The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Syrian Guy
You've already took sides and still stand by Assad regime, I mean, if the West really wanted to oust Assad from power, they would've done so ages ago, but God knows why the West covertly supports him. Because of your miscarriage of justice, Syria has turned from rise to demise, from order to chaos, from national interest to personal interest, from society to jungle, from modern times to middle ages, from pride to shame, from brother to other, and from Syria to sectarianism.


No it's a fair point, the Rebels are just as evil as the Regime, neither side should be supported. Every time Britain helps a nation, the nation is never grateful, look at Libya until Britain interfered, Gadhafi was winning, Britain stepped in and has never been thanked or supported since then. Both sides are bankrolled by terrorist groups the regime by Hezbollah and the Rebels by some Al Quaeda factions.
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
Here in Israel, we are not worried about invasion from the north. Syria is a state and as such is deterred by Israel's overwhelming strategic superiority, whereas Hezbollah, although a fairly tough nut when ensconced in their pre-prepared positions amongst a friendly population (especially for an army that is bound by ethical considerations), has extremely limited expeditionary capability. Syrian rebels have even less in terms of equipment and organisation. The threat from the north is that it becomes another launching ground for indiscriminate rocket attacks like Gaza or staging point for terrorist infiltration like Sinai. Israel does not want the northern communities to be under daily rocket attack like the southern communities were until Pillar of Defense.


Agreed. Israel are so often misrepresented when in actuality all they are trying to do is protect their civilians from bombs and other explosives. Syria would not try to attack Israel because Israel have one of the best militaries in the world and have also shown in the past that they can deal in pressured situations as they have shown in their encounters with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation until 1993. Israel are well equipped and well prepared.
Original post by Apocrypha
Alas, i mean if the whole supplying and training of rebels is meant with the idea that the rebels need to win, if the rebels continue to lose, it would probably provoke ground intervention, otherwise all the training and cost was for nothing.


Why should it provoke ground intervention? Any intervention will not resolve the situation and may even make it worse. Britain has no binding treaties with Syria. Without meaning to sound ruthless why should Britain risk the bloodshed of its soldiers for a conflict that cannot easily be resolved?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Rational Thinker
No it's a fair point, the Rebels are just as evil as the Regime, neither side should be supported. Every time Britain helps a nation, the nation is never grateful, look at Libya until Britain interfered, Gadhafi was winning, Britain stepped in and has never been thanked or supported since then. Both sides are bankrolled by terrorist groups the regime by Hezbollah and the Rebels by some Al Quaeda factions.


Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, I get that and so what? The current bloodshed can't just continue like that? Don't you think supporting no sides of the conflict might add more fuel to the fire and might, take Rwanda genocide for example, completely backfire?
Original post by Syrian Guy
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, I get that and so what? The current bloodshed can't just continue like that? Don't you think supporting no sides of the conflict might add more fuel to the fire and might, take Rwanda genocide for example, completely backfire?


I agree with some of what you said but for every Rwanda there is a Vietnam. Every time Britain steps into the breach it receives nothing but ingratitude. I have made good friends with many soldiers and I don't particularly see why it is fair for them to die for other peoples problems, Al Quaeda are bankrolling the rebels. Personally if Britain has to get involved they should collect the names and bank details of those supporting intervention and then charge them for the hospital costs for injured soldiers, the families destroyed in Britain because the father or mother has been killed, the psychological ramifications the children in these families then experience as well as the cost to the tax payer for a war the expenditure of which could have been spent upon education, healthcare and other things.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Syrian Guy
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, I get that and so what? The current bloodshed can't just continue like that? Don't you think supporting no sides of the conflict might add more fuel to the fire and might, take Rwanda genocide for example, completely backfire?


Fairly sure the current bloodshed can and will continue. Why is it the responsibility of the West to sort out a conflict between two people who, if they weren't fighting each other, would turn their weapons on the West and her allies? The only common ground between the regime and the rebels is that they hate the West and the Jews. Don't get me wrong, the West has sought to chose the lesser of two evils before, but with distinctly mixed results. Supporting the Soviets against the Nazis, then the mujihadeen against the Soviets, but the money and weapons always get turned back on the west in the end. You could say that it's part of combating Iranian and Russian power, but then, the West doesn't want the Saudi-backed Sunni axis, with its Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, al-Qaidia branches and affiliates, to get too powerful either, because when they do--bam--the weapons get turned on us.
Reply 186
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
Fairly sure the current bloodshed can and will continue. Why is it the responsibility of the West to sort out a conflict between two people who, if they weren't fighting each other, would turn their weapons on the West and her allies? The only common ground between the regime and the rebels is that they hate the West and the Jews. Don't get me wrong, the West has sought to chose the lesser of two evils before, but with distinctly mixed results. Supporting the Soviets against the Nazis, then the mujihadeen against the Soviets, but the money and weapons always get turned back on the west in the end. You could say that it's part of combating Iranian and Russian power, but then, the West doesn't want the Saudi-backed Sunni axis, with its Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, al-Qaidia branches and affiliates, to get too powerful either, because when they do--bam--the weapons get turned on us.


