Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The siege in East Aleppo which threatened 200,000+ civilians has been broken Watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    So are these rebels our friends or not
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    So are these rebels our friends or not
    It's complicated.

    Some of the groups are US funded while others aren't.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    It's complicated.

    Some of the groups are US funded while others aren't.
    personally i think they are the enemy. in 10 years time they will be the next Taliban. why do we not learn? Afghanistan, Iraq etc. As Churchill said, the middle east is "untamable" and thus i believe a strong dictatorship is best for the good of the majority. i support Assad.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TelAviv)
    The Syrian Observatory claims "5 out of the 8" positions they've lost since the start of the offensive has been regained.

    I believe some of the major positions are the villages of Al-Almiryah, Huwayz and al-Sanobrat hill.

    Fatah Halab declaring they'll attack Kurdish parts of Aleppo doesn't sound like a good idea either
    Those areas were all heavily contested during the first week of this offensive to break the Aleppo siege. They changed hands a few times before the siege was broken, which is what the SO is referring to.

    Huwayz and Amiriyah are a bit to the south of this main rebel corridor. I can't find Sanobrat hill but it'll be there somewhere.

    The rebels have held on to most of their gains since the breaking the siege, and the government has yet to make any meaningful advance towards reclaiming this rebel corridor, though it is a bit early. There have apparently been heavy airstrikes, so they're certainly going to try.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Those areas were all heavily contested during the first week of this offensive to break the Aleppo siege. They changed hands a few times before the siege was broken, which is what the SO is referring to.

    Huwayz and Amiriyah are a bit to the south of this main rebel corridor. I can't find Sanobrat hill but it'll be there somewhere.

    The rebels have held on to most of their gains since the breaking the siege, and the government has yet to make any meaningful advance towards reclaiming this rebel corridor, though it is a bit early. There have apparently been heavy airstrikes, so they're certainly going to try.
    i must ask, as you seem like a very informed individual on this topic, who do you support, and who do you think will eventually win this war? my answer to both questions is Assad.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Razamataz666)
    i must ask, as you seem like a very informed individual on this topic, who do you support, and who do you think will eventually win this war? my answer to both questions is Assad.
    I support some sort of deal with the Kurds for them to have some form of autonomy and democratic governance.

    As for Assad v opposition, both sides have comitted war crimes and atrocities on a large scale and continue to do so on a regular basis. Assad's government brutally suppressed dissent and caused the war in the first place, but most of the rebels are Islamists with terrible human rights records themselves (which is the main reason a lot of people support the government). I can't really "support" any of them. Ideally I'd like some negotiated solution to this as well, but attempts to do that have so far failed completely.

    Not sure who will "win" this war. The government forces simply don't have the manpower to take back all of Syria, and will not have anytime soon. There's also big issues with competency in the army, and a lot of people were promoted into commanding positions not based on merit but on loyalty and family ties to the government, so the army isn't exactly a brilliant fighting force. But the rebels haven't been able to break into the government strongholds either, and they have little chance of winning due to the government's air superiority and because "the rebels" are actually loads of different groups rather than one unified group with a strong central command.

    The war has also swung from one side to the other many times, so it's hard to speculate too far into the future. All I can say with some certainty is that the war isn't going to end anytime soon.

    Hope this helps.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I support some sort of deal with the Kurds for them to have some form of autonomy and democratic governance.

    As for Assad v opposition, both sides have comitted war crimes and atrocities on a large scale and continue to do so on a regular basis. Assad's government brutally suppressed dissent and caused the war in the first place, but most of the rebels are Islamists with terrible human rights records themselves (which is the main reason a lot of people support the government). I can't really "support" any of them. Ideally I'd like some negotiated solution to this as well, but attempts to do that have so far failed completely.
    Your choice of words makes it seem as though the regime and the opposition are both guilty of the same level of atrocities.

    The truth is though that you're being dishonest.

    http://www.trtworld.com/sites/defaul...?itok=0gYPZVQ5
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    ISIS before they came to Syria were ISI (Islamic state in Iraq), and I'm pretty sure ISI designated as terrorists before arriving to Syria.
    I don't remember them being classified as a terrorist group in 2013. They may have been regarded by Iraq as a terrorist group, but there has come about an international recognition of them as a terrorist group. Much like now, the Syrian government and Russia would consider many of the rebel groups operating in Syria terrorist groups, but on an international scale, many aren't classified as terrorist groups.

