Forums / General

191,270 total conversations in 5,245 threads

+ New Thread


About the Syria issue...

Last posted Aug 30, 2013 at 02:21PM EDT. Added Aug 28, 2013 at 12:20AM EDT
14 conversations with 12 participants

Pardon me, I have not been keeping an great eye on the news lately, but I’m curious if someone without having any bias explain what is going on with Syria. It seems wherever I go, both sides are blurring this issue to fit their views and stuff. I know it involved a chemical weapon used on people, but there are different people stating (and shoving) different things everywhere and…I’m confused.

Anyone here can explain what’s the current situation?

Aug 28, 2013 at 12:20AM EDT
Quote

I think syria wants to be hitler or something, i dont know.

Aug 28, 2013 at 12:43AM EDT

Syria fell into a civil war with many rebel groups fighting against their State.

Started off as a genuine resistance against an oppressive regime (based on my knowledge) and quickly devolved into a hostile takeover by groups such as Al Qaeda and other religious extremists.

Rumors abound of Assad preparing chemical weapons to use against the rebels, fair amount of evidence that he had them on hand. No signs of use.

Rumors abound of the US supporting the rebels. Rebels as in the guys who align with religious extremist and terrorist groups.

War turns in Assad’s favor, tension builds between US, Russia, Iraq, etc. because of meddling, threats, political bullying, etc. Russia repeatedly warns US not to get involved.

Syrian army is winning against the rebels. Chemical weapons are used, by whom is currently unknown. US, UK and other allies almost immediately blame it on Assad and try to discourage the UN from sending investigators.

Documents are leaked that seem to show E-mails sent between various US officials about the possibility of staging a false flag. Legitimacy of leaks is questionable.

Assad publicly proclaims that he would be an idiot for using chemical weapons when he was winning and had his own troops on the ground. Syrian officials say it would be political suicide if they broke international law.

Evidence and videos come forth showing that the Rebels were in possession of chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment.

US and UK mobilize navies to prepare strikes on Syria. Iraq threatens to attack Isreal if the US attacks Syria. Russia pledges to support Syria with some seriously heavy-duty firepower.

Russia steps up the evacuation of Russian citizens from Syria that has been going on for a few years.

EDIT: Russia said they will launch a massive strike against Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria.


That’s everything I know in roughly chronological order of it happening.

Last edited Aug 28, 2013 at 01:47AM EDT
Aug 28, 2013 at 01:38AM EDT
Quote

well, auer summed it up pretty well.

but to be completely honest all of Asad’s attempts evade the blame from the chemical attacks seem very far fetched

tons of documents and information was leaked indicating that Asad ordered the attack, in fact chemical weapons were used already a few months now, but only in the last week the casualties became astounding.

im very disappointed it took the world this long to begin action against the atrocities in syria.

i don’t support any side, both are extremist islamists that hates us with extreme passion but the murder of thousands of innocent elderly women and children is sickening

Aug 28, 2013 at 04:39AM EDT
Quote

sting_auer said:

Russia said they will launch a massive strike against Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria.

Wut. Why Saudi Arabia? Wouldn’t that just piss off most of the Muslim word with Mecca being there and all, not to mention rustling NATO and the UN’s jimmies (hell, even China). It’s like Russia wants a Third World War.

I doubt Putin’s doing any more than rattling his saber, especially with NATO controlling two-thirds of europe and Chechnya itching for an excuse to rally the crazy Muslims.

Fun fact: if /pol/‘s actually right and we do get a happening, there will most likely be an Emergency Session of the General Assembly, and, under the Uniting For Peace Resolution, the General Assembly can assume direct control and overrule the Security Council--thus making Russia and China’s vetos as worthless as the strongly worded condemnation the UN normally puts out.

Personally, I think we need to just let this clusterfuck roll on without us. It’s also nice seeing the political hypocrisy (Dems fully backing Obama’s Iraq 2.0, while Repubs decry the needless war and urge the UN to do something).

Also, any attack probably won’t happen until Thursday as jolly old England’s Parliament has to sort things out.