Excellent point you made here, the main reason why no one is interevning is that it cannot get any better than this. 2 of our enemies killing each other without us getting our hands dirty...so why should we care? I mean that must take some devil to come up with this idea. He managed to kill more than israel has ever killed in gaza. 100,000 in space of 2 years compared to 1000 in one month killed by the Israels. So, what stupid country would want assad to go, if he is satisfying all their criteria and requirement for an Arab dictator? :cool:

We let them do the dirty work and pretend we are nothing to do with it. For 40 years we have been backing assad by all means and every way! We made Assad, we trained him, we gave him ideas, we knew one day the people are going to turn against him because we knew there is a limit as to how patient the syrians can go with oppression. Read history books and you will find out how many times bashar as a child and his dad were in london and if you have the intelligence you will find out exactly how we helped form the dictator bashar.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ama2007
Excellent point you made here, the main reason why no one is interevning is that it cannot get any better than this. 2 of our enemies killing each other without us getting our hands dirty...so why should we care? I mean that must take some devil to come up with this idea. He managed to kill more than israel has ever killed in gaza. 100,000 in space of 2 years compared to 1000 in one month killed by the Israels. So, what stupid country would want assad to go, if he is satisfying all their criteria and requirement for an Arab dictator? :cool:

We let them do the dirty work and pretend we are nothing to do with it. For 40 years we have been backing assad by all means and every way! We made Assad, we trained him, we gave him ideas, we knew one day the people are going to turn against him because we knew there is a limit as to how patient the syrians can go with oppression. Read history books and you will find out how many times bashar as a child and his dad were in london and if you have the intelligence you will find out exactly how we helped form the dictator bashar.

And now even though Britain isn't intervening, it's still Britain's fault because of some convoluted scheme stretching back decades and across multiple governments to create a Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian dictatorship in the hope that it would eventually lead to civil war. It's astonishing how a host of British governments that can barely manage, in a metaphorical sense, to put their trousers on the right way round are capable of organising such a devious plan over such a long term. Of course, it must be so, because Arabs killing each other is never the fault of Arabs, who are helpless and innocent victims in the face of colonialism, it must be the fault of the devious West, and probably Zionists.
Reply 188
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
And now even though Britain isn't intervening, it's still Britain's fault because of some convoluted scheme stretching back decades and across multiple governments to create a Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian dictatorship in the hope that it would eventually lead to civil war. It's astonishing how a host of British governments that can barely manage, in a metaphorical sense, to put their trousers on the right way round are capable of organising such a devious plan over such a long term. Of course, it must be so, because Arabs killing each other is never the fault of Arabs, who are helpless and innocent victims in the face of colonialism, it must be the fault of the devious West, and probably Zionists.


That's politics for you am afraid

Its not what it seems :rolleyes:


p.s I never mentioned zionists...or does that automatically come in with the UK? I was talking about how bashar was known about ages before he become a mass killer?

Have you heard of MI5 or MI6?....Wars don't just happen like that, a guy doesnt just kill 100,000 people just like that, without any reason or backing from strong countries? Thats just the way it is, you might want to believe it or leave it. No difference to the syrians dying now. We are just outsiders now, we didnt help back then...and thats that!!!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ama2007
That's politics for you am afraid

Its not what it seems :rolleyes:


p.s I never mentioned zionists...or does that automatically come in with the UK? I was talking about how bashar was known about ages before he become a mass killer?

Have you heard of MI5 or MI6?....Wars don't just happen like that, a guy doesnt just kill 100,000 people just like that, without any reason or backing from strong countries? Thats just the way it is, you might want to believe it or leave it. No difference to the syrians dying now. We are just outsiders now, we didnt help back then...and thats that!!!



Did you miss the part where he's backed by Russia and Iran? And "without any reason?" To hold on to power for his minority Shia sect in a majority Sunni country against the backdrop of an Iranian-Saudi struggle for regional dominance and Russian attempts to retain a regional client seems like reason enough. Why wouldn't he kill them? This new Western idea that massacring your enemies is a bad thing isn't universally accepted, not by a long shot.
Reply 190
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
Did you miss the part where he's backed by Russia and Iran? And "without any reason?" To hold on to power for his minority Shia sect in a majority Sunni country against the backdrop of an Iranian-Saudi struggle for regional dominance and Russian attempts to retain a regional client seems like reason enough. Why wouldn't he kill them? This new Western idea that massacring your enemies is a bad thing isn't universally accepted, not by a long shot.


So that would be okay? Are you saying killing people is okay? Madness!

