By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you want The rebels in Syria to Win

 

Do you want the rebels in Syria to Win?

yes 55 26.44%
 
no 77 37.02%
 
maybe 20 9.62%
 
Fuck Syria, I want games ... 54 25.96%
 
Total:206
Sharu on 30 May 2013

Kasz216. Your death is unavoidable. So – the sooner the better???



Around the Network
MoHasanie on 30 May 2013
mai said:

In other words we don't have much of a disgareement here, US, UK, France, Saudis and Turkey are funding terrorism to "shape" Syria in the way they like it. Except you don't have problems with that.

There are alot of countries with different interests involved in Syria. The US and its allies all want to get rid of Bashar Al Assad becuse they see Syria as an enemy. The Gulf Arab countries like Saudi and Qatar want to fight the Iranian/Shia influence and thus want to destablize the country as well. On the other hand, Iran and Hezbollah don't want Bashar Al Asad to leave since he's an ally to them. And Russia and Tukey have their own interests as well. Unfortunately those countries don't really care about the Syrian people's suffering and just want to protect their intrests. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

mai on 30 May 2013
Sharu said:

Kasz216. Your death is unavoidable. So – the sooner the better???

Oh, hi, Sharu, you kinda helped me to understand what Kazs argument is really about.

 

@Kazs

By saying "unavoidable, unavoidable, unavoidable" you're justifying the position as if anti-Assad parties stance was in responce to outbreak in Syria. As if they were late to the party and just decided to simply make gains out of the situation, and because "rebells gonna win anyway" they're simply betting on the winning horse. Nice spin.

Well, there're two problems:
-  It's plain not true, rebels is far from winning, and anti-Assad parties are more than anyone aware of that.
- As I've said it already, anti-Assad parties hold much of responsibility for causing the outbreak, artificially escalating it to a war.

@MoHasaine

Yes, everyone is protecting its own interests, that's truism. Not sure how care of people of Syria should look like if this is not it.



Sharu on 30 May 2013

@Mai
did you heard that S–300 are already in Syria? ))
Will it be more bombing from Izrael now?



Mr Khan on 30 May 2013
Kasz216 said:
mai said:
 

I'm referring to "get the f**k out of your informational ghetto". Given how drastically different current informational background around Syria from, say, Yugoslavian confilct where informational background was monopolistically held in the same hands, Syrian situation has more than one explanation, nothing prevents you from studyning the subject except from own disinterest.

 

Not that you're unique here, superficial glance at the thread only proves that fighting windmills is a waste of time, still let's take a look what we've got here?
"Even if things go wrong and it ends up worse then an Assad government. It might end up better long term because it got to that stage sooner."

- the fallacy that Assad government is bad (what is bad in the context? why it is bad? who said it's bad besides MSM? why all of sudden Assad is a problem? no answers);
- the fallacy that smth might go wrong as if it never went wrong in the first place (merceneries destroying your country -- your actions?);
- the fallacy that smth might end up better than it were (better compared to what? why it will be better? who is there to judge it will be better? and more importantly -- since when the whole point of this mess is to make Syria better? what kind of logic is that?);
- jesuit kind of thesis that end justifies the means (so short-term it's not ok, but on a longer run current death toll is justifiable? I wonder is there anyone will be left to say: "oh my, it's so much better now"? how long is long term here? why Assad is a problem for Syria to get better even if we agree Syria was bad? and more importantly -- how come mercenaries from various countries destroying Syria could help it get better?).

Previously I was questioning only your moral integrity, while that quote of yours makes me question your moral and intellectual integrity.

 

//Having had experience talking to people from other places on the subject, I always wondered who deep inside them sitting this fallacy about oppressing regime and simple freedom-thirsty people -- sometimes I envy them, the world is so crystal clear for them. At the same time I've seen people who were trying to defend Assad, but what they didn't understand -- as long as they accept that paradigm of horizontal slices of the society (regime above, people below) -- they lost the argument. While in real life these slices are never horizonatal, but vertical -- regime and people on both sides -- a civil war situation. Though in Syria civil war has ended long ago, current situation is better described with the word "invasion".

