Forums / Discussion / General

171,349 total conversations in 5,618 threads

+ New Thread


Featured Featured
Syrian Conflict

Last posted Aug 30, 2013 at 11:27PM EDT. Added Aug 22, 2012 at 04:56PM EDT
156 posts from 39 users

Worth it for Romney I mean (his heroic image). And only if he could pull it off.

I’m just saying that if he attempted to take out Assad, then his military spending might put him in a better position to do so.

But lets not forget what I said earlier: He could have been planning on spending more on the military just for defensive purposes (Read: Boasting in front of China, saying “Hey look China! I got tons of warships too!”). If that’s the case I’ll remain glad that he won’t be in office right now so taxpayer money can go towards things that actually need it

It would be funny if Obama took this opportunity to have Assad removed from power himself so he can claim the glory…and do it without spending trillions more dollars on the military

Nov 07, 2012 at 01:17AM EST
Quote

With the internet down, videos like this cannot raise awarness in the world:

Not that they were raising awareness in the first palce…..

inb4 mods spoiler this video.

Nov 29, 2012 at 03:21PM EST
Quote

X wrote:

With the internet down, videos like this cannot raise awarness in the world:

Not that they were raising awareness in the first palce…..

inb4 mods spoiler this video.

If you think this video is graphic enough to be spoilered you should probably spoiler it yourself or at least give fair warning.

Nov 29, 2012 at 05:14PM EST
Quote

Part of the problem can be seen in the comment sections of the article J posted and the video X posted.

There are apparently still people who believe that the FSA is doing all of this and that Assad is some innocent little angel. If I showed those people the video that X posted they would just say that the rebels did it. They simply have no idea, nor do they seem to want to understand

If not that, then there are the morons who see the video and just rant about Islam for some stupid reason as if Islam had anything to do with it. These people are hindering the worlds motive to seek resolution

It’s no wonder X seems so jaded

Last edited Nov 29, 2012 at 06:41PM EST
Nov 29, 2012 at 06:39PM EST
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

Part of the problem can be seen in the comment sections of the article J posted and the video X posted.

There are apparently still people who believe that the FSA is doing all of this and that Assad is some innocent little angel. If I showed those people the video that X posted they would just say that the rebels did it. They simply have no idea, nor do they seem to want to understand

If not that, then there are the morons who see the video and just rant about Islam for some stupid reason as if Islam had anything to do with it. These people are hindering the worlds motive to seek resolution

It’s no wonder X seems so jaded

The biggest culprit in this I believe is the Guardian newspaper comment section.

The Guardian is a well known liberal newspaper and so is its readership.

But apparently being liberal does not make you any less susceptible to believing silly conspiracy theories or being a cynical asshole.

For example, some comments on a Syria news item on the Guardian:

Wow. Al-Qaeda with tanks in Syria.

Please remind me again how Al-Qaeda in Iraq & Afghanistan = bad and Al-Qaeda in Syria = good?

Or else, those trained by them made a lot of progress. Even anti-aircrafts weapons have already been delivered to the “good” Islamic terrorists. Recall that the opposition members were told by the Westies to put their act together and elect a leader – they did – a Muslim Brotherhood member who is now their “ambassador” to the UK. . . . . . so that they could get the weapons they had been begging for.
So new targets besides the attacks on Kurdish areas by the opposition have killed inhabitants of the
Druze and Christian districts – who had avoided until now, NOT to get involved in any fighting between the regime and the bearded and non-bearded opposition freedom-loving fighters.

Lovely Christmas and New Year celebrations for the corporate-industrial-military conglomerates and their
families. Wifeys will get still another fur coat – one or two for each profit-rich year. Can one ask for more?!
Puppet “moderate” opposition political facade regime picked (twice due to too many radical elements in the first SNC), the leaders of which all seem to have ties to western corporations, as did the Libyan opposition. (big similarities with Iraq and Afghan there) Increase in western support and military rhetoric and action on the ground suggesting heavy arms and funding increase. Either that or all these recent victories and subsequent weapons cache “captures” for the opposition are completely coincidental?

You’re right. I should be planting car bombs in built up civilian areas in the name of “freedom”. Maybe blowing up a bus or train or two.

You know, to prove how much I believe in making life better for “my people”.

Nov 29, 2012 at 11:37PM EST
Quote

You’d think liberals would be more for liberation?

