This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- USA bombing Syria
- Am I suffering from PTSD?
- Heart Problem
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 4 (H443/04) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Help! My brothers girlfriend’s muffins are poisonous
- am i to old
- The 2021-2022 epl season banter(with niz)
- I can hardly understand why this is the case
- Helppp
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- I got dismissed from work
- I want help but don’t think I can stand to ask for it
- My housemate sometimes acts strangely
- Chess Question
- I think my bf has a crush on his cousin
- getting out of going swimming
OK. I think it's time to attack Syria.
Scroll to see replies
The problem with full-scale NATO intervention is that it may appear that the West are trying to assert military dominance in the region which may cause problems with with bordering countries. Te best solution would be if the Middle East itself decided to intervene, but I guess there are too many vested interests there.
But what about the UN? Surely they represent the global interest, with the henious crimes of the Assad regime not being a part of that interest? In my opinion, the fact that there has been no significant peacekeeping mission, apart from the bare minimum required in order to not undermine the UN itself (removal of chemical weapons) just shows that humanitarian concerns do not come first for the UN, no matter how many times people like Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon want to make vague, ideological speeches in their general direction.
But what about the UN? Surely they represent the global interest, with the henious crimes of the Assad regime not being a part of that interest? In my opinion, the fact that there has been no significant peacekeeping mission, apart from the bare minimum required in order to not undermine the UN itself (removal of chemical weapons) just shows that humanitarian concerns do not come first for the UN, no matter how many times people like Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon want to make vague, ideological speeches in their general direction.
Original post by Copperknickers
If Assad goes, ISIS and Al Qaeda will take over Syria, and kill just as many if not more people. We can take care of Assad when the Islamists have been defeated.
democracy is tough to maintain in the middle east
Isis or asad? First you get rid of the danger that can spread and infect. And that is isis. Asad comes after that.
Original post by arminb
It will cost but every penny is worth it. We can save millions of people and help build a real democracy with a working economy in the Middle East. Then we can trade with them and the world will be a better place. Using chemical weapons against you own people is disgusting and I can't think of anything more filthy than that. Kim Jung Il wouldn't do that.
Yeah, Muslim democracies have been real success stories all over the middle East....... this is merely the tail end of the Arab Spring, and not one other country to my knowledge benefitted from having their dictator removed.
The idea that those being persecuted by Asaad are victims is right, but, the idea that they are our allies or we have something in common with them is completely false.
Where Muslims are involved, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Obama, in all his glorious left wing PC wisdom, tried helping the anti Asaad rebels with weapons and money.......... they immediately turned the guns on the neighbouring country Iraq and changed their name to ISIS.
Original post by arminb
I think Assad's gone far enough. What have we become? Is this humane to let a moron use chemical bombs on his own people? Is it right to let innocent children die in the civil war?
I think we all agree that diplomacy doesn't work with Assad. He is not sane other wise he wouldn't allow hundreds of thousands to die for his throne. What happens if we allow the dictatorship in Syria to use chemical boms against its own people? What message does it send to dictators in Iran and Saudi Arabia? The use of chemical bombs is banned under international law, even in classic warfare against another state. There is no reason against humanitarian intervention in Syria and the UN should act IMMEDIATELY. I can't stand to see children die like that for the game politics and power.
I think we all agree that diplomacy doesn't work with Assad. He is not sane other wise he wouldn't allow hundreds of thousands to die for his throne. What happens if we allow the dictatorship in Syria to use chemical boms against its own people? What message does it send to dictators in Iran and Saudi Arabia? The use of chemical bombs is banned under international law, even in classic warfare against another state. There is no reason against humanitarian intervention in Syria and the UN should act IMMEDIATELY. I can't stand to see children die like that for the game politics and power.
I completely agree. Assad is a tyrant and ISIS are vermin.
Syria must be under western occupation.
