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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    A big factor in that was we simply left Afghanistan after the Soviets did. There was no effort to try to rebuild the country so naturally it descended into civil war. If there was enough international will for it then Syria could be sorted out but it would require a good number of years. Doing nothing in Syria is going to come back to bite us just as hard as doing something may have.
    Sorry sir? Another modern-myth-believing chatting nonsense again!

    I'm guessing "doing something" is sending humanitarian aid as France was saying in 2011, which is just another way of saying "let's send 5 countries' armies over kill as many people that stand our way and put whoever we want in charge".
    That's not possible as China and Russia have already expressed/voted their preference to Assad sorting it out.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CEKTOP)
    As is yours
    True.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kate_louise21)
    Having been in Damascus right at the start of the protests in April 2012 and knowing people who lived there, its sad to see how such a beautiful country has been torn apart by not only Assad but the rest of the people who are standing by him, those in power and those from other countries etc. Assad is a cold blooded murder and a coward who thinks he can justify these war crimes and killings of thousands of innocent civilians daily.
    However lets not be niave and think what is going on now has not been going on for years. The West have known about the treatment the Syrians have been subjected to not only by Assad but also by neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, coming from someone who lived there and to people who have been there themselves you will understand what i mean by them being treated like dirt and considered not worth people....there are endless jokes about the Syrian people how poor they are and how they struggle so much in their own country they have to come to Lebanon to earn whatever money possible to send back to their families there. Before these protests, speaking badly of Assad and the government would immediately land you in prison and be faced with torture.
    While the world watches, they say it as inconvenient for their own country to intervene in Syria as it does not benefit them in anyway therefore the world sit and watch thousands of children, fathers, siblings, mothers, grandparents etc and etc be slaughtered everyday.
    R.I.P to all those innocent civillians who have been caught up in this and may there be revenge on Assad and every single murderer who has commited these crimes against humanity.
    You are quite aware that a network of states are providing millions in finance, an abundance of 'non-lethal aid' and heavy arms, military training, assistance in setting up a 'government in exile' in helping the opposition? Not many would describe this level of help as being complacent and merely watching. I dare say that the amount of help, support towards the opposition and condemnation of the current regime even at the very beginning of the protests suggests that a number of external states have a vested interest in the outcome of the conflict considering that these anti-assad states have little problem supporting other violent dictators. Our own government, whilst chiding the human rights offences of Gadaffi and Assad had no problem doing business with the president of Uzbekistan, a man that not only ordered the shooting of protesters that led to 100s of deaths in one instance, but also favoured boiling political opponents alive.

    Now I daren't say that there wasn't poverty in Syria, I know that parts such as the North West were grossly neglected by the Assad family. However I would say that a neighbouring people's opinion of a country doesn't necessarily reflect the true general nature of that country. Many in Britain believe Poland to be a poor place driven by horse and cart based on the migrants that arrive there. The country I am in at the moment is seen by it's neighbours as a place inhabited solely by thieves and sex traffickers and where crime is very high. In reality however none of these things are true.

    Also, considering that with a bit of effort, it is quite common to find examples of atrocities committed by the opposition forces (such as the rape and murder of Christian girls in the Sheik Masqood neighbourhood in Aleppo a few weeks ago) do you not think that you are being slightly selective in your demands for justice in the murders and atrocities committed by the ruling regime?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22193054

    Interesting article, although people say hes an evil man blah blah, this article highlights are crystal clear fact that tarnishes North Africa and the Middle East.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22193054

    Interesting article, although people say hes an evil man blah blah, this article highlights are crystal clear fact that tarnishes North Africa and the Middle East.
    pfftttttt.....who actually believes the BBC? I thought thats whats most pro-assad were against...no? That BBC, NBC are bad and stuff or have you had a change of heart for the BBC?

    How did they become facts? because you read it? I dont think so. Nowadays everyone...(whos got nothing to do) is going to syria to capture a story or two and maybe make up some lines...we all KNOW this happens especially in a case like syria...where its more complicated and you havs so many sides involved...you are bound to get false info. That is just the nature of War.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Syria is an inherently unstable country, comprising a number of different and mutally-antagonistic tribal enclaves, cobbled together by Britain and France from bits of the Ottoman Empire. Many of its regions could have just as easily have ended up as part of its neighbours, or as independent states. It is not a nation. It has only been held together, more or less, by the iron fists of the Assad family, ruling from and on behalf of their own tribal enclave in the coastal mountains. What we are witnessing is not the people against the government, nor is the government against terrorists; it is the fragmentation of Syria into its tribal enclaves, with Assad and his Alawites only one faction. As highlighted by the involvement of the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni al-Qaida, it's also a battleground in the broader Sunni-Shia power struggle in the region, with Saudi and Iran now struggling over what was once Iran's firm Shia ally.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22193054

