The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

Discussion in 'World Events' started by ExposingAmericanLies, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Your concerns are real and valid. But when you become a soldier, then this is a risk you face when you join up. And sadly, it is something that their loved ones have to become accustomed to. I have two very close friends in the US Air Force. Both are married with very young children. I also have a very very close and personal friend in the Australian Air Force, who is just now back from Afghanistan. His job was to remove landmines. During the time of his deployment, his wife virtually lost a quarter of her body weight from the stress of his being there and rightly so. We held her hand each time she bawled her eyes out and we were there with her when she gave birth to their son while he was overseas. When your spouse or child or sibling or parent is deployed, it leaves you with a life of pain and stress. But it is their job. As callous as that sounds, it is their job. It is why they signed up in the first place. And sadly, their lot in life is to deploy and is to sometimes be the boots on the ground and sometimes, they will have to do that for peacekeeping reasons and frankly, I think deployment to stop a mass murderer from continuing to use his chemical weapons is a noble reason to serve.

    I was chatting to my friend in the US air force last night and we were talking about the issues in Syria and whether Kerry is correct to be so cautious about not guaranteeing that there won't be boots on the ground. And frankly, his response interested me and it is why I asked you what I did... Because as he sees it, in this situation, you can never make any guarantees or promises, because if things ever go sour and there is a risk or threat of those weapons falling into the wrong hands, then someone has to go in there to secure it. And we need to ask ourselves. Who would we want to secure it? Should we trust Assad who is affiliated and is currently getting help from Hezbollah and Iran? No. Because if he looks to be losing, he will get desperate enough to use more of it. As it stands, the Hezbollah have already said that he "lost his nerve" and used Sarin gas. So would we rather they take control of it? Since they are fighting with Assad against the rebels at present? Would we be comfortable that if Assad falls, that they then go in and relieve him of his stockpiles?

    The irony of this whole debate is that we are protesting about other countries, primarily the US and the West now looking to interfere in the civil war in Syria. The truth of the matter is, Russia, Iran, Lebanon have had their hands in it from the start, providing financial, military support and providing Assad with the weapons he needs to fight his war. The West have not lifted a finger to help the rebel fighters. I posted an article earlier in the thread, about how perhaps we should have intervened right from the start, when he first started shooting and murdering civilians who were protesting peacefully and demanding democratic elections. Had we done so then, then we would not be in this mess.

    At the end of the day, Quinnsong, we all need to ask ourselves, which boots would we be more comfortable being on the ground if Assad falls and the chemical weapons are there for the taking. Our boots or Hezbollah, Iran, parts of the rebels who have given support to Al Qaeda or Russia?

    And we also need to ask ourselves one more important question. If we do nothing now, if we do not respond to such a gross and illegal act, it could result in chemical weapons becoming a part of conventional warfare, because the Convention that demands it never be used would be worth nothing, because we ignored its usage. And is that something we are comfortable with?


    Everything points to him. All evidence points to him, from the amount used to the weapons used. We also have the Hezbollah (who are fighting with him in Syria) telling Iran that he did it. Sometimes it is the butler in the dining room with candlestick. In other words, sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.

    Chemical weapons degrade very quickly. Shelling the site repeatedly (as he did) immediately after the use of those weapons would help destroy the evidence and help it degrade faster. And the use, dosage and delivery all points to Syria because the rebels do not have the capacity to produce, refine and use Sarin in that capacity.

    Understand now?

    I had read a report where Russia advised that one of their scientists had advised that Sarin was used. However the arguments to counter their reports (which your own links provided) and the bizarre claims they made were more compelling. Then we also have the fact that even the Hezbollah have confirmed that he lost his nerve and used chemical weapons.

    It has a very short shelf life and once out in the environment, it degrades very quickly.

    Which is why Assad stopped UN inspectors from accessing the site immediately, and instead shelled the bejesus out of it.

    I think one would have to be very naive to think that they are not trying to build one.

    People seem to be under the belief that the rebel and opposition forces are made up solely of Islamists. The reality is that it is made up of mostly armed forces personnel who defected and civilians who took up the fight when Assad first started to kill them when they protested peacefully. There is an Islamist faction amongst the rebels, but I think people are putting too much emphasis on them. There are more moderates fighting on the oppositions side than there are Islamists and the Islamists are also fighting for their say, but somehow, I doubt they will have much of a say in the end.

    All intelligence organisations have clearly pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity to produce the WMD's. Unless they got into a stockpile, but had they done so, then Assad and Russia would have been pitching a fit in public. And there is no evidence that they have done so. So..

    All intelligence, evidence, independent sources point to Assad. From the mortar's used, to the chemicals he used to even confirmation from the group that is helping him in this war. You know, if it quacks, looks and walks like a duck, it is usually a duck and not a chicken.

    Actually, it is not. There is a belief that his opposition are all Islamists. They actually are not.

    We haven't attacked yet, have we?

    Oh please, Jones clearly argues that the US has a hand in the bombings. Even what you linked.. And the words you used..

    By which point Eram pointed out that you were a conspiracy nut.

    Whereupon you then switched back to your conspiracy about the Saudi university student, even as they were hunting for the brothers involved in the bombing.. My favourite moment was when you cited Shoebat.. Ah classic conspiracy theory moment there. You were in your prime at that point... By the next page, people were clearly questioning whether you were rational or not.