If people are thinking the FSA has any relation at all to Al-Qaeda and that their actions are equally of the kind Al-Qaeda loves to do, then that may explain the allegations against the FSA

Of course X has explained quite clearly that nobody in Syria wants anything to do with Al-Qaeda but it seems some people are quick to assume that explosions in middle eastern civilian districts always involve them

Last edited Nov 30, 2012 at 12:06AM EST
Nov 30, 2012 at 12:00AM EST
Quote

Not only that, but because the FSA is supported by the west it leads to “FSA IS A PUPPET OF THE IMPERIALIST WESTERN COUNTRIES! VIVE LA RUSSIA! DOWN WITH THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!”

Nov 30, 2012 at 12:55AM EST
Quote

Mister J wrote:

Very related

It’s still going to, people.

We are back.

More videos for no one to give a shit about, yay.

Dec 02, 2012 at 08:43AM EST
Quote

Syria apologizes for cutting internet. Iran fires it’s cyber police chief.

What’s next? Saudi Arabia uncensoring porn?

Dec 03, 2012 at 03:25AM EST
Quote

So, you know that NATO intervention that Syria’s desperately needed for well over a year now?

Apparently it might actually be happening.

It’s not much. It’s just a few defenses along the Turkish border, but hopefully this might lead to a more direct involvement. I mean, NATO intervened with the Libyan conflict and it was pretty damn effective, so I don’t see why the same tactics couldn’t be applied to Syria. Assad has artillery and helicopters, he’s using them to massacre civilians, and NATO has the means to take them out. It’s a very similar situation to what we faced with Gaddafi, though perhaps I’m missing some technicality of international relations that’s preventing us from going in this time.

Dec 04, 2012 at 06:38AM EST
Quote

In Libya, all the security council members agreed to establish a “No Fly Zone” over Libya to prevent Gaddaffi from using his Airforce to bomb civilian targets.

However, NATO greatly overstepped its original intention which the resolution said was “to protect civilians from harm” so they started bombing SAM Sites, Artillerly positions, tanks, soldiers…any target was fair game. It was obvious that the original mandate of “protecting civilians” had taken a turn to “support rebels against Gaddaffi with overwhelming Close Air Support”

This pissed off China and Russia, who never agreed to that. So they’re blocking any resolutions against Syria in the United Nations Security Council and since Russia and China both have Veto powers, it doesn’t matter how many vote against them.

In addition to that, Libya was a pariah state but Syria is a very close ally to Russia and China and regularly purchases large amounts of military hardware from them. To lose Syria to the Western powers means the entire middle east sans Iran is in a Western sphere of influence.


On a side note, there’s this great website called Syria Deeply that attempt to collect as much news and information to Syria including interactive maps and timelines.

The information is rather basic but it’s an excellent tool for getting uninformed people up to speed on the situation:

http://alpha.syriadeeply.org/

Dec 04, 2012 at 09:31AM EST
Quote

BREAKING NEWS

Source link

It is with great sorrow I tell you this news.
It’s over.
Assad has finished mixing up the chemical agents, they have been loaded into bombs.
Artillery and Ballistic Missiles are also capable of delivering Sarin and Nerve gas for Assad to use against is own people.
The airplanes are now awaiting the final order, if it’s given “there’s little the outside world can do to stop it.” according to U.S. officials.

Something could have been done, but the world chose to watch from the sidelines.
It’s too late now.
The entirety of Syira is holding their breath.
Literally.
Thank you for following this thread.

Source link

Dec 06, 2012 at 01:10AM EST
Quote

Screw you Assad. I hope you rot in the most horrific parts of hell. The UN won’t stand by any longer if you use these weapons, and the rebels sure as hell aren’t going to stop fighting you.

Dec 06, 2012 at 01:44AM EST
Quote

Source link

Uuuuuuurgh, some of the comments in that article made me want TEAR SOME JUGULARS OUT

When Assad burns in hell, may all those functionally retarded conspiracy theorists red-flagging the whole event burn in hell with him.

I didn’t need to read those comments on top of my already bad day. I need to drink.

Dec 06, 2012 at 02:44AM EST
Quote

The air planes could be easily stopped with a no fly zone. The problem lies in artillery delivery systems like the SCUD and especially Frog-7. You can’t stop these without putting in advanced missile defence systems like the Patriot and those are out of the question.