Aug 28, 2013 at 05:03AM EDT
Quote

We have a featured thread for discussing the Syrian conflict. It might be better to move the current discussions there.


xTSGx wrote:

Wut. Why Saudi Arabia? Wouldn’t that just piss off most of the Muslim word with Mecca being there and all, not to mention rustling NATO and the UN’s jimmies (hell, even China). It’s like Russia wants a Third World War.

I doubt Putin’s doing any more than rattling his saber, especially with NATO controlling two-thirds of europe and Chechnya itching for an excuse to rally the crazy Muslims.

Saudi’s been trying to get rid of Assad since the war started, and they’ve been getting sick of Russia’s attempts to prevent any sort of international intervention. They tried offering the Russians some sort of oil deal if they’d back away from the subject, but also threatened to coordinate Chechen terror attacks on the Winter Olympics if they didn’t. I think the threat to attack Saudi Arabia is just a retaliation to that. I doubt they’d actually go through with it. Russia’s been getting a shitload of bad press from the West recently (IMO, for good reason), and an all-out invasion of one of the biggest oil exporters on Earth would likely result in them losing any remaining support. It’s ridiculous how they’ve been saying that an intervention in Syria would be a ‘grave violation of international law’, and yet they think that making such threats is completely acceptable behaviour.


sting_auer wrote:

US and UK mobilize navies to prepare strikes on Syria.

The French are also offering to support. Ever since the most recent chemical attacks, they’ve seemed a lot more vocal than the US and UK. For them, the question was “when should we begin?” rather than “should we really be getting involved here?”. I’m not sure if they’re contributing any naval assets, but considering they can just hitch a ride on allied carriers it’s not like they need to.

There’s also been some pressure on Germany to get involved, but it’s unclear if anything will come of it.

Iraq threatens to attack Isreal if the US attacks Syria

I couldn’t find anything about Iraq making threats. Both Iran and Assad’s regime have threatened to attack Israel if any intervention occurs, and if that were to happen Iraq would likely get involved just because they’re bestest buds with Iran. Apparently something like this happened in the first Gulf War, where Iraq launched missiles at Israel in an attempt to draw them into the conflict. Considering how militarily advanced Israel is compared to its neighbours, I can’t imagine how any of them could think this was a good idea. Recall the recent Israeli bombing runs against Hezbollah – when Israel wants to get shit done, it gets shit done. Plus they’ll get full NATO support if things go seriously downhill. It’s almost like Iran wants this war to get messier than it already is.


Jolly Jew wrote:

i don’t support any side, both are extremist islamists that hates us with extreme passion but the murder of thousands of innocent elderly women and children is sickening

I’m pretty sure that neither side consists of Muslim extremists, with the exception of a few relatively small factions who joined in well after the war was underway. Also pretty sure that neither of them hate us all that much. Assad probably hates us a lot, though not for religious reasons, and any rebel leaders are probably sick of watching us bicker with Russia while finding any excuse to keep out of it, but the average soldier from either side really won’t give a damn about us.


Personally, I think we should have gotten involved about a year ago, if not earlier. There are now an estimated 100,000 dead, 200,000 wounded, and several million displaced. I can’t believe that every country with the power to prevent this just sat and watched it happen, and only now that people are being killed with chemical weapons have we decided that they’re going too far. Really, is there that much difference between gunning down civilians and gassing them? Why did we draw the line at ‘mass murder with weapon X’ rather than drawing it at ‘mass murder’?

Unfortunately, I can’t see a way for this to end well for anybody. Our current plan is to coordinate surgical airstrikes and cruise missile strikes, but not to offer any further support. Back when the rebels were on the advance, maybe that would have been enough to tip the scales sufficiently in their favour, but now I doubt it will be enough. Putting our soldiers in harm’s way and risking Iraq 2.0 doesn’t sound like a great plan either, and there’s very little support for such actions amongst the general public.

Last edited Aug 28, 2013 at 08:14AM EDT
Aug 28, 2013 at 08:12AM EDT
Quote

“The coming war in Syria is actually for the big natural gas pipeline Qatar wants to run through Syria to hook-up with the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey that feeds Europe. Assad said no, so he’s being replaced.”

