The syria debate thread

OP

Original post by Al-farhan

What is the role of Iran in all of this?

I'll answer it directly,

Iran does not want the United States nor the gulf states who wage a proxy war in syria, nor does it want israel to benefit from this. Iran recognizes the terrorist threat in syria , i.e ISIS , alnusra and hardline salafist groups having the far and overwhelming power (a consensus among everyone internationally).

Iran would from my research want the syrian people to decide their future for themselves, but does not want the US, israel, gulf states to wage selfish proxy wars which will not be in the benefit of the syrian people at all.

Iran would want open and fair elections in Syria, and for the people to decide their own future.

Additionally, Iran isn't actually the syrian military. Iran does have troops there, but i would say many advisors as to how to logistically tackle takfiri groups among others. Assad and his family do things their own way, as do his generals.

It's a very rough, rough analysis on the issue though.

Understanding your views on syria would be important though. - What are yours?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 22

OP

Original post by Think People

Dictators is the only way to control arab lands.
Mouammar Ghadaffi
Saddam Hussein
Housni Mubarak
Ali Abdullah Saleh

When these dictators were in power , there countries were stable. Western inteference made situations much more worse.

The problem is, the kind of revolutions we inspire are not so these places can have democracy - but it is to make these countries fragmented, broken and to support takfiri elements.

Reply 23

Original post by Tawheed

I'll summarize my position clearly:

1. I do not support Assad. I believe his regime definitely has blood on its hands, and has done many bad things.
2. However, while the revolution in syria had a majority of peaceful elements, and people rightly were calling for change and democracy, Gulf states, the United states sought their own self-ish political goals - and terrorists flooded into syria.

To be honest, this entire post just reveals the delusions of Muslims just continually blaming the West.

Assad crushed the revolution with force, then the violent reaction happened.

Reply 24

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

To be honest, this entire post just reveals the delusions of Muslims just continually blaming the West.

Assad crushed the revolution with force, then the violent reaction happened.

I'm not blaming the west though in itself? I have clearly stated the gulf states mainly are at fault here. This includes saudi arabia, qatar, turkey et al, who have geopolitical interests in syria's instability and have been planning it for a long time. Israel is also included on the list.

I have also stated many times that there definitely was a peaceful democratic uprising to demand rights i beleive are absolutely necessary against the bathathist dictatorship headed by Assad. The problem is, that was hijacked from the very, very beggining. There were insurgents slowly trickling in.

Do you think all of these people flooding from out of syria simply came in at once? It started from the beggining and hijacked the revolution.

Then propaganda ensued.

Assad definitely cracked down on protestors in a brutal way in my eyes. But there was insurgency there from the outset.

Reply 25

Original post by Think People

Dictators is the only way to control arab lands.
Mouammar Ghadaffi

When these dictators were in power , there countries were stable. Western inteference made situations much more worse.

Thankfully, we didn't listen to any this on Libya. IF we had, then we would have had a million refugees crossing and drowning in the Mediterranean in boats and people being massacred by Ghadaffis forces.

Europe can barely cope with the collapse of Syria.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 26

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

To be honest, this entire post just reveals the delusions of Muslims just continually blaming the West.

Assad crushed the revolution with force, then the violent reaction happened.

Apart from the fact i did not simply blame 'the west', i'll give you a senior intelligence chief, from the US (at the time) and listen to his words:

Report(declassified under the freedom of information act) of the US intelligence, this was during the very early days of the Syrian Revolution: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...sion11.pdf?V=1

I quote the report in August 2012: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”
And again : "“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”"

They even predict the rise of ISIS in the report:
"... (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory,”

[video="youtube;LOTiuszCl0c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOTiuszCl0c[/video]

The Head of the Intelligence Defence Agency of the United States (in the video above) acknowledges the US fully knew the driving force behind the millitary insurgency in Syria was by hardline salafist groups, alqaeda, the muslim brotherhood. This was all most likely preplanned, supplied by gulf states who themselves are dictatorships and have no care in the world for democracy, or for the rights of the syrian people - BUT that they used peaceful uprisings as a chance to destabalize syria. So while many in the armed opposition may have been moderates and against Assad, the driving force, the most powerful and influential groups were certianly not. And factions of 'moderates' collaborated with these more powerful groups (evidenced) either due to poverty, bad conditions, fear , or want.