Why are people still mentioning the chemical weapons attack? It was proved by experts to be a false flag by the west to demonise Assad and allow the country to collapse. Stop being so gullible, we've seen this done so many times in the Middle East, our governments lie to us about what really happens there, Assad is not a threat to peace, he is one of the few figures of stability in the region that can stop the suffering.
Original post by Rakas21
I completely agree. Assad is a tyrant and ISIS are vermin.
Syria must be under western occupation.
Syria must be under western occupation.
Western occupation won't work either.
A resistance movement will be formed, causing more death and destruction, and when our own governments can't even do right by their own populations, they're hardly going to do right by the Syrian people. It will also increase people's chances of being radicalised, just as the Iraq Occupation did too. There was a legitimate and just resistance movement against the US-led occupation that had nothing to do with sympathy for Saddam Hussein (the Resistance as a whole was partially comprised of Saddam-sympathisers, but there was a significant movement within the Resistance which both opposed Saddam and the US-led coalition), and the same will occur in Syria.
Hypothetically, a humanitarian occupation could work. But, states are not motivated by humanitarian concerns.
(edited 9 years ago)
The Syrian conflict is soo confusing.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by javedkid123
The Syrian conflict is soo confusing.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
2 / 3 pretty much go hand in hand.
Aside from the Islamic state, most groups (including Qaeda) fight alongside each other even though they might differ in methodology.
Sorry, but what has Syria actually done?
Western media is controlled by alien interests, and it's these agendas which lie about Syrian regime. Just like they lied about Iraqi regime. Just like they lied about Libyan regime. Just like they lie about Russian regime.
West is more propagandised than North Korea it seems.
Western media is controlled by alien interests, and it's these agendas which lie about Syrian regime. Just like they lied about Iraqi regime. Just like they lied about Libyan regime. Just like they lie about Russian regime.
West is more propagandised than North Korea it seems.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by javedkid123
The Syrian conflict is soo confusing.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
It depends how much the West will be committed to rebuild Syria after the military operation. I think people just miss the point. Someone is using chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. I think that's a red line no dictator should cross and it is time he pays back for it. Syria can't be any worse than what it is now. An absolute dicatorship ridden with poverty and corruption now facing a civil war a international sanction Apart from chemical weapons I mean come on attacking can't be wrong at this point. And besides , is there anything else we can do?
Original post by javedkid123
The Syrian conflict is soo confusing.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
Basically you have 3 sides.
1) Assad government and the army. Pretty corrupt. People starting to hate him. You see easy to point your finger at him, kinda like whatwe do with America and Israel. They drop barrel bombs on people, prosecute activist and all those beautiful things dictators do. They have a pretty oppressive regime going on, and they are backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbullah (Iran's secret army in Lebanon).
2) The FSA. These are the "good guy's". The guys that want democracy and secularism and all that good stuff the West likes to hear . They consist of many different rebel groups. When the "revolution" started they generally wanted that. However the reality is, most these groups have either disbanded or have adopted sharia law in place. The groups that say they want "democracy" in reality want cash and weapons from the west. Some of these democratic groups have ended up like gangs which caused more dislike to democracy. These lot are backed by NATO.
3) The sharia guys. As you guessed it they want to run Syria under sharia. The two main groups are Al Q and the Islamic State. Since the Assad government is Awalite, and Hezbullah and Iran are ****te, these guys have exploited this to grow their agenda which is very pro sunni . They get money from kidnappings, drugs and "private donors".
So if we do remove Assad, will things become better for the Syrian people ? You think everyone is gonna hold hands and Syria is gonna become a Utopia. I doubt it.
