months and the FSA did not even exist in this period, in fact no armed opposition did. It is entirely the fault of Assad that he has allowed this to escalate to the point where outside forces feel compelled to act in their interests. This could have been resolved immediately if Assad had acted in the decent way, however he has pushed it to the point of a civil war and the involvement of outside players.
Original post by Cyanohydrin
Yeah, this is what Assad claims. There is very little proof this is actually particularly widespread. The Free Syrian Army is a fairly pitiful force. Even if it was being armed, who can blame people? Assad attacked peaceful protestors for around six to seven solid months and the FSA did not even exist in this period, in fact no armed opposition did. It is entirely the fault of Assad that he has allowed this to escalate to the point where outside forces feel compelled to act in their interests. This could have been resolved immediately if Assad had acted in the decent way, however he has pushed it to the point of a civil war and the involvement of outside players.
You mean it's what the gulf states have admitted to
Original post by sachinisgod
Only reason the West isnt doing anything is coz of Oil. Syria hasnt got much but Libya did, so Libya is ok for intervention but Syria isnt. Same reason they went to war with Iraq.
It all comes down to Oil. Same thing happened in Bahrain. Civilians were being killed brutally. Just because they are strong allies of the US no on really bothered about it.
It all comes down to Oil. Same thing happened in Bahrain. Civilians were being killed brutally. Just because they are strong allies of the US no on really bothered about it.
Yeah that. But also because of its strategic location - next to Israel. If the government is busy killing Syrian civilians, it's not bothering killing Zionists in Israel. This "civil war" is beneficial to the West as it allows the safety of the terrorist state of Israel.
Original post by ak137
The FSA are being armed by the West - the Qataris and Saudis are giving them weapons, which the West has payed for.
Hamas is armed from outside, was Israel right in bombing Gaza in a display of staggering humanity in 2008 using ak137 logic then?
Those people on the left who do support Assad will have some explaining to do when all the human rights violations are discovered. I for one won't be taking any lectures ever again from anyone who falls into this category.
Assad's army is launching shells and rockets directly into a densely populated civilian area you absolute lunatic!
Do you remember what your reaction was when the Israeli army did the same thing during Operation Cast Lead? Were you umming and ahhing over the nature of the people who were being shelled then?
Good article by Fisk, who understands this region inside out, and can hardly be called a neo imperialist running dog now can he? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-regime-calls-it-cleaning-but-the-dirty-truth-is-plain-to-see-7466839.html
Assad's regime is as "legitimate" as that of Suharto in Indonesia, Samosa in Nicaragua, or the Saudis of today.
While I understand your distain for the Sunni uprising - it contains some nasty elements, as rebel groups always do - that doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for hating a vile regime. I suspect you would understand this perfectly well if it was a US-backed regime facing an insurgency eh ak137?
People of Homs you will be avenged but not by foreigners who see you only as in or out of their sphere of influence but by the Arab masses and their sympathisers across the world amongst the oppressed everywhere.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ak137
You mean it's what the gulf states have admitted to
You ignored the bit where I said your pal Mr Assad had been muderiing peaceful protesters for about six to seven months. It is entirely his fault - he had a window to do the noble thing, but instead he murdered and tortured the Syrian people to the point at which the FSA formed and the Gulf States became involved (the FSA half a year later and the Gulf States probably in the last month). The reality is, despite some rogue elements potentially creeping in, in recent months..the oppressed Syrian Sunnis have seen their opportunity for freedom, and Assad has brutally fought back. To apologise for this mass murder makes you a sick person to be honest.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Organ
Hamas is armed from outside, was Israel right in bombing Gaza in a display of staggering humanity in 2008 using ak137 logic then?
Those people on the left who do support Assad will have some explaining to do when all the human rights violations are discovered. I for one won't be taking any lectures ever again from anyone who falls into this category.
Assad's army is launching shells and rockets directly into a densely populated civilian area you absolute lunatic!
Do you remember what your reaction was when the Israeli army did the same thing during Operation Cast Lead? Were you umming and ahhing over the nature of the people who were being shelled then?
Good article by Fisk, who understands this region inside out, and can hardly be called a neo imperialist running dog now can he? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-regime-calls-it-cleaning-but-the-dirty-truth-is-plain-to-see-7466839.html
Assad's regime is as "legitimate" as that of Suharto in Indonesia, Samosa in Nicaragua, or the Saudis of today.
While I understand your distain for the Sunni uprising - it contains some nasty elements, as rebel groups always do - that doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for hating a vile regime. I suspect you would understand this perfectly well if it was a US-backed regime facing an insurgency eh ak137?
People of Homs you will be avenged but not by foreigners who see you only as in or out of their sphere of influence but by the Arab masses and their sympathisers across the world amongst the oppressed everywhere.
Those people on the left who do support Assad will have some explaining to do when all the human rights violations are discovered. I for one won't be taking any lectures ever again from anyone who falls into this category.
Assad's army is launching shells and rockets directly into a densely populated civilian area you absolute lunatic!