When Al Jazeera’s Hasan asked Flynn why he didn’t attempt to stop the US coordinating arms transfers to Islamic extremists, the retired general said: “I hate to say it’s not my job, but my job was to ensure the accuracy of our intelligence,” said Flynn, who also served as director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the US hunt for Bin Laden.

Reply 27

Think People

13

Original post by Tawheed

The problem is, the kind of revolutions we inspire are not so these places can have democracy - but it is to make these countries fragmented, broken and to support takfiri elements.

I get you're point,
Not only arabs , but muslims should educate themselves to be tolerant towards other beliefs. It's clear seeing that minorities such as the Yazidis , Christians are being treated unfairly.
Usually when Arab dictators are toppled , rebel factions start popping out of nowhere and fight against one another. Just look at syria.

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslimminority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they canbear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against theperson on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

Reply 28

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

Thankfully, we didn't listen to any this on Libya. IF we had, then we would have had a million refugees crossing and drowning in the Mediterranean in boats and people being massacred by Ghadaffis forces.

Geddafi was definitely a brutal dictator , many many politicians and political analysts have concluded that there was a lot of propaganda in the coverage of that. Secondly, removing Geddafi have put in an even worse power at play, with takfiri and terrorist groups running riot in Libiya , spilling onto neighbouring regions.

If we decided to kick Assad out of power, things would be MUCH worse. It would leave power vacuum for ISIS and alqaeda/terrorist groups to walk into.

If you don't believe me, then hear the words of a United States Congress woman who served in Iraq:

[video="youtube;IHkher6ceaA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA[/video]

Original post by Tawheed

Geddafi was definitely a brutal dictator , many many politicians and political analysts have concluded that there was a lot of propaganda in the coverage of that. Secondly, removing Geddafi have put in an even worse power at play, with takfiri and terrorist groups running riot in Libiya , spilling onto neighbouring regions.

Well, that is your claim it is worse. I can tell you that 25% of the Libyan population have not left the country and it isn't in ruins.

That is what happens when you have "non-intervention" like in Syria and you leave to the FSA to run.

The current situation in Libya just demonstrates that the West needed to have a bigger military intervention with a boots on the ground.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 31

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

Don't make things up as you are going along. Where does it say that AQI was supported by the West?

1. The classified reports in 2012 (the time the US was arming the 'opposition') stated that the major insurgency was Alqaeda in Iraq (then turned into ISIS). The report stated that the US's gulf allies (saudi et al) wanted to create a proxy salafist group to weaken the regime. It even predicted the rise of ISIS. I showed you a video and a quote of the US chief of intelligence himself stating

2. The US absolutely knew the gulf states were arming these groups, joe biden in 2014 (he obviously won't tell the world of the US's error, but stated) the Gulf states at all were arming them - speech:

3. The US knew there was an insurgency, a terrorist insurgency. They touted this many times during 2011/12 as a simple 'revolution', and through their proxies armed these groups, many, many of the weapons going into the hands of takfiri terrorists. Here is a US congress woman who served in Iraq testififying to this: [video="youtube;IHkher6ceaA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA[/video]

4. US chief of intelligence himself admitted this. He was asked why , despite knowing the major insurgency were hardline groups and terrorists did he or the US not do anything:
When Al Jazeera’s Hasan asked Flynn why he didn’t attempt to stop the US coordinating arms transfers to Islamic extremists, the retired general said: “I hate to say it’s not my job, but my job was to ensure the accuracy of our intelligence,” said Flynn, who also served as director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the US hunt for Bin Laden.

Reply 32

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

Well, that is your claim it is worse. I can tell you that 25% of the Libyan population have not left the country and it isn't in ruins.

That is what happens when you have "non-intervention" like in Syria and you leave to the FSA to run.

The current situation in Libya just demonstrates that the West needed to have a bigger military intervention with a boots on the ground.

The problem is, if the west had actually gone into an all out war on Assad, things would be much much bloodier. Assad is not as isolated as Libiya. In Syria, you have allies like Iran, Russia, to a lesser extent china, south lebanon too. They would all have come into play and not remained silent, it is a completely different ball game.

Secondly, the people that destabalized Syria the most were those who, in a bid to have a proxy were for their own geo-political interests, armed insurgents, (as i have evidenced) anyone and everyon who would fight, creating another nightmare - ISIS, the most well financed terrorist group we've seen, as well as Alqaeda, and hardline salafist groups. They have wreaked havock, chaos, and are spilling onto other regions.