    How can you say we must show restraint when earlier you called the rebel groups terrorists? That's pretty far from being restrained.
    I never did say such a thing. As I explained, people were praising ISIS before international condemnation came about. And that condemnation only came when more information about ISIS's human rights abuses came about. The point I am making is that you are praising groups who we still don't know a lot about and who have been involved in human rights abuses. Unless you wish to risk repeating the same mistake other TSRians have made in the past, praising ISIS, and then more information coming out later revealing their human rights abuses?

    That's fine.
    Just for the record, I'm assuming you consider the soldiers of the British army heroes even though the army has committed human rights abuses? Would I be correct in saying that?
    I don't think you will ever find I have used the word 'hero'. But yes, I am highly critical of past foreign policy of Western nations and am highly critical of their human rights abuses.

    No, I wasn't questioning whether you believed all Muslims were terrorists. I questioned whether you believed all the rebel groups were terrorists.
    But that isn't what you said.You didn't ask me if I was calling them terrorists because they are rebels. You specifically said Muslim.

    Rebels group are one mans terrorist and another mans freedom fighter. So to a certain extent, all rebel groups are going to be considered terrorist groups.

    You're entitled to believe what you want. However, to see a group of people sacrificing their lives to save 200,000 + people from starvation is the epitome of heroicness. I'm assuming you have a problem with me calling the groups heroes as opposed to the act?
    How much of it was for propaganda reasons? We cannot know. How much of the food went to civilians, and how much went to rebel fighters? And how many human rights abuses have gone unreported? The point is we don't know enough to call people heroes.

    Ensuring civilians continue to have access to health, food, drinking water etc.. is a necessity. The longer this war goes on, the harder it is to ensure people get these necessities.

    Just a point to consider, there are different shades of abuses committed. If a rogue militant kills civilians for example and the group condemns and punishes the fighter, it'll still be considered a human rights abuse but it's completely different to dropping random bombs on civilians.
    All human rights abuses are wrong. No attack on civilians can be 'justified' because less civilians were killed. Any civilian deaths need to be investigated and questions need to be asked. Plus these attacks tend not to be causes by rogue individuals, but groups of individuals.

    I'm not justifying sectarianism. You only have to look at the groups / militias / countries to see why some Muslims may have a problem with the Shia. You have Iran / Hezbollah / Iraqi militias who are all Shia, helping Bashar to indiscriminately kill people.
    And I could point to the vice versa. Iraqi Shia groups have arisen due to Shia persecution. Under Sadam, the Madan people suffered terribly for example. And the Shia have the most to lose in Syria, so it is no wonder that they are taking up arms. There is also the fear that many Sunni groups wish to establish an Islamic state which will most likely discriminate against Shia Muslims.

    This is why I think an offer needs to be made to Assad and the Shia groups. Unless some offer can be made to them, they will fight till the end (as they have the most to lose).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I don't remember them being classified as a terrorist group in 2013. They may have been regarded by Iraq as a terrorist group, but there has come about an international recognition of them as a terrorist group. Much like now, the Syrian government and Russia would consider many of the rebel groups operating in Syria terrorist groups, but on an international scale, many aren't classified as terrorist groups.
    You don't remember or you choose not to remember ?
    They have always been internationally designated as terrorists from the early leadership of al-zarqawi. They were the Iraq/Levant hand of AQ.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What does that even mean, "I choose not to remember"?

    "I don't remember" means that when TSR I-Soc members were discussing ISIS back in 2013, and when I read up on the group, I don't recall coming across information about them being internationally regarded as a terrorist group.

    But I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. But then that raises the question as to how this was a well known fact, and yet nobody on the I-Soc at the time condemned certain TSR members in the I-Soc from either praising ISIS or having ISIS flags in their avy. But hey, I can't say I'm surprised, as the TSR I-Soc has time and again failed to address such issues and continues to be a haven for people with extreme interpretations of Islam.
    With all due respect you tend to talk a lot of nonsense that include a lot of underhanded ways of attempting to paint the isoc as something it isn't.
    The fact that you cannot go a single post without dragging the isoc into it one way or another seems to suggest that the isoc (for whatever reason) is something stuck in your throat and always occupying a large space of your mind (which isn't healthy), which in turn drives you to distort and accuse.
    As always you are good at presenting baseless claims and accusations but when asked for evidence to back up your claims you often fail.
    Who are these members (plural) you speak off.
    And to what evidence do you rely upon that everyone in the isoc went along with them silently.
    I only know of one member who in the worst case scenario said that he disagrees with what they do but wanted to wait and see. That is far from praise.
    Also if someone elects to have the words of the shahada or the rayah as it is known, is no sign in anyway of supporting x or z group as the flag and the words are universal islamic terms and predate isis by 1400 years.
    I was hoping you'd be among the few that do not rely on distortions and blatant lies to push their narrative but it seems I was wrong.