Do you remember what your reaction was when the Israeli army did the same thing during Operation Cast Lead? Were you umming and ahhing over the nature of the people who were being shelled then?
Good article by Fisk, who understands this region inside out, and can hardly be called a neo imperialist running dog now can he? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-regime-calls-it-cleaning-but-the-dirty-truth-is-plain-to-see-7466839.html
Assad's regime is as "legitimate" as that of Suharto in Indonesia, Samosa in Nicaragua, or the Saudis of today.
While I understand your distain for the Sunni uprising - it contains some nasty elements, as rebel groups always do - that doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for hating a vile regime. I suspect you would understand this perfectly well if it was a US-backed regime facing an insurgency eh ak137?
People of Homs you will be avenged but not by foreigners who see you only as in or out of their sphere of influence but by the Arab masses and their sympathisers across the world amongst the oppressed everywhere.
I was wondering how long it would take you to get here
I cannot write a full reply to you cause I'm on mobile ATM.
Lol if the FSA was Palestinian, the US, Israel and Syria would be claiming "terrorists using kids as human shields in baba amr". Lol hypocrisy.
Secondly, I am not a lefty and opposing an intervention does not make me pro Assad. If anyone is pro Assad. If anyone is pro Assad, it's Hillary Clinton and mr David turdface (and no, that wasn't autocorrect
). As I've said before, the Syrian situation is regrettable but no real democratic movement in history has ever called for imperialist intervention like the FSA.
I regard the NCC as the legitimate opposition which calls for no violence unlike the SNC.
Original post by Cyanohydrin
You ignored the bit where I said your pal Mr Assad had been muderiing peaceful protesters for about six to seven months. It is entirely his fault - he had a window to do the noble thing, but instead he murdered and tortured the Syrian people to the point at which the FSA formed and the Gulf States became involved (the FSA half a year later and the Gulf States probably in the last month). The reality is, despite some rogue elements potentially creeping in, in recent months..the oppressed Syrian Sunnis have seen their opportunity for freedom, and Assad has brutally fought back. To apologise for this mass murder makes you a sick person to be honest.
Let me set you straight pipsqeak; I oppose an intervention and that make Assad my pal does it?
Name me where I have excused the violence? You can't
Fool.
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.
Original post by bestofyou
Its a shame that they didn't have personal dislike towards Bashar like they did Gaddafi because I think there would have been something done about the genocide of the sunni population a long time ago.
It is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. When did the Col. ever strap captured protesters to tanks and drive them through his own cities wreaking destruction and imposing death upon his people?
It is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. When did the Col. ever strap captured protesters to tanks and drive them through his own cities wreaking destruction and imposing death upon his people?
What you seem to have conveniently overlooked is the strength of the Russian opposition to any Western / Arab intervention. You've also forgotten the support the Russians have from China (plus, for what it's worth, Iran and N. Korea). Syria simply is not Libya Mk II.
For one thing, the only incentive for Western governments to intervene in Syria is humanitarian. I agree that needing any other incentive is hypocritical but that is human life, and always has been.
One of many disincentives is the fact that, as things stand, a Western intervention would mean going head-to-head against Russia, China and (just when they're itching for a fight) Iran. The outcome of the resultant carnage would be lots of dead Westerners, everyone poorer and the way made clear for a Moslem extremist government in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries.
Another disincentive is the fact that just arming the rebels isn't going to work either. Even if we knew specifically who to send the arms to (debatable at best), the first thing that would happen would be that the carnage would increase exponentially. Then, if this led to Assad being removed, the rebel groups would almost certainly start fighting each other. Then, when one group had become sufficiently dominant, they would almost certainly start using our weapons on us because we would be trying to influence who gains power (we always do) and the Syrians would object (not surprisingly).
Ultimately, the Western governments have very little to gain from intervening and plenty to lose, just when most of them can least afford it. It's not going to happen.
We should also take into account that Russia said it would not tolerate western intervention.
And lets not forget what happened the last time we took action in the Middle East, Syria is a very similar country to Iraq - politically, religiously, and culturally.
And lets not forget what happened the last time we took action in the Middle East, Syria is a very similar country to Iraq - politically, religiously, and culturally.
Because they're not bothered about Syria and don't want to annoy the Russians. They'll be anti-Assad but they're more interested in focusing their attention on Iran.
Are the "rebels" views even held by the majority of Syria's population? (Don't reply with a "hurr durr the government are killing civilians, of course the population agree with the rebels" type answer. I need statistics)
If not then the west will only cause my problems by trying to intervene.
If not then the west will only cause my problems by trying to intervene.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Leadership Team Position Application
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Could Someone Mark My Essay Please? - Constructive Criticism OCR RS Alevel
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- who is donald trump
- can i be a Christian and spiritual at the same time?
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Dropped some critical thinking task
- we're all going to die, soon
- UCLan dental therapy time table
- William Wordsworth
- Postgraduate Study, help, what should I do?
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- USA bombing Syria
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- gcse speaking exam
- Friends just started excluding and ignoring me
- 🏳️*⚧️Where to buy tights in Central London?
- Where should i go for development studies sussex,bristol or soas
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