For example: if all the Arabs managed to get together and unite against the Israels and massacred them and killed 100,000 of them, then that would be okay I guess? because they are the enemies of the arabs? Am I right? Is that what you are suggesting :confused:

God we have a new line of Hitler coming through...what a mess!!

You might as well fight along side Bashar's mafia...if that's your ideology.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ama2007
To be honest am not suprised at your lack of understanding of the syrian regime, it takes more than reading the BBC and a few articals to grasp the complex situation of this revolution. On one side you have the Iranians, chinese and russians supplying weapons to the regime to kill its own people and then you get people saying its not good vs bad, lol I know obviously! AND then you get those who want to ruin anythinh which doesnt go by their books. The revolution started for a reason and didnt just out of nowhere form? 23million people? they must have had at least some idea of what they were going into and what they wanted? no?


I really advice you as a fellow TSR to read about the history of syria... which is very interesting and explains many things happening right now, it makes sense once you understand the logic behind Bashar Al-assad assination of his own people.The history of how the army is formed and the oppression for 40 years.

However, Your support or lack of it wont affect the syrian revolution one bit. They deserve their freedom, They sacrificed so much for it and they are going to get it.


Its only a matter of time :smile:


Nice simplistic view of revolutions you have there.
Under the current circumstances, Syria would probably be better of with Assad than having the thousand or so rebel groups fighting over which party can take his place (the strongest of those being Jahbat Al-Nusra).



Edit:

Does anyone want to elaborate why they disagree with my view point instead of just negging it?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ama2007
So that would be okay? Are you saying killing people is okay? Madness!

For example: if all the Arabs managed to get together and unite against the Israels and massacred them and killed 100,000 of them, then that would be okay I guess? because they are the enemies of the arabs? Am I right? Is that what you are suggesting :confused:

God we have a new line of Hitler coming through...what a mess!!

You might as well fight along side Bashar's mafia...if that's your ideology.


You seem to have had a rather monumental misunderstanding. My question was why should we consider it strange or unusual that Assad is carrying out a massacre of his enemies. Why would you assume that most people consider that to be wrong? We Westerners do, but we shouldn't make that assumption about other people. The Arabs, including the Syrians, have repeatedly tried to do exactly what you describe, in '47, '67, and '73. Why? Because they don't consider it wrong. You should read some of the interviews of Jordanians captured by Israel in 1967. They assumed they would all be massacred, because for them, that was the normal thing to do to your enemies, and it's what they would have done (and did do in '48).
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 194
As it seems al Qusayr has fallen, which is for the Rebels something as Berlin for Nazi germany. Congratulation to mr.Assad for defeading the traitors and the crazy islamists.
Original post by player19
As it seems al Qusayr has fallen, which is for the Rebels something as Berlin for Nazi germany. Congratulation to mr.Assad for defeading the traitors and the crazy islamists.


Inshallah the Wahabis fall, for it is them who have ruined the image of Islam.
Reply 196
Original post by Mo_maths
Inshallah the Wahabis fall, for it is them who have ruined the image of Islam.


LOL wahabisss in syria...You clearly have no idea about where syria is :tongue:


Wahabise are found in saudi, UAE, crazy countries who have nothing to do!


Was Hamza al khateeb wahabee? hmmm let me think....maybe his dad was? Thats why they cut his body parts up!

So deluded. I cannot be bothered having a discussion with you!
Original post by Ama2007
LOL wahabisss in syria...You clearly have no idea about where syria is :tongue:


Wahabise are found in saudi, UAE, crazy countries who have nothing to do!


Was Hamza al khateeb wahabee? hmmm let me think....maybe his dad was? Thats why they cut his body parts up!

So deluded. I cannot be bothered having a discussion with you!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UaUO6BY2snM
You are the deluded one
Reply 198
Just watched a documentary about Iraq after conflict regarding transition, I hope lessons are learnt otherwise all hell would be let loose. Post Assad scenario's should be thought off aswell
Original post by Syrian Guy
You've already took sides and still stand by Assad regime, I mean, if the West really wanted to oust Assad from power, they would've done so ages ago, but God knows why the West covertly supports him. Because of your miscarriage of justice, Syria has turned from rise to demise, from order to chaos, from national interest to personal interest, from society to jungle, from modern times to middle ages, from pride to shame, from brother to other, and from Syria to sectarianism.



Sectarianism is from Assad's secular regime?

From the Telegraph:

" What can be said with certainty is that over the past decade the Middle East, and to some extent the Islamic world, has broken down into two armed camps. On the one side are Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, backed by the United States and (quietly) Israel. To everyone’s enormous embarrassment, al-Qaeda is very firmly in this camp.
On the other side are Iran, Hizbollah and post-bellum Iraq, strongly backed by Russia and China. Viewed from this wider perspective, Mr Cameron’s claim to be on the side of democracy and human rights, and against dictatorship, is not merely fraudulent it is patently ridiculous. "
(edited 10 years ago)

Latest

Trending

Trending