Remember the Kurds! They are the dominant opposition to IS and Assad's forces in places like Hasakah in North East Syria
Well attacking Syria would also consequence in the death of civilians hence not a rational technique. Foreign intervention hardly works- outcomes would equate to the formation of new terrorist organisations. I think we are all forgetting about how ISIS initially formed.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AliyaMustafina
Remember the Kurds! They are the dominant opposition to IS and Assad's forces in places like Hasakah in North East Syria
When I first read this I thought you were saying the Kurds are in the dominant positions
I was going to say bull**** but then I saw you said opposition. I feel sorry for the Kurds. They are being bombed by Turkey, ISIS and Iranian armed forces.Original post by arminb
When I first read this I thought you were saying the Kurds are in the dominant positions I was going to say bull**** but then I saw you said opposition. I feel sorry for the Kurds. They are being bombed by Turkey, ISIS and Iranian armed forces.
I was going to say bull**** but then I saw you said opposition. I feel sorry for the Kurds. They are being bombed by Turkey, ISIS and Iranian armed forces.I agree, I feel sorry for the Kurds too
Imo the Middle East should go the way of the Holy Roman Empire and just create a ****ing unified state. Preserve the ranks and customs of each nation, and ensure the wealthy in each country still have their **** and be done with it already. You all speak Arabic and follow Islam, whats the ****ing problem
Original post by whorace
Imo the Middle East should go the way of the Holy Roman Empire and just create a ****ing unified state. Preserve the ranks and customs of each nation, and ensure the wealthy in each country still have their **** and be done with it already. You all speak Arabic and follow Islam, whats the ****ing problem
The ***ing problem in my opinion is that the Shia Muslims can't get on with the Sunni Muslims still. They will keep blasting the s**t put of each other until Shia and Sunnis are both equally represented in the governments of all middle eastern countries.
Of course Assad deserves a bullet in the head. So does his wife.
May I make a intervention into this fascinating thread and offer my humble opinion based on my life long neurosis that comes in the form of Syria? (apologies to my lovely Syrian friends, I love your country and your culture, but I hate your regime).
I don't want to bring my background into all of this, but its hard not too, I'm half Lebanese and Half Iranian and of mixed Sunni-Shi'ite parentage (not uncommon combo in this region, despite the image of the region that is popular in the West). I have a certain perspective on the conflict which puts me at odds with some (but not all) my family on this.
On ISIS,
Let me be clear that ISIS are disgusting, horrible and I look forward to their demise. But we in the West (I live in the UK now), have a very unrealistic image of ISIS as a group. Its true that if you look at the map of ISIS land they control a territorial mass the size of Great Britain- but they are not that large a force. The highest estimate put their numbers at 10, 000, which would not be enough to rule over 22 million Syrians or 30 million Iraqis. If you look at the map closely, you will realize that the bulk of ISIS's Syrian territory is made up of desert and smaller habitations in Eastern Syria. The majority of the Syrian population live in the West of the country and outside of ISIS domains.
ISIS maintains hold over Eastern Syria because of three factors. Firstly, they have bought the loyalties of strong local tribes (without whom, they could not rule). Secondly, those who aren't in tribes chose to stay under ISIS's rule because ISIS have returned law and order (albeit their barbaric form of it) to previously unstable areas. ISIS have rejuvenated the local economy and the locals are more afraid of the Assad regime and so chose to stay under ISIS. For many, its simple, obey ISIS and live and ISIS set very clear rules of what they expect. Thirdly, the Assad regime does not bomb or attack ISIS areas and so there is relative peace in these areas.
This is because ISIS and Assad secretly cooperate with one another. ISIS started of as ISI in Iraq in 2006, they fought the Americans and Shi'ites and were based in Syria. The Syrian regime was afraid of American actions and losing influence over Iraq and thus allowed ISI to have basis in Syria. More recently, ISIS and Assad collaborate on a number of fronts, including exchanging oil and energy between the two. By enlarge Assad has attacked most of the Syrian opposition who are also opposed to ISIS, and left ISIS alone, which enabled them to grow.
In Iraq, ISIS success can be attributed to two things. The rampant sectarianism of the Central Iraqi State, which lead to a non-sectarian but largely Sunni uprising (which was peaceful until the Iraqi state used excessive force to crackdown upon), but was converted into civil conflict. ISIS came in and promised to protect these Sunnis and cut an alliance with ex-Ba'athists who were members of Saddam Hussein's military and security forces. These guys revolutionized ISIS.