You could go “Scud Hunting” but those types of missions were completely ineffective during the Gulf War.

The only hope is that the report mentions it being loaded on plane bound munitions rather than ballistic missile warheads.

EDIT: I just remembered something about Sarin Gas. Since it’s heavier than air, it will seep down, so higher buildings are a must. Rooms with windows are out of the question: If Assad uses the same strategy as Saddam, they’ll shell the area first to break the windows (I doubt there are any unshattered windows remaining in Aleppo).

Sarin will dissolve in water, food and clothes and contaminant it. Sarin quickly disperses when a vapour but lasts longer as a liquid.

AND NO FIRE! NO Aluminium! Sarin is combustible and eats through tin, cadmium, aluminium which results in hydrogen gas forming.

The only good news is that Sarin gas degrades quickly. IN air, it might disperse in as little as ten minutes. It degrades a bit slower in water but also under 1 hour (though to be safe, leave it for quite a few hours before drinking anything)

Any clothing contaminated with Sarin vapour can transmit it. CUT the clothing off (don’t pull it over your head) and toss it in a plastic bag and then toss THAT into a plastic bag. Soap and Water can actually be a good stop gap decontaminate, wipe the body down with it and don’t use the same sponge/cloth twice.

Last edited Dec 06, 2012 at 04:26AM EST
Dec 06, 2012 at 03:35AM EST
Quote

You think the Syrians are gonna let the Libyans have all this DIY fun by themselves?

Dec 11, 2012 at 08:06AM EST
Quote

What do you guys think about the Syrian conflict five months later?

Last edited Jun 06, 2013 at 03:44AM EDT
Jun 06, 2013 at 03:44AM EDT

Seems a lot of foreign fighters are linked to front group for Al Qaeda which could be a threat not jsut to Syria if they return to their “home countries” more here.

Last edited Jun 06, 2013 at 07:19AM EDT
Jun 06, 2013 at 07:18AM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

Seems a lot of foreign fighters are linked to front group for Al Qaeda which could be a threat not jsut to Syria if they return to their “home countries” more here.

Actually, we can blame that on our lack of aiding the rebels, completely the opposite of what that site says. The Free Syrian Army is a secular institution but most of its fighters are defecting due to lack of weapons and ammunition.

Jun 06, 2013 at 07:55AM EDT
Quote

@Bat Pug

What do you guys think about the Syrian conflict five months later?

Not only is it still going on, it is continually getting worse.

As if the Assad regime wasn’t bad enough, now Al Qaeda is getting involved and the FSA has to fight them off as well.

I suspect Al Qaeda thinks they can wedge themselves into the conflict in order to take control of the nation in its weakened state. But the last thing Syrians want is another fascist and fanatical leadership making the rules in the country.

If that wasn’t enough, the conflict is starting to become less about a revolution and more over yet another pissing match between Sunni and Shiite factions in the area (which may be a result of Al Qaeda’s involvement, I don’t know)

But wait! There’s more!

It turns out that chemical WMD’s are being used in the war as well. From the regime no less…like I said: worse and worse.

The most perplexing thing of it all, is why nothing is being done about this even when our news reports have shown extremely damning evidence of humanitarian crimes. I suppose we still have Russia to thank for that.

[reads article wn12345 posted]

Actually you know what? That there is the reason why the war never ends and only gets worse. I’m talking about the kind of people who wrote that article and the type of people who agreed with it in the comment section

It because of people like that, a war that was once clearly between a corrupt dictator and freedom fighters has been convoluted with religious matter to the point where people just see see another religious conflict and take sides accordingly.

It should have been another Libya. But the worst case scenario happened instead.

I’d go on but my jimmies are rustled. I’m off to play GZDoom

Last edited Jun 06, 2013 at 09:26AM EDT
Jun 06, 2013 at 09:20AM EDT
Quote

MDFification wrote:

Actually, we can blame that on our lack of aiding the rebels, completely the opposite of what that site says. The Free Syrian Army is a secular institution but most of its fighters are defecting due to lack of weapons and ammunition.