Aug 28, 2013 at 11:36AM EDT
Quote

You know Spiteful Crow, when you quote someone/something it usually helps to properly attribute it to its source in order to provide some context…

Aug 28, 2013 at 12:08PM EDT
Quote

My problem with Assad using chemical weapons is because he has no motive. Why? because he is wining the war in Syria.

Syrian Kurdish leader doubts Assad would be ‘so stupid’

Why would he want to evoke an incident that will trigger an event that will dispose him of his power? The only group that would benefit from a chemical attack would be rebels. They are losing this civil war and are probably getting desperate for aid from the western world. Honestly, I would not be surprised is the rebels were behind this chemical attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/attack-syria-chemical-weapon-escalate-backlash

This event is an international mess and I hope Canada stays out of it. But I doubt that Harper will resit this chance to start a war; since he was denied his chance to start a war in Iraq back in 2003.

Aug 28, 2013 at 01:09PM EDT
Quote

Daft Punkjet wrote:

Pardon me, I have not been keeping an great eye on the news lately, but I’m curious if someone without having any bias explain what is going on with Syria. It seems wherever I go, both sides are blurring this issue to fit their views and stuff. I know it involved a chemical weapon used on people, but there are different people stating (and shoving) different things everywhere and…I’m confused.

Anyone here can explain what’s the current situation?

The current situation is that several large military powers are gnashing their teeth at each other and overall ignoring anything the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, and the UN chemical weapons investigators are saying about what they’re seeing.


Opinion-laced stuff:
The U.S. hasn’t considered the vast majority of chemical weapons to be militarily significant for years.

We began destroying our agents at Johnston Atoll in 1990… The weapons had a limited tactical use and had been overcome in America’s arsenal by other more potent weapons in the nuclear age.[S]

Considering the Geneva Protocol has banned the use of chemical weapons since 1925/1928 by signatory parties (Of which Syria has been since 1968), the United States’s threat to the Assad government was little more effective than posturing. Much like saying, “We disagree with this thing that we’ve already said we disagree with.”

While Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993[S], and the government is still able to legally stockpile Schedule 1 class weapons, it knows that the use of them would elicit a response from the UN, and much international outrage. Even Al-Assad knows that’s not good publicity for a nation in the middle of civil war. I’m not going to say whether or not they actually used them (do I look like a UN official?), just that the U.S stance on the matter has been, and largely will continue to be, irrelevant. It looks good when you say you’re against it, though, and that’s what the U.S. government’s biggest concern was – looking good, and in control of the situation.

As for the outrage over the supposed use of sarin, I agree mostly with those who are wondering why the situation is worse than it was before. Even if the death toll were several times more than the current estimate, it’s really negligible when looking at the overall scope of the war. I doubt the 1,300+ deaths will be included in any history books as more than a footnote over the 85,000+ deaths that have already occurred through conventional means. If we were going to do something, we should have done it two years ago when it would have made a difference. The worries over a power vacuum appearing, and an extremist group taking control, wouldn’t be so serious if we’d ensured there was a strong group to gather support. Instead, we have a dangerously unstable country, tens of thousands dead, and several superpowers/major powers glaring at each other across land and sea waiting for someone to make a move to retaliate against.

Last edited Aug 28, 2013 at 05:49PM EDT
Aug 28, 2013 at 05:46PM EDT
Quote

Supreme the Lurking Monitor wrote:

You know Spiteful Crow, when you quote someone/something it usually helps to properly attribute it to its source in order to provide some context…

cookie.jpg

Aug 30, 2013 at 03:58AM EDT
Quote

@Supreme

Just assume Crow heard that from the Onion. Unless cookie.jpg is an actual news outlet.

The war in Syria is definitely not just over an oil pipeline. It started as an uprising against the Assad regime, pure and simple. Russia has a lot of vested interest in Syria, I’m not sure why. Maybe that’s because of oil. But that would be as far as oil goes in terms of relevancy to this.

But I guess some people just want to assume every crisis in the middle east just has to be over oil.

Anyone in this thread who is truly curious about the wars origins and what it is truly about, need to go back and read:

This thread

And this one

You will find plenty of information on how this all began

Last edited Aug 30, 2013 at 04:43AM EDT
Aug 30, 2013 at 04:39AM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Yo! You must login or signup first!