Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I do NOT support the jihadists that fight there, no matter what side they're on. I think the Syrian people should get rid of both the dictator and jihadists, and I've stated this multiple times before, so I wonder if someone here has a reading problem. Or maybe, someone here thinks that stopping jihadists should always take bloody style scummy totalitarian regimes like that in Syria? I for one believe fighting terrorism is possible WITHOUT attacking law-abiding citizens for their views.

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

Originally Posted by Deborski

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

You are making so many assumptions here that I cannot keep track! For starters, you are assuming that the US actually has proof of Assad's guilt, which there is no way to know since all of that intelligence is so "classified" that even our representatives are not allowed to see it. Please refer to the article by Congressman Alan Grayson above. As for Iran, Russia still has quite a lot of influence in that country. Why do you assume that only the US wants to achieve peace? A united international effort would go much, much further towards resolving the situation and reining in both sides, than just America swaggering in like a cowboy with his gun drawn and making a bunch of threats. As for what I want? You assume a lot about that as well, which makes me wonder as to who it is not really reading the posts here. What makes you think that a US strike against Syria will not result in exactly what you describe: further retaliation against the people of Syria. That is what my Syrian friend's concerns are, in fact, and that is why she is strongly opposed to US military intervention. Since it is her family actually living over there, I respect her opinion and I do not take it lightly!

I do not, and never will, understand the kind of mindset which thinks that ONLY MILITARY ACTION can be the solution! There are a million other things we could try - but you do not even consider those things, you are just stuck on this mindset that the response MUST BE MILITARY. It's impossible to reason with someone who is so closed minded that they cannot even imagine any alternatives to military force.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

someone here thinks that stopping jihadists should always take bloody style scummy totalitarian regimes like that in Syria?

I think you twist the things. First of all, Assad's regime is not bloody. I even can say Saddam Husein was not that scummy and bloody like the western media portrays him. Of course, if you keep on staying on the brainwashed side, it's ok.

I believe that all the societies must evolve by themselves. Syria is not a democratic state, but any modern dictator is closer to democracy than cannibals. It's obvious. Yes, Assad is better than the cannibals. Anyone who says "it doesn't matter" and "both are equal" is supporting the evil in its metaphysical sense.
(Deleted. L.)

Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press | World news | The Guardian

Meanwhile, German intelligence suggests that Assad is not guilty for the chemical attack:

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

It's not any of our business what happens there.
It's between the Syrians and their government!

Just like what goes on in the USA (within its borders) is not my business, it's between the Americans and their government.

It's when countries get aggressive and starts meddling, disturbing, invaduing or provoking other countries that there is a problem. Syria was minding its own business. If they wanted to get rid of their government they should do it themselves, off their own initiative. Just like the French, the Russians, the Americans and many others have thrown out corrupt goverments when they got enough. Without the involvement of anybody else.
Why should the Syrians not have the same opportunity and responsibility?

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's not any of our business what happens there.
It's between the Syrians and their government!

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government? These mercenaries were hired with the help of the US and their "partners" like the UAE, Qatar etc.

They are NOT Syrians. It's a genetic trash from all the muslim world. You can find some soldiers even from Russia there (from the Caucasus, of course).

Originally Posted by Paul G.

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government?

That's genius If it was THAT simple, I could only suggest they keep fighting until they annihilate each other xD Unfortunately, it's not even close to being that way...

Originally Posted by Paul G.

How can't it be your business, if thousands of the mercenaries fight against the Syrian Government? These mercenaries were hired with the help of the US and their "partners" like the UAE, Qatar etc.

They are NOT Syrians. It's a genetic trash from all the muslim world. You can find some soldiers even from Russia there (from the Caucasus, of course).

Yeah, these mercenaries should not have been sent there to start with, and the campaign to blackpaint Assad in Western media was wrong.
They should have been left to sort out their differences from Day 1.

Originally Posted by Deborski

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

So, McCain went to Syria. A dude with $40 million dollars who probably owns his own Learjet. He looks really healthy for somebody who's been to Syria. Did he have military bodyguards or did he just stay away from the war zones?
Does that mean that if I visit Russia, have dinner at Cafe Pushkin with some opposition members, and talk to the waiter, that I know everything about Russia and I can decide about Russia's future? LOL!
If I lived in Russia for a whole year, I probably still wouldn't know enough to even vote. But McCain thinks he knows everything after 1 trip.

I've seen more of those vids of that meeting. McCain never listens to anybody. He just keeps saying he's right and ignores everybody else. Even the Syrian people!
What that meeting proved is that McCain doesn't care what anyone thinks, period. He was only there to push his agenda.
If there is a strike, it will be an act of aggression and the Syrians will have a reason to hate America. Also, President Putin said he will provide Syria with a missile shield and replace anything that's lost in the strike.
So maybe the Obama administration just wants to kill more people cuz that's all that a strike will do.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

So, McCain went to Syria. A dude with $40 million dollars who probably owns his own Learjet. He looks really healthy for somebody who's been to Syria. Did he have military bodyguards or did he just stay away from the war zones?
Does that mean that if I visit Russia, have dinner at Cafe Pushkin with some opposition members, and talk to the waiter, that I know everything about Russia and I can decide about Russia's future? LOL!
If I lived in Russia for a whole year, I probably still wouldn't know enough to even vote. But McCain thinks he knows everything after 1 trip.