I believe we should aid the rebels. You know those people that want to go to Syria to fight but are stopped by governments? I believe governments should allow those people to go to Syria and fight. It is a win win situation. The right wing parties are happy that the Islamists/freedom fighters are gone and the Islamists/freedom fighters are happy that they can fight their “holy war”/liberation war. There will be problems when the Islamists comeback from Syria though. Those who fight for the jihadist groups should be refused entry back while those who fought for secular nationalist groups should be allowed entry back. This would be the best way to weed out the Islamists from countries.

There will be concerns about Christians/Druze/other non-Muslims caught in the Sunni-Shitte crossfire and these non-Muslims should be helped. It was kind of pathetic seeing the US government back the Egyptian revolution at the cost of the Coptic Christians/other non-Muslims in Egypt.

Jun 06, 2013 at 08:46PM EDT

What the hell man?

We should aid the rebels yes, but only to strip the Assad regime of power and put a proper democracy and stable government in his place. Just like what the Syrians wanted from the very beginning. That’s why the war started

We should not be treating the war as an opportunity to let extremists loose and have their happy murder rampage funtimes at the expense of innocent Syrian civilians. This is the kind of bullshit I was talking about

Last edited Jun 06, 2013 at 09:20PM EDT
Jun 06, 2013 at 09:20PM EDT
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

What the hell man?

We should aid the rebels yes, but only to strip the Assad regime of power and put a proper democracy and stable government in his place. Just like what the Syrians wanted from the very beginning. That’s why the war started

We should not be treating the war as an opportunity to let extremists loose and have their happy murder rampage funtimes at the expense of innocent Syrian civilians. This is the kind of bullshit I was talking about

As for the Islamists like I said before letting them fight is a win win situation for both Islamists and the right wing. Measures to protect innocent Syrian civilians should also take place.

I suppose an idea would be to have the non-Muslims(Christians, Druze etc) evacuated and taken in as refugees or at least have weapons sent to them while the Islamists/Freedom fighters are going to Syria to fight in the Syrian civil war. Notice I said we should also let the freedom fighters/secular nationalists fight in Syria too not just the Islamists.

Jun 06, 2013 at 09:58PM EDT

I am shocked at how the U.N lacks authority over issues like this.

Jun 06, 2013 at 10:54PM EDT

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

@wn12345

Look at the comments here.
Besides look here. The Islamists/freedom fighters themselves want to go and fight.
And some people who are critics of Islamism want the Islamists’s passport taken away when they come back from Syria to their home countries which is what I support.

Last edited Jun 07, 2013 at 01:31AM EDT
Jun 07, 2013 at 01:29AM EDT

Yea I get that.

What I’m facepalming over is how your point goes straight back to what I was saying before: That instead of being a revolution, it has been tragically turned into a holy war

We can lock all the migrating jihadists in Syria and let them play among each other. Sure…

But it still effectively leaves Syria for dead. There are still decent people trapped between the conflict trying to survive (It’s not just jihadists shooting Jihadists there you know) but instead of international aid, they get the other nations dumping their extremist garbage on them. The chance of the nation ever recovering is minor

It goes to show the worlds continued cruel uncaring for the Syrian public.

Last edited Jun 07, 2013 at 02:10AM EDT
Jun 07, 2013 at 02:09AM EDT
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

Yea I get that.

What I’m facepalming over is how your point goes straight back to what I was saying before: That instead of being a revolution, it has been tragically turned into a holy war

We can lock all the migrating jihadists in Syria and let them play among each other. Sure…

But it still effectively leaves Syria for dead. There are still decent people trapped between the conflict trying to survive (It’s not just jihadists shooting Jihadists there you know) but instead of international aid, they get the other nations dumping their extremist garbage on them. The chance of the nation ever recovering is minor

It goes to show the worlds continued cruel uncaring for the Syrian public.

Here is a Muslim forum discussing about the Syrian Civil War. Read the posts from this “moderate Muslim forum”. Like I said for the decent people like the non-Muslims(Christian, Druze etc) should be given refugee status or have weapons sent to them to defend themselves. And how are nations “dumping” Islamists if the Islamists/freedom fighters go their by choice not force?

You do know most conflicts involving Muslims eventually turn into a “holy war”(for the Islamists anyway) right? Syria is doomed so we should get the decent people like the non-Muslims out while allowing the Islamists/Freedom fighters to go to Syria to fight the Syrian civil war.