The FSA are not one unified force. Firstly, the FSA are MUCH weaker than ISIS and Alqaeda and hardline salafist groups. Secondly many FSA factions defected, it's a very fragmented group of millitias, not one unified force, and it hardly any opposition at all - we don't really know much about it, it is always changing, and is getting weaker and weaker. Some factions are genuine moderates, some allign with alnusra under common enemies etc.

Reply 33

Original post by Tawheed

1. The classified re...........n Laden.

So in other words, it doesn't say that the US funded AQI. No evidence when it was written.

So, I doubt it predicted anything.

Reply 34

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

So in other words, it doesn't say that the US funded AQI. No evidence when it was written.

So, I doubt it predicted anything.

My post was a little bit more than that. The intelligence document does not say ' we are going fund alqaeda in Iraq'.

I have stated (and evidenced)

1. The US and chief of intelligence at the time knew the major insurgency was hardline terrorist groups
2. The US (and the chief of intelligence himself) was asked (of the warning given on the report):
When Al Jazeera’s Hasan asked Flynn why he didn’t attempt to stop the US coordinating arms transfers to Islamic extremists, the retired general said: “I hate to say it’s not my job, but my job was to ensure the accuracy of our intelligence,” said Flynn, who also served as director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the US hunt for Bin Laden.
Yet, despite knowing the risks of arming the rebels and giving of the idea in 2012 they were arming 'moderates' they ignored intelligence, ignored the dire warnings, and surprise surprise , the majority of those american weapons went into the hands of terrorists.
3. A US congress woman HERSELF admits this - who served in Iraq:
[video="youtube;IHkher6ceaA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA[/video]

4. The US knew their allies were funding hardline terrorist groups, yet together with them continued arming these groups, recklessly at the beggining.

Reply 35

Original post by Tawheed

My post was a little bit more than that. The intelligence document does not say ' we are going fund alqaeda in Iraq'.

I have stated (and evidenced).

I already know the United States helped facilitate the transfer of troops to "moderate" opposition at the beginning of the war. They did not fund AQI as you suggested.

Furthermore, your document has no date on it. So you cannot say it is from 2012.

Reply 36

Original post by Tawheed

The problem is, if the west had actually gone into an all out war on Assad, things would be much much bloodier. Assad is not as isolated as Libiya. In Syria, you have allies like Iran, Russia, to a lesser extent china, south lebanon too. They would all have come into play and not remained silent, it is a completely different ball game..

Well, no one except Iran would really care about Syria. IF you seriously, think that Russia cares about Syria then you do not understand why they are bombing.

I doubt it would lead to anymore bloodshed. Assad has massacred 150,000 alone. Even if I accepted that point, the reality is that he could easily be removed now with little resistance.

The question is whether people want to do the right thing or bury their heads in the sand and ignore the blood trickling around them.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 37

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

Well, no one except Iran would really care about Syria. IF you seriously, think that Russia cares about Syria then you do not understand why they are bombing.

I doubt it would lead to anymore bloodshed. Assad has massacred 150,000 alone. Even if I accepted that point, the reality is that he could easily be removed now with little resistance.

The question is whether people want to do the right thing or bury their heads in the sand and ignore the blood trickling around them.

Firstly, the death toll of civilians is at around 90-110k. The rest are armed combatant men, of the hundreds of groups from the government, alqaeda, hardline salafists, isis, et all. Secondly, in those 90-110k civilian deaths, all groups share the blame - it is very hard to find a non biased partisan source to hilight the proportions.

It is very important to learn about the geopolitics of this crisis:

1. Iran does not want syria to fall to the US/Takfiri's.
2. Russia has invested a lot and is a close ally of the government - they do not want to see US influence in that region and have delivered many , many weapons to the government.
3. South lebanon/hezbollah among others would also resist a US occupation.

Israel would get involved, so would the gulf states.

China would also get involved - but to a lesser extent than russia possibly.

It would be chaos.

Reply 38

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

I already know the United States helped facilitate the transfer of troops to "moderate" opposition at the beginning of the war. They did not fund AQI as you suggested.

Furthermore, your document has no date on it. So you cannot say it is from 2012.

[video="youtube;IHkher6ceaA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA[/video]

The date is on the very first page "AUG 2012"

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf?V=1

Reply 39

Al-farhan