    Interesting article, although people say hes an evil man blah blah, this article highlights are crystal clear fact that tarnishes North Africa and the Middle East.
    And the West will pay even a bigger price if they back Assad!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ama2007)
    pfftttttt.....who actually believes the BBC? I thought thats whats most pro-assad were against...no? That BBC, NBC are bad and stuff or have you had a change of heart for the BBC?

    How did they become facts? because you read it? I dont think so. Nowadays everyone...(whos got nothing to do) is going to syria to capture a story or two and maybe make up some lines...we all KNOW this happens especially in a case like syria...where its more complicated and you havs so many sides involved...you are bound to get false info. That is just the nature of War.
    The article is comprised exclusively of parts of an interview with Assad and highlights his stance on the conflict. The BBC correspondents and editors added virtually nothing of their own, they merely presented Assad's views offering no judgement whatsoever. This is what quality reporting should look like. Do read the article once again before allowing your hysterical opinions to spill out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    We should actively use the example of Egypt, which became a much more violent and corrupt place following the downfall of Mubarak who managed to keep tribal leadership in check and was highly effective at supressing all kinds of insurgencies thus keeping the country stable. Under Morsi tourists are robbed in Sharm el Sheikh in broad daylight by bedouin tribes with law enforcement doing nothing to protect them.
    Chaos awaits Syria is Assad is deposed because the Middle East is a place where democracy and liberalism are actively rejected by the population.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Syria is a peaceful country, civilians are never targeted
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The so-called Free Syrian Army are dupes and many are not even Syrian, Robert Fisk has said this as well; they are engineered and funded by foreign imperialists, and a tool of NATO.

    Regardless of one's opinion of Assad, any shred of a peoples' movement for the cause of greater economic and social power for the people have been thoroughly subverted and destroyed by the reactionary Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, as well as Turkey, in accordance with the wishes of imperialists with the goal of restructuring the Middle East; blatantly violating and disrespecting the sovereignty and self-determination of Syria with underhanded and brigandish tactics.

    The downfall of Syria will result in a situation similar to the criminal destruction of Green Libya; that of a Western sponsored sanctuary for Wahhabi/Salafist militants.

    It is in the US and Israel's interest to topple Assad:

    A new report says Jordan has given the go-ahead to Tel Aviv to use its airspace for spying on Syria and attacking its industrial facilities.

    The Syrian warning came after US and other Western and Arab officials said Jordan has been facilitating arms shipments and hosting training camps for militants operating in Syria since October 2012.

    Syria has been experiencing a deadly unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

    The West and its regional allies including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are reportedly giving financial and military support to the militants.
    Jordan has signed off on a plan for Israel to fly military drones of its airspace to Syria in order to keep abreast of the civil war and whether government forces use chemical weapons.

    The drones are also equipped with the ability to target and destroy any chemical weapon caches that are discovered, The Times of Israel reported.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2RDujJQur
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Assad the hero, bringing victory daily to the brave Syrians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    Syria is an inherently unstable country, comprising a number of different and mutally-antagonistic tribal enclaves, cobbled together by Britain and France from bits of the Ottoman Empire. Many of its regions could have just as easily have ended up as part of its neighbours, or as independent states. It is not a nation. It has only been held together, more or less, by the iron fists of the Assad family, ruling from and on behalf of their own tribal enclave in the coastal mountains. What we are witnessing is not the people against the government, nor is the government against terrorists; it is the fragmentation of Syria into its tribal enclaves, with Assad and his Alawites only one faction. As highlighted by the involvement of the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni al-Qaida, it's also a battleground in the broader Sunni-Shia power struggle in the region, with Saudi and Iran now struggling over what was once Iran's firm Shia ally.
    Sorry? The different communities that live in the area we now call Syria have existed side by side and peacefully for many thousands of years. This idea that Jews, Muslims and Christians are naturally antagonistic towards each other is a European idea that only shattered the previously peaceful co-existence upon its introduction during colonial meddling. As for tribal links, they are not as prevalent and generally not as strong in the Arab countries further south.