Jun 07, 2013 at 02:22AM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

Here is a Muslim forum discussing about the Syrian Civil War. Read the posts from this “moderate Muslim forum”. Like I said for the decent people like the non-Muslims(Christian, Druze etc) should be given refugee status or have weapons sent to them to defend themselves. And how are nations “dumping” Islamists if the Islamists/freedom fighters go their by choice not force?

You do know most conflicts involving Muslims eventually turn into a “holy war”(for the Islamists anyway) right? Syria is doomed so we should get the decent people like the non-Muslims out while allowing the Islamists/Freedom fighters to go to Syria to fight the Syrian civil war.

So basically, you’re saying, all the non-muslims should leave, and the small jihadist population should stay there and die, or alternatively take over?

I disagree, the Western powers hate the Jihadist, and the best thing is simply stopping the Jihadist from gaining any form of power.

Jun 08, 2013 at 04:59AM EDT
You do know most conflicts involving Muslims eventually turn into a “holy war”(for the Islamists anyway) right?

Um. Wow.

I don’t do historical or politics in the least, but I do know a good bit about sociology and psychology. And that sounds like a biased generalization if I’ve ever heard one.

Jun 08, 2013 at 11:10AM EDT

Verbose wrote:

You do know most conflicts involving Muslims eventually turn into a “holy war”(for the Islamists anyway) right?

Um. Wow.

I don’t do historical or politics in the least, but I do know a good bit about sociology and psychology. And that sounds like a biased generalization if I’ve ever heard one.

Religion in politics equals extremism, especially for war.

Jun 08, 2013 at 03:04PM EDT

Don’t waste your time with wn12345, he doesn’t give a single damn about Syria, it’s future or it’s people. Hes using this thread just to soapbox his prejudicial opinions of Muslims.

Jun 09, 2013 at 02:16AM EDT
Quote
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

Don’t waste your time with wn12345, he doesn’t give a single damn about Syria, it’s future or it’s people. Hes using this thread just to soapbox his prejudicial opinions of Muslims.

I do give a damn about the decent people in Syria(mostly non-Muslims). And I am not anti-Muslim I am anti-Islamism. I don’t have anything against moderate Muslims.

Last edited Jun 09, 2013 at 03:17AM EDT
Jun 09, 2013 at 03:13AM EDT

Actually I would like to apologize for that comment.

How I feel about this subject on an emotional level is compromising my contribution to this discussion. I’m going to refrain from comment.

Jun 09, 2013 at 04:15AM EDT
Quote

wn12345 wrote:

I do give a damn about the decent people in Syria(mostly non-Muslims).


The U.S. State Department have documents on International Religious Freedom that are readily available to anyone who wants to look at them. They have them for every country, including Syria. The Syria one in the link has a section on the Religious Demographics of the country. 74% are Sunni Muslim, 13% fall under “other Muslim groups”, 3% Druze (a sect of Islam), and 10% Christian. What you are basically saying is that nearly 90% of the population in that country aren’t decent people because they don’t fit under the classification of “non-Muslim”.



About your claim that you’re not being Anti-Muslim and not having anything against moderate Muslims: I don’t buy it.

Last edited Jun 09, 2013 at 01:11PM EDT
Jun 09, 2013 at 01:04PM EDT
Quote

level4outbreak wrote:

wn12345 wrote:

I do give a damn about the decent people in Syria(mostly non-Muslims).


The U.S. State Department have documents on International Religious Freedom that are readily available to anyone who wants to look at them. They have them for every country, including Syria. The Syria one in the link has a section on the Religious Demographics of the country. 74% are Sunni Muslim, 13% fall under “other Muslim groups”, 3% Druze (a sect of Islam), and 10% Christian. What you are basically saying is that nearly 90% of the population in that country aren’t decent people because they don’t fit under the classification of “non-Muslim”.



About your claim that you’re not being Anti-Muslim and not having anything against moderate Muslims: I don’t buy it.

I said the decent people in Syria are mostly non-Muslims. Which means not all decent people in Syria are non-muslims. Druze isn’t really an Islam sect but I am not an expert on this kind of matter so go to ummah.com there and ask the muslim experts whether Druze is a sect of Islam if you are interested.

