The Syrian Civil War. Do you support a side?
- 主题发起人 Heafodban
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
No ****, but when you get your sources from fringe right-wing journalists it's probably not going to be anything remotely truthful.
Also, it's annoying how eastern European countries try to pretend that they're not the West, they just use it as a buzz word for anything they remotely disagree with coming out of America.
Also, it's annoying how eastern European countries try to pretend that they're not the West, they just use it as a buzz word for anything they remotely disagree with coming out of America.
Putin practices Fascism, it's a thing.
And again.
Both Russia and Syria ignored options for a peaceful stand down and handover to the original rebel party.
They are also helping Hezbollah.
Arming the rebels now will weaken an already present terror organisation, and thus is worth any consequences of accidentally installing a pro Al-Qaeda government. For at least it will mean a scaled down, but prolonged conflict between the two organisations.
And again.
Kobrag 说:
Both Russia and Syria ignored options for a peaceful stand down and handover to the original rebel party.
They are also helping Hezbollah.
Arming the rebels now will weaken an already present terror organisation, and thus is worth any consequences of accidentally installing a pro Al-Qaeda government. For at least it will mean a scaled down, but prolonged conflict between the two organisations.
Suspicious Pilgrim 说:
Ok which ones? Run me through them as I'd be interested to investigate it further.
Unlike us?
Fact is they're not the West, whether institutionally, militarily or Geographically. They're more isolated and operate far more independently making their viewpoints a refreshing angle of critique that; while sometimes/often/always laced in hypocrisy does not equate to a lack of truth in the critique itself. The West is just a term to quickly encapsulate thinking from the EU and the US and has been since the wall was up.
As for Putin; how is he much different from our own politicians? I know he's a cold fish but I am curious as to how you guys get to that conclusion.
Kobrag 
Sorry man was looking at your post and went for dinner and I agree with the statement:
The problem with channels like RT is that they have in the past provided air time for people with non-mainstream media views. I can't say however that they've always adopted them as their own however it may be convenient for them to air such views politically. For example when Lord Monckton was given air time to state his views on climate change it was labelled as promoting a conspiracy theory even though he was attending the Copenhagen climate change conference to state said views, and news worthy or not; he was asked for his views and what evidence he had etc etc they didn't turn around and punch or mock him for his views that's true.
Should media organizations omit any information/concerns or public opinions that aren't mainstream at the risk of being labelled conspiracy theorists, particularly when the individuals brought on the show and their views are increasingly gaining more track?
News channels which provide a venue for fringe elements or opinions don't necessarily promote conspiracy theories as much as notify people of their existence. I do however believe that RT sometimes carelessly does so which is why I rarely use them as a reference or at the very least check additional references to go with it.
In the case of Pilgrim that seemed to be the main point that I was using RT as a reference but I supplied other sources to go alongside and the information was of little consequence to my viewpoints.
Sorry man was looking at your post and went for dinner and I agree with the statement:
Kobrag 说:
The problem with channels like RT is that they have in the past provided air time for people with non-mainstream media views. I can't say however that they've always adopted them as their own however it may be convenient for them to air such views politically. For example when Lord Monckton was given air time to state his views on climate change it was labelled as promoting a conspiracy theory even though he was attending the Copenhagen climate change conference to state said views, and news worthy or not; he was asked for his views and what evidence he had etc etc they didn't turn around and punch or mock him for his views that's true.
Should media organizations omit any information/concerns or public opinions that aren't mainstream at the risk of being labelled conspiracy theorists, particularly when the individuals brought on the show and their views are increasingly gaining more track?
News channels which provide a venue for fringe elements or opinions don't necessarily promote conspiracy theories as much as notify people of their existence. I do however believe that RT sometimes carelessly does so which is why I rarely use them as a reference or at the very least check additional references to go with it.
In the case of Pilgrim that seemed to be the main point that I was using RT as a reference but I supplied other sources to go alongside and the information was of little consequence to my viewpoints.
Oh sorry man I totally overlooked it.
Quote:
This implies however that:
a) Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (I am assuming you mean that Syria supports terrorists like Hezbollah)
b) That Russia undermined the peace process by not influencing the Assad government to hand over power.