    (Original post by lancesephyr)
    Assad the hero, bringing victory daily to the brave Syrians.
    Oh, I wasn't aware that he himself was actually out there on the front lines?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    While Assad has caused a huge amount of suffering to his people I believe he is currently the person best suited to lead the country. He has the experience and political infrastructure required to rule which the rebels have yet to demonstrate. The rebels aren't one united force but are a group of many different ideologies held together only by their desire to remove Assad. No single group represents a large portion of Syria and one group taking power would result in a minority group ruling a majority who don't agree with their views. Many aren't even Syrian but are just looing for the opportunity to spread their ideas. While Assad was a dictator he provided many freedoms that others certainly won't- political freedom isn't the only measure of a good society. Syria has many religious and cultural groups who were protected by Assad, the same cannot be expected from the groups looking to replace him. Assad may be bad but religious extremists are much worse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    Sorry? The different communities that live in the area we now call Syria have existed side by side and peacefully for many thousands of years. This idea that Jews, Muslims and Christians are naturally antagonistic towards each other is a European idea that only shattered the previously peaceful co-existence upon its introduction during colonial meddling. As for tribal links, they are not as prevalent and generally not as strong in the Arab countries further south.
    The only problem with this is that it is complete and utter nonsense. Syria has been a place of conflict on a local, regional, continental, and/or global level since homo sapiens first arrived there, and probably even before considering the behaviour that has been observed among certain types of animals. This is on top of the fact that the communities that live there now do not, with very few exceptions, date back, especially not in their present form, anywhere close to "many thousands of years." Islam is less then 1400 years old for goodness sake. Your claim about the magical time of religious harmony before European 'colonial meddling' is similarly ludicrous. Conflict between Muslims and Jews dates right back to the actions of Mohammed himself, who expelled two of the three Jewish tribes of Medina and massacred and enslaved the third, and Islamic conflict with Christians dates from the Islamic conquest of the heart of the Christian world. Remember that Damascus, before the Islamic conquest, was a Christian city. Not just religious conflict, sometimes on a massive scale, but tribal conflict and raiding has continued pretty much solidly up to the present day. Periods of harmony were only harmonious by the standards of the day; not by modern standards. And the Arab world is deeply tribal, with Syria no exception. There is no denying that Assad's base of support is his own and allied tribes, and that different tribes (or you could use the term clan) have different regional power bases and are now fighting against the Alawite clans and each other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    The only problem with this is that it is complete and utter nonsense. Syria has been a place of conflict on a local, regional, continental, and/or global level since homo sapiens first arrived there, and probably even before considering the behaviour that has been observed among certain types of animals. This is on top of the fact that the communities that live there now do not, with very few exceptions, date back, especially not in their present form, anywhere close to "many thousands of years." Islam is less then 1400 years old for goodness sake.
    Indeed, saying 'many thousands of years' instead of thousands of years which would have referred to the 2000 years that Judaism and Christianity existed in the area was a bit retarded.

    However, few of us are innocent of exaggerations. Your own reply gets a bit silly when you talk about the behaviour of animals to suggest that a specific region has always been violent.

    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish;)
    Your claim about the magical time of religious harmony before European 'colonial meddling' is similarly ludicrous. Conflict between Muslims and Jews dates right back to the actions of Mohammed himself, who expelled two of the three Jewish tribes of Medina and massacred and enslaved the third, and Islamic conflict with Christians dates from the Islamic conquest of the heart of the Christian world. Remember that Damascus, before the Islamic conquest, was a Christian city. Not just religious conflict, sometimes on a massive scale, but tribal conflict and raiding has continued pretty much solidly up to the present day. Periods of harmony were only harmonious by the standards of the day; not by modern standards. And the Arab world is deeply tribal, with Syria no exception.
    I have never stated that the area was free of conflict whatsoever, its location has in the past put it right in the middle of two or more competing world powers. Your original comment claimed that the whole region was volatile because of the different communities who were naturally at odds with each other. My point was that these different communities have lived together in relative harmony under many different rulers and so, whilst the powers that have controlled them have changed hands, usually through bloodshed, the communities themselves have been able to co-exist peacefully for many, many years. Just because two entities fight over an area, it does not mean that the different peoples living in that area are also at war.



    To say that the whole of the Arab world is deeply tribal is complete drivel. In Pakistan, tribal connections mean much more than in other places, simply because some areas have gone through so much change. Someone is Karachi is less likely to care about tribal ties then someone living in Waziristan because it long ago ceased to be the way of life. Equally this is the same in Syria where many of the larger settlements have been around for a long time. Are you seriously suggesting that, because in some parts of the Arab world tribal life and raiding is still strong, that it is the same for the whole of the Arab world? Considering that more than 1400 years ago Syria was not even part of the 'Arab world'?