    The most blatant being that it is news to anyone that isis from their inception were not designated and widely known to be a terror group.

    If you have evidence contrary to what I have said then please by all means enlighten us with it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    With all due respect you tend to talk a lot of nonsense that include a lot of underhanded ways of attempting to paint the isoc as something it isn't.
    Yes, people always say that when they don't like what people say. Which is quite ironic.

    The fact that you cannot go a single post without dragging the isoc into it one way or another seems to suggest that the isoc (for whatever reason) is something stuck in your throat and always occupying a large space of your mind (which isn't healthy)
    When some members of the society hold really extreme views, I do consider it a problem.

    which in turn drives you to distort and accuse.
    As always you are good at presenting baseless claims and accusations but when asked for evidence to back up your claims you often fail.


    Who are these members (plural) you speak off.
    I don't make baseless claims. Here is an I-Soc conversation involving two members from 2013:

    To all intents and purposes JN Ahrar and ISIS are one. They are the strongest the most effect the bravest and the most effective of all groups. When others run away like they did in Qusayr JN ISIS and Ahraar stayed.

    Insha'Allah!
    Indeed akhi. I believe the groups differ in some issues but Insha'Allah this will be resolved. Those fighting in these groups are definitely among the bravest!
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...505411&page=26

    And to what evidence do you rely upon that everyone in the isoc went along with them silently.
    You stated that I "choose not to remember" and seem to state as if it was clearly known fact that ISIS were internationally regarded as a terrorist group. I didn't think it was a clear fact. If it was as clear a fact as you stated, it raises serious questions about the society. Or was it not a well known fact, and in which case I can hardly be blamed and accused of "choosing not to remember"

    I only know of one member who in the worst case scenario said that he disagrees with what they do but wanted to wait and see. That is far from praise.
    Calling people the "bravest" and "most effective", praising them, and even telling people on the I-Soc to watch their propaganda videos would be a step further than 'disagreeing'.

    Also if someone elects to have the words of the shahada or the rayah as it is known, is no sign in anyway of supporting x or z group as the flag and the words are universal islamic terms and predate isis by 1400 years.
    I was hoping you'd be among the few that do not rely on distortions and blatant lies to push their narrative but it seems I was wrong.
    It is not a case of the flag with the shahada on it. It is a flag with a specific design. There are many flags with the shahada written on it and in many different styles. But when someone was quite clearly supportive of ISIS and had a flag that was exactly the same as the ISIS flag, then it is clearly more than a coincidence. In fact, on their dupe account, when I asked them about their flag, they informed me that it is a flag associated with the " Islamic state of Iraq and Sham." Now why would someone mention that in passing? So let's not try to be disingenuous here. I'm not criticising someone for having any black flag with the Shahada, but a very specific one.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/conv...6074&u2=195961


    The most blatant being that it is news to anyone that isis from their inception were not designated and widely known to be a terror group.
    So again, you are putting the I-Soc in a bad situation here. You are saying this was widely known. Why then was this support allowed to be posted there?

    If you have evidence contrary to what I have said then please by all means enlighten us with it.
    You've not made a point, so I don't see what there is to counter. I know quite clearly what I can and can't remember. You either take my word, or you don't.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    You don't remember or you choose not to remember ?
    Are you sure you're in a good position to level this accusation? :lol:

    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    I really wasn't aware
    If your incessant drumming up was about the above post then by all means you can expect an answer tomorrow just to humour you
    (from 3 weeks ago) :bebored:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Are you sure you're in a good position to level this accusation? :lol:



    (from 3 weeks ago) :bebored:
    Hello Hyd.
    I just added your reply to the back of the list.
    Since it was never a serious discussion to begin with.
    I can only apologise
    But I never denied it so......
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I don't make baseless claims. Here is an I-Soc conversation involving two members from 2013:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...505411&page=26

    Calling people the "bravest" and "most effective", praising them, and even telling people on the I-Soc to watch their propaganda videos would be a step further than 'disagreeing'.
    I do believe I clarified my position regarding these posts to yourself and others previously. I don't intend to write an elaborate defence because part of the issue is clearly indefensible. In fact, the quotes in your post of myself exemplify the ignorance I was in given that barely a month after I posted "Ahrar and IS" are the same, IS proceeded to torture and execute a doctor from Ahrar.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    I do believe I clarified my position regarding these posts to yourself and others previously. I don't intend to write an elaborate defence because part of the issue is clearly indefensible. In fact, the quotes in your post of myself exemplify the ignorance I was in given that barely a month after I posted "Ahrar and IS" are the same, IS proceeded to torture and execute a doctor from Ahrar.
    Yes, you did clarify your position. I was trying to state to OP that when it comes to Syria, we don't know all the facts, and thus we can never be 100% sure who we are supporting. Hence why I said caution needs to be exercised (where the OP has described a group at heroes), as people have made comments before supporting groups which have become terrorist groups.