My response:
a) Hezbollah is technically not a terrorist organizations, more a militia, some of the EU countries however have been wanting to list it as such probably because of it being at odds with Israel and perhaps its ties to Syria and Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/germany-and-britain-push-to-list-hezbollah-as-a-terror-group.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
b) Afaik Russia proposed peace talks between the Syrian opposition groups and the government. It was the opposition that wanted all heads of the government to resign before any peace talks take place. Thus effectively shooting it down since there would be no one of authority to negotiate with.
c) Most countries do not negotiate with terrorist groups, civilian bombings, kidnappings, political threats of violence are the trademarks and while there is little sympathy for the Syrian government I think we can understand this rhetoric. None-the-less the government has been willing to have peace talks but I doubt any of the government heads would step down lightly because it would probably mean their death if Gaddafi and Saddam are anything to go by. Additionally they may and I stress "may" still have majority support if only because people either don't want a war or they don't agree with the Islamic extremist views of Sharia law. I doubt they will get a democracy out of Al Nusra either way.
Quote:
This implies however that:
a) Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (I am assuming you mean that Syria supports terrorists like Hezbollah)
b) That Russia undermined the peace process by not influencing the Assad government to hand over power.
My response:
a) Hezbollah is technically not a terrorist organizations, more a militia, some of the EU countries however have been wanting to list it as such probably because of it being at odds with Israel and perhaps its ties to Syria and Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/germany-and-britain-push-to-list-hezbollah-as-a-terror-group.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
b) Afaik Russia proposed peace talks between the Syrian opposition groups and the government. It was the opposition that wanted all heads of the government to resign before any peace talks take place. Thus effectively shooting it down since there would be no one of authority to negotiate with.
c) Most countries do not negotiate with terrorist groups, civilian bombings, kidnappings, political threats of violence are the trademarks and while there is little sympathy for the Syrian government I think we can understand this rhetoric. None-the-less the government has been willing to have peace talks but I doubt any of the government heads would step down lightly because it would probably mean their death if Gaddafi and Saddam are anything to go by. Additionally they may and I stress "may" still have majority support if only because people either don't want a war or they don't agree with the Islamic extremist views of Sharia law. I doubt they will get a democracy out of Al Nusra either way.
How much influence does Al Nursa have over the opposition?
Gambino
Look at the disgusting crimes of the syrian regime led by the devil bashar and you will know that the world must now stand together and help the FSA. If you don't beleive you can see, but it's not my responsibility if you wish you never watched it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foaQ5RdoY5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5u9hWjM1Oc
One of them happened last week and the other a time ago and there are hundreds of other videos of these bad deeds happening every day let alone the events not captured and still the world is sleeping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foaQ5RdoY5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5u9hWjM1Oc
One of them happened last week and the other a time ago and there are hundreds of other videos of these bad deeds happening every day let alone the events not captured and still the world is sleeping.
There's a lot of those kind of videos going around and there are plenty of videos of FSA war crimes http://digitaljournal.com/article/348745. One of the problems with the FSA however is that they are known to commit a crime and then blame it on Government forces probably in the hopes of drawing other nations into the conflict while pulling on other people's heart strings and/or to cover up the crime. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-fsa-terrorists-behind-false-flag-attack-against-turkey/5307301
Lets assume the Syrian government does the same, meaning that its difficult to verify anything coming out of Syria. In some cases I've heard reports of the FSA massacring entire villages just before surrendering their position to Government forces and then blaming the massacre on the Government. Naturally the government also has a vested interest in making the rebels look bad in order to deter the chances of Western involvement.
While most of the allegations documented by FIDH related to abuses committed by pro-
government forces, there were also reports of such crimes being committed by armed rebel
groups. A Syrian man interviewed by FIDH described having witnessed violence by members
of the FSA:
“ I saw elements with the FSA kidnap a pretty girl known for her relations with a young
man. Her kidnappers from the FSA raped her, then they killed her so she couldn’t expose
them. They threw her body in front of her home and spread the news that the Syrian
army had done it [...]”.
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/syria_sexual_violence-web.pdf
C – Abduction of women in Syria: an “instrument of terror”
The threat of abduction was a consistent theme that arose during interviews with Syrian women
refugees. It was described by one woman interviewed by FIDH as “an instrument of terror”
used by both pro-regime and opposition armed forces in the ongo
ing conflict in Syria
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/syria_sexual_violence-web.pdf
Rape, murderous violence and torture are happening on both sides of the fence and it won't change when the regime changes either.