I lived in Russia two years and still would not even dare to claim I know everything about it! To really understand a country, you have to live there your whole life. And even then... well, America can still baffle me!

So why isn't everyone up in arms and ready to bomb some people over THIS?

2,000 female genital mutilation victims seek help at London hospitals in just 3 years | Mail Online

More than 2,100 victims of female genital mutilation have been treated in London hospitals since 2010, it emerged today.

Almost 300 women needed surgery to help them recover from the brutal ritual, new figures have revealed.

Among those treated in the capital's hospitals included 12 children, including one girl who had been left with an 'open wound' following the criminal act.

Despite being illegal in the UK, female genital mutilation is on the rise with an estimated 66,000 women dealing with the after-effects and more than 20,000 young girls thought to be at risk.

The procedure is associated with communities in Africa, particularly Mali, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya, as well as some parts of the Middle East.

Nimko Ali was just seven years old when she was taken to Somalia for a 'holiday' where she would be subjected to the horrific procedure.

'There was a woman at the door in a burka. I was scared and instinctively started running. When I was caught, I was taken into a room filled with instruments I didn't recognise,' she said.

'The woman I was so afraid of was there waiting for me. She scolded me for running away, telling me how difficult it was to obtain equipment like this; how ungrateful I was.

'I blacked out before she started cutting. I'm still not sure whether it was the anaesthetic or pure fear'.

When Ali woke, she was in agony with her legs bound together. Taken back to the Uk two days later, Ali found that friends and teachers were unwilling to take her story seriously, leaving her feeling let down and alone.

Thousands upon thousands of little girls are cruelly sliced with rusty blades by twisted and perverted religious fanatics... yet there is no huge outcry and no one screaming that we must STOP THIS at all costs, even if that means sparking off a global conflict. No one is pushing for airstrikes against Mali, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya or the other countries where the governments ALLOW and even CONDONE this!

This outrage over the atrocities in Syria is understandable, but it is hypocritical when people are not equally outraged over all the atrocities which occur every day on this sad little planet of ours.

Obviously bombing the countries which allow this unspeakable act to go on, is out of the question. Why? Because it's their country, and we figure that it's their business how they run things, as sick and horrific as it may be. So what is so special about Syria, that suddenly we care about women and children suffering?

Power. Control. Money to be made. It always comes down to that. To believe that a US bombing raid on Syria is in any way humanitarian, is not only naive, but hypocritical.

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons - CNN.com

Has a diplomatic solution finally been found?

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told reporters in Moscow that his nation "welcomes" a proposal Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made during talks Monday morning: put Syria's chemical weapons under international control to avert a U.S. military response.

"I declare that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes Russia's initiative, on the basis that the Syrian leadership cares about the lives of our citizens and the security in our country," Moallem said. "We are also confident in the wisdom of the Russian government, which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people."

The comments came after Secretary of State John Kerry discussed a similar scenario, but a State Department spokeswoman said earlier Monday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could not be trusted to hand over the country's chemical weapons stockpile.

Comments??

Originally Posted by Deborski

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons - CNN.com

Has a diplomatic solution finally been found?



Comments??

Ой, ну тут проще простого: дружки сговорились, как обезвредить Обаму и потом посмеяться над ним.
Я абсолютно против бомбёжки, но то, что преступники уйдут от ответа, удручает.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Has a diplomatic solution finally been found? Comments??

Простая идея. Жаль, что я не додумался до неё. Честно говоря, голова работала не ту сторону.
Это шанс для Обамы. Если он хочет найти повод, чтобы не воевать, то вот он.
Но это и тест для Обамы. Если он хочет воевать, то проигнорирует этот вариант решения проблемы.

I think the US officials would try to resist this option as much as the can but if the UN accepts it, it might be a way to resolve the situation for now.
However if the UN agrees, other CW attacks in Syria might happen to stir up the issue

It sounds like a really sensible solution and a very good idea.
I don't believe that Syria used the weapons to begin with, but I don't deny there is a possibility I might be wrong.
Either way it's a good reflection on Russia and if the US choose to accept it, that would prove the US is not hellbent at war and takeover according to an existing blueprint... Which is certainly what it looks like right now.

FreakOutNation: President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize

This is thought-provoking and certainly worth considering. Why would Obama ask for permission from Congress if he knows he's not going to get it? Could it be that, contrary to the image he is fostering in the media, that Obama actually has no intention of invading Syria and is merely using this as a means to change the way things are done in Washington DC, so that subsequent commanders-in-chief must first get the congressional green light before they can invade foreign countries?

Obama is not a stupid man. I would not put this past him. In fact, it would be in character for him to be playing a master game of chess with a bunch of career politicians who have become too comfortable playing checkers.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:

No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

How Vladimir Putin Became The Chuck Norris Of International Politics - Yahoo! Finance

Точно о Путине: "He's clever and duplicitous, very skilled at playing people's own weaknesses and blunders against them — skills he honed as a KGB case officer."

I have no idea who Chuck Norris is....