    And the massacre of the Bani Qurayza was, rather than being some sort of innate conflict between different communities that means that they can never co exist, was for breaking a pact with Muhammed who, struggling to create a cohesive and united entity, I am guessing decided that he thought it would send a strong message out to any other dissenters whatever their faith.

    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    There is no denying that Assad's base of support is his own and allied tribes, and that different tribes (or you could use the term clan) have different regional power bases and are now fighting against the Alawite clans and each other.
    As are urban middle-class sunnis. If Assad solely had support from the 10% of the country, he would have been finished a long time ago rather than having been able to knock back an increasingly heavily armed 'rebellion'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    I have never stated that the area was free of conflict whatsoever, its location has in the past put it right in the middle of two or more competing world powers. Your original comment claimed that the whole region was volatile because of the different communities who were naturally at odds with each other. My point was that these different communities have lived together in relative harmony under many different rulers and so, whilst the powers that have controlled them have changed hands, usually through bloodshed, the communities themselves have been able to co-exist peacefully for many, many years. Just because two entities fight over an area, it does not mean that the different peoples living in that area are also at war.
    But they didn't live in what we would consider harmony in the modern world. The constant low-level conflict and raiding between communities that was the normal way of life under the various Arab Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire doesn't register on the same scale as the massive and blood-soaked civilisational conflicts which Syria saw during the Arab conquest and the Crusades, to the extent that it counts as peacetime in the history books, but it wasn't non-violent or harmonious. Just look up the history of any individual clan in Syria and see how it was involved in constant low-level raiding and conflict throughout its history.

    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    To say that the whole of the Arab world is deeply tribal is complete drivel. In Pakistan, tribal connections mean much more than in other places, simply because some areas have gone through so much change. Someone is Karachi is less likely to care about tribal ties then someone living in Waziristan because it long ago ceased to be the way of life. Equally this is the same in Syria where many of the larger settlements have been around for a long time. Are you seriously suggesting that, because in some parts of the Arab world tribal life and raiding is still strong, that it is the same for the whole of the Arab world? Considering that more than 1400 years ago Syria was not even part of the 'Arab world'?
    ...Pakistan is not part of the Arab world...
    And yes of course major cities by their very nature are places where detribalisation is most advanced. That is why in the Arab spring you saw it start in the cities with people bearing ideological causes, whether that be liberalism, socialism, or Islamism, before it spread to the provinces and became tribal/regional.

    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    And the massacre of the Bani Qurayza was, rather than being some sort of innate conflict between different communities that means that they can never co exist, was for breaking a pact with Muhammed who, struggling to create a cohesive and united entity, I am guessing decided that he thought it would send a strong message out to any other dissenters whatever their faith.
    The cause of this particular incident is not the point, nor is whether it speaks to some innate conflict; it is an example (the earliest example) of conflict between an Islamic and a Jewish community, for whatever reason. Although it didn't help that Mohammed's personal conflicts with and rejection by Jews led to some nasty things about Jews creeping into Islamic religious texts.

    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    If Assad solely had support from the 10% of the country, he would have been finished a long time ago rather than having been able to knock back an increasingly heavily armed 'rebellion'.
    Not true, not since he also has the money of Iran, the weapons of Russia, and the men of Hezbollah to support the existing army and governmental infrastructure he and his father have built up over half a century, and since the rebels themselves, being divided along both tribal and ideological lines, are disunited.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My Dad knows President Assad. He's an optician, and met him when Assad was doing his postgrad medical training in an eye hospital in West London. Said he seemed a very normal, quiet man, who wasn't the sort to want absolute power. That said, I think he's got quite used to the idea of being a warlord.

    The one thing we know for certain about Syria is that we have no idea what is going on in Syria. There are many, many different groups in this civil war, with different agendas. We don't know how much control each of these groups have. President Obama said it himself; US spy satellites have seen chemical weapons being moved around, but they haven'the foggiest idea who is moving them around. The situation has developed far further than the west let it in Libya. Simply "taking out" Assad would be pointless, as I seriously don't think he has much control over most of his security forces any more. If we had intervened earlier, then perhaps we could have done something and this would have come to a relatively happy conclusion like it did in Libya, but short of an actual invasion, which is plainly off the table, the west can pretty much do bugger all at this stage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    LOL I made this forum nearly two months ago and it's still going on

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who started this mess?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

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