In short, only a mass Sunni uprising can finish ISIS off, but they won't do so, so long as Assad is still in power. But ISIS cannot take nor hold Western Syria, it lacks both the manpower and resources to do so. In otherwords, ISIS do not pose the threat to a post-Assad Syria that many outside the country think they do.
On Assad,
I agree, oust him. This was all his doing and nobody else can be blamed for it.
I don't want to bring my background into all of this, but its hard not too, I'm half Lebanese and Half Iranian and of mixed Sunni-Shi'ite parentage (not uncommon combo in this region, despite the image of the region that is popular in the West). I have a certain perspective on the conflict which puts me at odds with some (but not all) my family on this.
On ISIS,
Let me be clear that ISIS are disgusting, horrible and I look forward to their demise. But we in the West (I live in the UK now), have a very unrealistic image of ISIS as a group. Its true that if you look at the map of ISIS land they control a territorial mass the size of Great Britain- but they are not that large a force. The highest estimate put their numbers at 10, 000, which would not be enough to rule over 22 million Syrians or 30 million Iraqis. If you look at the map closely, you will realize that the bulk of ISIS's Syrian territory is made up of desert and smaller habitations in Eastern Syria. The majority of the Syrian population live in the West of the country and outside of ISIS domains.
ISIS maintains hold over Eastern Syria because of three factors. Firstly, they have bought the loyalties of strong local tribes (without whom, they could not rule). Secondly, those who aren't in tribes chose to stay under ISIS's rule because ISIS have returned law and order (albeit their barbaric form of it) to previously unstable areas. ISIS have rejuvenated the local economy and the locals are more afraid of the Assad regime and so chose to stay under ISIS. For many, its simple, obey ISIS and live and ISIS set very clear rules of what they expect. Thirdly, the Assad regime does not bomb or attack ISIS areas and so there is relative peace in these areas.
This is because ISIS and Assad secretly cooperate with one another. ISIS started of as ISI in Iraq in 2006, they fought the Americans and Shi'ites and were based in Syria. The Syrian regime was afraid of American actions and losing influence over Iraq and thus allowed ISI to have basis in Syria. More recently, ISIS and Assad collaborate on a number of fronts, including exchanging oil and energy between the two. By enlarge Assad has attacked most of the Syrian opposition who are also opposed to ISIS, and left ISIS alone, which enabled them to grow.
In Iraq, ISIS success can be attributed to two things. The rampant sectarianism of the Central Iraqi State, which lead to a non-sectarian but largely Sunni uprising (which was peaceful until the Iraqi state used excessive force to crackdown upon), but was converted into civil conflict. ISIS came in and promised to protect these Sunnis and cut an alliance with ex-Ba'athists who were members of Saddam Hussein's military and security forces. These guys revolutionized ISIS.
In short, only a mass Sunni uprising can finish ISIS off, but they won't do so, so long as Assad is still in power. But ISIS cannot take nor hold Western Syria, it lacks both the manpower and resources to do so. In otherwords, ISIS do not pose the threat to a post-Assad Syria that many outside the country think they do.
On Assad,
I agree, oust him. This was all his doing and nobody else can be blamed for it.
You don't think it is the Western backed rebels to blame for this? That they couldn't have possibility framed Assad for those gas attacks?
Related discussions
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- USA bombing Syria
- Am I suffering from PTSD?
- Heart Problem
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 4 (H443/04) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Help! My brothers girlfriend’s muffins are poisonous
- am i to old
- The 2021-2022 epl season banter(with niz)
- I can hardly understand why this is the case
- Helppp
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- I got dismissed from work
- I want help but don’t think I can stand to ask for it
- My housemate sometimes acts strangely
- Chess Question
- I think my bf has a crush on his cousin
- getting out of going swimming
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