    However, al-Farhan seems to be saying that it was common knowledge that ISIS were a internationally renowned terrorist group in 2013. I certainly wasn't aware of it at the time. I don't know if you were, but someone else on the I-Soc asked what you were even talking about, which goes to show it clearly can't have been that well known.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I don't remember them being classified as a terrorist group in 2013. They may have been regarded by Iraq as a terrorist group, but there has come about an international recognition of them as a terrorist group. Much like now, the Syrian government and Russia would consider many of the rebel groups operating in Syria terrorist groups, but on an international scale, many aren't classified as terrorist groups.
    I doubt we'll all remember the ins and outs of every group but considering ISI (Islamic state of Iraq) were previously Al Qaeda in Iraq (who are internationally designated as terrorists), it's safe to assume that ISIS were classified as an international terrorist group. I'll try to look it up to clarify this.

    Russia / Syria call these groups terrorists to try and delegitimise them and if you want, we can go through each individual groups actions to see whether they qualify as terrorists.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I never did say such a thing. As I explained, people were praising ISIS before international condemnation came about. And that condemnation only came when more information about ISIS's human rights abuses came about. The point I am making is that you are praising groups who we still don't know a lot about and who have been involved in human rights abuses.
    I agree that we should reserve judgement but 5 years have passed since the revolution has begun. It's pretty clear what each group believes and their methodology, whereas ISIS arrived in 2013 and most people unfortunately assumed they were a rebel group fighting for the rights of Syrians as opposed to what they've become.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Unless you wish to risk repeating the same mistake other TSRians have made in the past, praising ISIS, and then more information coming out later revealing their human rights abuses?
    How about we agree that they're currently heroes but may not be by the end of the war?


    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Rebels group are one mans terrorist and another mans freedom fighter. So to a certain extent, all rebel groups are going to be considered terrorist groups
    Why limit it to rebel groups? Besides if that's the case, the word terrorism doesn't really have any meaning to it anymore then.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    How much of it was for propaganda reasons? We cannot know. How much of the food went to civilians, and how much went to rebel fighters? And how many human rights abuses have gone unreported? The point is we don't know enough to call people heroes.

    Ensuring civilians continue to have access to health, food, drinking water etc.. is a necessity. The longer this war goes on, the harder it is to ensure people get these necessities.
    It's all well and good questioning the motives of the rebels but what we do know is that they managed to break a siege which was going to kill thousands (at the very least).



    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    All human rights abuses are wrong. No attack on civilians can be 'justified' because less civilians were killed. Any civilian deaths need to be investigated and questions need to be asked. Plus these attacks tend not to be causes by rogue individuals, but groups of individuals.
    I'm not saying attacks on civilians can be justified but clearly if the rebels apologise it's different to the regime for example blowing opposition territory on a daily basis.

    Also, what particular attacks do you have in mind? From what I've seen, the rebels try to minimise civilian deaths.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    And I could point to the vice versa. Iraqi Shia groups have arisen due to Shia persecution. Under Sadam, the Madan people suffered terribly for example. And the Shia have the most to lose in Syria, so it is no wonder that they are taking up arms. There is also the fear that many Sunni groups wish to establish an Islamic state which will most likely discriminate against Shia Muslims.

    This is why I think an offer needs to be made to Assad and the Shia groups. Unless some offer can be made to them, they will fight till the end (as they have the most to lose).
    You could, except the Americans got rid of Saddam and then installed a Shia government to oppress the Sunnis there. It's actually kind of similar to what France has done with the Alawites.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The people of these cities are completely screwed either way... If they're rebel held then the government forces will simply bomb them into the stone age and probably slaughter everyone inside when they retake the city for good measure. Equally those in government held areas are subject to repeated terror attacks and assaults by the terrorist hordes...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting

    https://twitter.com/walid970721/stat...95814422810626
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing interesting about propaganda.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.