1) The Assad Government has ALWAYS been bad?  Nothing new about it.   He's generally made a good "placeholder" for both western and eastern interests, but he's always been awful.  I know you tend to take a "patriot" view where it's perfectly fine to support your government, and think it's fine for puppet governments to take over and trample on people, just so long as it's stable for other countries.  I don't really agree.

The change in tone from Western governments is just more the realization that there is zero chance Assad can win, so they want to be abl to try and support the "good." Rebel groups.  I doubt i will work well. (Didn't in Libya) but really, Assad can't win indefinitly, so the EU and US want to get ahead of Syria.

2) By something going wrong... that's pretty obvious.  As in, when the rebels fight for government control.  The Syrian rebels aren't really remotely uniform.  Which is why they don't control ANY of Syria's provinces.  Despite currently being in a position, they can't really lose.  The rebels seem far too diverse for any one group to gain total Assad like control.   So who knows what the new government will bring, espiecally when ex government officials start peeling off and supporting various rebel groups.  Best case scenario forces some kind of stalemate of poltiical power that makes a fairly even government.

Worstcase scenario, your on to another shitty dictatorship, and further along to overthrowing it, then if there was further Assad stalemates.

 

3)  You've got it backwords.  Assad provides the longer term death toll... and the greater death toll.  There  is really zero chance of Assad winning at this point.  So the choice is more or less, Assad loses or this status quo... forever.  Hell, as it is, the war could drag in Israel or Turkey into tis mess. (Well, more so then Israel's bombing campaigns they're already doing.)

Actually it worked out fairly well in Libya, largely because the National Front that ran the show amongst the rebels in Libya were a bunch of pretty good guys. There are issues with militias to be sure, as well as Libya becoming a nest of terror for neighboring countries (although that's just the Sahara in general nowadays: Qaddafi was actively arming these people, so Magarief being unable to stop them is at least a step up).

Syria is different largely because the sectarian issues are much much worse, and so it becomes less a question of democracy and more about a time to get back at the Alawites for being in power for the last 50 years.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
mai on 30 May 2013
Sharu said:
@Mai
did you heard that S–300 are already in Syria? ))
Will it be more bombing from Izrael now?

Ну, злые языки более причастные к Рособоронэкспорту, чем я, намекали, что они давно там, просто наши это дело не афишировали, а щас вдруг вспомнили. Возможно, америкосы решили раскрутить тему -- см. выступление Чуркина на "голосе кровавого ЦРУ", она же CNN -- как говорится дорога ложка к обеду. Вон как раз мулька какая-то бродит по инету типа список того, чего Асад хочет, чтобы мы ему продали. Вобщем, нагнетают, хбз для чего.

А евреи пущай летают -- больнее падать будет, сирийцы их в последнюю войну знатно пощипали -- больше чем евреи говорят, и все ПВО в основном. Есть один персонаж у нас, Павел Булат -- дока по вопросу, евреи его не любят почему-то. Хотя не понятно какая там комплектность у С-300, в какой боеготовности они и чего им придано. Да и не так страшен Израиль, если так дело дальше пойдет -- будут умолять Асада остаться.



Zizzla_Rachet on 30 May 2013
UnknownFact said:
I want to know who is making profits by selling weapons to either side.


Russia Helped Establish the goverment in syria and has a naval base there...So Russia does make money from it....US is hell bent on waging a cold front against russia so it arms isreal..and now anyone to destabalize the region...



 



Zizzla_Rachet on 30 May 2013
Sharu said:
@Mai
did you heard that S–300 are already in Syria? ))
Will it be more bombing from Izrael now?

S 300 in syria should push the F-35 international program further and faster



 



Sharu on 30 May 2013

Well, when you'll finish F35 we could easily give Asad S400 )))



mai on 30 May 2013
Zizzla_Rachet said:
UnknownFact said:
I want to know who is making profits by selling weapons to either side.


Russia Helped Establish the goverment in syria and has a naval base there...So Russia does make money from it....US is hell bent on waging a cold front against russia so it arms isreal..and now anyone to destabalize the region...

People forget about profits made by selling weapons, it's pocket money for both sides and ain't worth political and reputational loss it might cause, -- certainly have nothing to do with the situation. As for the scary naval base :D it's not a naval base it's "ПМТО" (google translate it), which is few steps below real naval base and just a tad higher than "land ahoy, we could drop an anchor here".