Lets assume the Syrian government does the same, meaning that its difficult to verify anything coming out of Syria. In some cases I've heard reports of the FSA massacring entire villages just before surrendering their position to Government forces and then blaming the massacre on the Government. Naturally the government also has a vested interest in making the rebels look bad in order to deter the chances of Western involvement.
While most of the allegations documented by FIDH related to abuses committed by pro-
government forces, there were also reports of such crimes being committed by armed rebel
groups. A Syrian man interviewed by FIDH described having witnessed violence by members
of the FSA:
“ I saw elements with the FSA kidnap a pretty girl known for her relations with a young
man. Her kidnappers from the FSA raped her, then they killed her so she couldn’t expose
them. They threw her body in front of her home and spread the news that the Syrian
army had done it [...]”.
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/syria_sexual_violence-web.pdf
C – Abduction of women in Syria: an “instrument of terror”
The threat of abduction was a consistent theme that arose during interviews with Syrian women
refugees. It was described by one woman interviewed by FIDH as “an instrument of terror”
used by both pro-regime and opposition armed forces in the ongo
ing conflict in Syria
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/syria_sexual_violence-web.pdf
Rape, murderous violence and torture are happening on both sides of the fence and it won't change when the regime changes either.
What a bunch of nonsense. They're the folks who shot indiscriminate rockets into Isreal that weren't accurate enough to do anything but kill random people.
Like I said earlier, neither is really acceptable. Assad's government has been host to a lot of bad apples and he's done the usual authoritarian stuff; beat people up, shot them when they were really annoying him, his government assassinated one of the leading Lebanese democrats, etc., etc.
That's my position, if we're just talking about my philosophical position as an American. I think that neither alternative offers the people there any real chance of freedom or democracy.
Which is why I've pointed out what a huge error our Administration made in this case; it's stupid to call for regime change if we're not willing to walk the talk. Now, whoever wins, they'll hate us; Assad's regime, for abandoning them, FSA, for not providing the guns and some air cover.
Anyhow, I have to agree with the critique of your sources; when you have articles printed by sources in countries where "freedom of the press" isn't a total joke, you're entitled to talk about facts, insofar as anybody knows anything.
I think it's fair to say that the FSA's done plenty of nasty stuff, so has the Syrian government; it doesn't make one of them right and the others wrong, it means they've both committed war crimes and in an ideal world, they'd face trials at the Hague. That's not likely to happen, of course; whoever wins will set up an even-more-authoritarian regime.
Mage246
Didn't they catch a Hezbollah operative recently scouting out targets for a terrorist attack in Cyprus?
Oh, they're busy little bees.
Assad has been extremely skilful at using them to counter-balance his other enemies, though, and it made the Iranians very happy, which in turn made the Russians happy, since they're positively cheerful every time the two sects have another fratricidal affair. Divide and conquer... or at least keep all the "freedom fighters" interested in going anywhere but Turkmenistan
Assad has been extremely skilful at using them to counter-balance his other enemies, though, and it made the Iranians very happy, which in turn made the Russians happy, since they're positively cheerful every time the two sects have another fratricidal affair. Divide and conquer... or at least keep all the "freedom fighters" interested in going anywhere but Turkmenistan
Just one caveat here. While they may be technically terrorists for sometimes using terror tactics, if you remove the terror tactics they suddenly become a very legitimate political organization. There's a very thin line here and applies even more so to Hamas.xenoargh 说:
There are many false dichotomies like this that are not helpful to a deeper understanding, but fit well with a simplified narrative for unsophisticated news consumers and voters that can't be bothered to think beyond "good guys"/"bad guys" or "good"/"evil" labels.
Just remember the "Axis of Evil" and even the "Evil Empire".
The American idea of democracy is sometimes actually an obstacle to getting realistic political progress in countries that don't have a real democratic tradition.xenoargh 说:
My sister works for a UN-based aid group that does development work in countries like Afghanistan. She always comes back exasperated by American attitudes and their democracy schtick.
I'd speculate there will be no clear winner. Syria will more likely end up as a weak decentralized country with a compromise deal forced by the UN Security Council. Meaning: there will be blood in years to come as factions fight low-intensity proxy wars for their foreign backers.xenoargh 说:
Mage246
I can't see the Security Council trying to determine the final outcome, especially for something this politically sensitive.