I admit though there are going to be problems taking in muslim refugees from Syria due to muslims being radicalized easily(more easily than other religions) because Islamist clerics usually bring up the subject of the crusades and the current “occupation” of muslim lands by non-muslims(even though muslim conquests started way before any occupation of muslim lands by non-muslims). The last thing a country needs is more shia or sunnni Islamists. If you look at groups like the EDL, SION, 969 and so on it is clear that islamists aren’t really wanted by some people in some countries. I mean to be honest the riots following the “innocence of muslims” film(which was really great satire and the movie does contain some facts) kinda prove that Islamists are bad news. I am being bias in wanting to put more priority in saving the non-muslims rather than the muslims because this Syrian conflict is turning into a sunni-shia war(Yes I know at first the war was freedom fighters vs dictator but now it has become way more sectarian) and the non-Muslims shouldn’t be caught in the cross fire not to mention the trouble with muslim refugees as stated above.

I am anti-islamism not anti-muslim(atleast in this thread) just like how some people can be an anti-zionist but not an anti-semite. However I do question some things in Islam like the whole Aisha thing but that does not make me an anti-muslim it just means that I am questioning the morality of Mohammad.

Last edited Jun 09, 2013 at 08:43PM EDT
Jun 09, 2013 at 08:32PM EDT

Bat Pug wrote:

I am shocked at how the U.N lacks authority over issues like this.

The UN was established to peacefully work out disputes between separate states, not to solve domestic issues. As terrible as it can be, the UN has no right to choose who should govern a country; yes, it was created to promote democracy, but more important was the right to self-determination. The civil war in Syria is just that: self-determination. It’s fighting over who gets to run the country, and while it may seem like an overwhelmingly popular movement, remember that the only reason there is still conflict is because there are still a lot of Syrians who support the current government, and the UN can’t step in and say who is right and who is wrong. Yes, foreign powers might intervene to prevent, say, human rights abuses and such, and you can be mad at them for not doing that, but they can’t just put the rebels into power just because the majority of the world wants them there.

In most cases, this is a good thing. The United States government doesn’t work a lot of the time, and it’s done some things that the UN didn’t really like (such as refuse to pay our membership fees), but the UN has no authority to step in and change anything about the US government. Same rule applies in Syria, albeit with much more terrible consequences.

Jun 10, 2013 at 01:21AM EDT
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

This isn’t being locked. If you aren’t going to add to this discussion then don’t post – BSOD

Last edited Jun 10, 2013 at 08:11PM EDT
Jun 10, 2013 at 11:45AM EDT
Quote

ExudesAffluence wrote:

The UN was established to peacefully work out disputes between separate states, not to solve domestic issues. As terrible as it can be, the UN has no right to choose who should govern a country; yes, it was created to promote democracy, but more important was the right to self-determination. The civil war in Syria is just that: self-determination. It’s fighting over who gets to run the country, and while it may seem like an overwhelmingly popular movement, remember that the only reason there is still conflict is because there are still a lot of Syrians who support the current government, and the UN can’t step in and say who is right and who is wrong. Yes, foreign powers might intervene to prevent, say, human rights abuses and such, and you can be mad at them for not doing that, but they can’t just put the rebels into power just because the majority of the world wants them there.

In most cases, this is a good thing. The United States government doesn’t work a lot of the time, and it’s done some things that the UN didn’t really like (such as refuse to pay our membership fees), but the UN has no authority to step in and change anything about the US government. Same rule applies in Syria, albeit with much more terrible consequences.

True, but international human rights laws must be acknowledged by both the rebels and the government.

Jun 10, 2013 at 09:51PM EDT

Very sorry for the bump (even though this is featured) but I am currently wondering about what’s going to happen next, I mean I hear of the possibility of war in the news… X Singular, where are you?

Last edited Aug 28, 2013 at 12:40PM EDT
Aug 28, 2013 at 12:39PM EDT
Quote

量子 Meme wrote:

Very sorry for the bump (even though this is featured) but I am currently wondering about what’s going to happen next, I mean I hear of the possibility of war in the news… X Singular, where are you?

this is one of those moments where you REALLY hope OP delivers

Aug 28, 2013 at 12:49PM EDT
Quote

I don’t know how much at liberty I am to discuss X-singular or his location. But as you might suspect: he has left Syria and he probably doesn’t receive that much more news than we do at this point.

But I can say he is doing okay last I checked. He’s entered a new university and is back into his career. Basically he’s rebuilding his life back after losing it all.

I don’t think he will ever post here again.

If I were him, I wouldn’t want to look back either.


@Quantum

News reports are flaring that evidence of Assads chemical weapon use are flooding in and the question of whether or not the US and NATO will finally do something is definitely on peoples mind. After all, the Obama Administration made it clear that use of WMD’s would be the breaking point. Reports of Lebanon getting caught in the crossfire is also prompting action

But despite the clear evidence being brought to surface of WMD’s existing. Russia still blocks any and all attempts for a UN intervention just like they have been for the past two years. I feel this is still unlikely to change. This time they are just trying to obscure who is using the weapons

Russia is the Assad Regimes vicious growling guard dog. Fucking with the regime means fucking with Russia. They are pretty much the whole reason why nothing ever happened for the past 2 years thanks to their vested interest in the regimes commerce. There wouldn’t even have been a need for “evidence” of chemical weapon use from the regime in the first place if it weren’t for Putin repeatedly demanding it and then waiving it when it comes

There also the whole “World Police” issue to argue with too

Syrians wonder why NATO was so happy to help the Libyans but not them. As far as I can tell, parts of the west does want to help the Syrian public, but the same card can’t exactly be pulled twice. This time people are also arguing that they don’t want the west to spend their own resources (again!) on what is often considered a middle eastern affair, especially now that secular affairs have gotten mixed into it.

Last edited Aug 29, 2013 at 02:40AM EDT
Aug 29, 2013 at 02:21AM EDT
Quote

I’m hearing mixed signals on who is actually using Chemical Weapons. Some places say both the rebels and the government are using it…but it’s coming out as mixed and uncertain.

Aug 29, 2013 at 10:53AM EDT
Quote

I can say with absolute certainty that the government is using it. They are the ones with the resources to do so. It’s no secret that they had chemical weapons stockpiled at military bases and the artillery/air forces to deliver it.

The rebels just have rifles and the occasional stolen tank, where do they get chemical weapons from?

But the government, of course, shifts the blame onto the rebels

Aug 29, 2013 at 11:16AM EDT
Quote

Well, the UK is out.

Turns out that our stance on mass murder and the use of WMDs against a country’s own people is actually fairly lenient. Who knew?

I imagine the results would have been different if there wasn’t so much political pressure from Russia. It also doesn’t help that our media did a spectacularly terrible job of presenting the issue. Our news was filled with references to an ‘Iraq 2.0’, and everyone was convinced that we’d end up being dragged into a 10 year struggle, whereas the reality is that our plans were to launch a few missiles and then to head home.

I’m also willing to bet that the votes against an intervention came primarily from the Labour party. In British politics, it’s not about doing what you think is right; it’s about making sure your party is in power next election. Chances are we’ll find that most Conservatives voted ‘yes’ because our Conservative Prime Minister is in favour, most of Labour voted ‘no’ because they’ll do anything to get in the way of the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats just did their usual thing of flailing around wildly.

Aug 29, 2013 at 06:07PM EDT
Quote

>Iraq 2.0.

You got my point though? The news were presenting this as if it was just that, and it was clear something like that wasn’t going to really happen when you actually got right down to the situation, really.

Aug 29, 2013 at 06:57PM EDT
Quote

@Algy

Kinda knew that would happen. The NZ parties certainly aren’t lining up either and I expect all the other commonwealth nations will follow suit.

>Iraq 2.0

This is a very real point of view by most people and perhaps the biggest reason why the public doesn’t want involvement

As far as your western layman is concerned: Syria is another nation over in dustville with a bloody dictator and oil which the US is accusing of having WMD’s.

People just put two and two together and figure it’s the exact same thing…even though it’s not…but are truly weary of bearing the exact same consequences

It doesn’t help that there’s so much confusion being scattered around. Very few people seem to be actually aware what is going on. They don’t know if it’s a civil war due to an uprising against a criminal leadership or another sunni vs shiite deathmatch.

People don’t know who’s the bad guy here. The regime or the rebels? Who started it? Who’s gassing who?

We only know the answers to those questions thanks to X-singular (it’s the regime). But he can’t be on every forum informing everybody.

Last edited Aug 29, 2013 at 11:35PM EDT
Aug 29, 2013 at 11:32PM EDT
Quote

Sup! You must login or signup first!