    Suffice to say, it was not your finest moment.


    And this matters why?

    If they were aligned with the Islamists, does it make gassing them in their homes more acceptable?

    Does it make it more palatable to you if the political allegiances were with the rebels?

    Has the West become so accustomed to daily violence that Assad can now expect Western politicians to look the other way when small children die after suffering muscle convulsions, tears shooting from their eyes and foam from their noses and mouths?

    Can we look away when we see the small girl from a Damascus suburb, in a T-shirt embroidered with glittering thread, captured in an image so heartbreaking SPIEGEL decided to show only a suggestion of the brutality of her death on its cover?

    Is this more fucking acceptable to you if that small girl is an Islamist?

    It has been about that long.

    Think again. You are asking what were the political allegiances of the area struck with chemical weapons as though that fucking matters. As for your "blackwater types".. Refer to the quoted parts of your comments above.

    J'aime bien comment vous pensez que je ne lis pas Français.

    I really appreciate how you have read this for me and told me what it says. Sadly, you left out a very crucial part. In your assumption that I cannot read French, you claim that the French reports alleges conventional aerial attacks only. And yet, in the same sentence that it mentions conventional weapons, it also advises that Assad used a very large amount of chemical weapons. On a side note, GeoffP, French was my first language.

    It was virtually on the first page of the text of the report (last paragraph on page 2).

    In French:

    L’analyse des renseignements dont nous disposons aujourd’hui conduit à estimer que, le 21 août 2013, le régime syrien a lancé une attaque sur certains quartiers de la banlieue de Damas tenus par les unités de l’opposition, associant moyens conventionnels et usage massif d’agents chimiques.

    In English:

    The analysis of information that we have today leads us to believe that on 21 August 2013 the Syrian regime launched an attack on certain areas of the Damascus suburbs held by opposition units, using a combination of conventional weapons and the massive use of chemical weapons.

    Emphasis mine.

    Since you can pitch that you believe that I do not read French, care to explain to me, how since you know, you can read French and that you read it, how it is possible you missed this crucial line about "the massive use of chemical weapons"? Especially when it is in the exact same sentence as the conventional weapons you claim the French said they had only used?


    Or did you think that I could not read French, and thus, would simply not know exactly what the French report actually said and so you tried to claim that they had said "conventional aerial weapons only" and I would not know any differently, since, "as you know, it's not your style"?

    You claim to be a scientist. Aren't there rules about misinterpreting and misrepresenting data in studies? The reason I ask is because you admitted to reading French, gloated that I do not read French, and then deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted the French document I linked you when it clearly states that Assad had used chemical weapons in the exact same sentence that you commented on in regards to their conventional weapons? So you either lied about your ability to read French or you deliberately lied about what you had read, under the mistaken belief that I could not read French to check what you were saying. How sad for you that I am a native French speaker.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And considering you were asking what the political allegiance of the area he bombed with chemical weapons, you'll excuse me if I point out that your words in this thread have been callous, uncaring and yes, points to the fact that you are not happy if the West responds because the opposition has some Islamists amongst their midst. I mean really, how can you even ask what the political allegiance of the area struck is? What does that fucking matter? So yes, I will ask whether you missed the short bus, because your manner of posting on this site sometimes demands it.

    Aye. Mother Russia will be proud of your subservience.

    My suggestion, learn to read and learn to not ask dumbarse questions that result in my thinking you are a fuck-knuckle.. Questions such as asking what the political allegiance of the area struck is, because what that does it show that you seem to think that actually matters.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    CptBork, reasonable and rational. I can do that.

    My point from the onset of this thread - Post #34 - "wegs, have you looked into who actually "owns" the "networks from the West"? Can you honestly not see that the "networks from the West" are, indeed, heavily biased?"..."The real truth exists. The smoke and mirrors exist - talking heads...mouthpieces...bullet points...cries of conspiracy theorist...mis-information...dis-information...propaganda - these are a few of the "smoke and mirrors" that the "owners" use to disseminate the "truth" that they prefer we believe..."

    You had made, basically the same points about other media outlets - I was trying to get across that the same is happening with all media outlets. The same people who own the major media in the U.S. also own a large portion of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex - G.E., Westinghouse, Raytheon... The Boards of Directors of quite a few Companies/Corporations in the U.S. set in chairs of quite a few others. The "Uber" rich of the world have a vested interest in many different "areas".

    Very early on, you were mentioning why not to give "validity" or to trust certain "sources" of information. we seemed to be in agreement!?

    CptBork, at this point in this Post, I have to mention something that you will probably not like :
    I had read this Thread from the OP and seemed to detect, repeat I, dmoe, seemed to detect a marked "heavy sarcasm" in your response to some Posts and Posters. Can you accept that ?

    At any rate, not all pertinent information is available on Wiki or Better homes an Gardens. Especially when it is information that someone does not necessarily want to be common knowledge.
    For example the link, that I Copied and Pasted from another Poster on this forum, in Post #608 - that you went on to reasonably and rationally review in your Post #618 - is not about the source - but the content.
    The validity of the information or the message takes precedence over the messenger - can you understand that?

    Hey, CptBork, it is very late for me and I am not currently in the greatest of health (recuperating from a lengthy hospital stay) so if you do not mind I would like to close for now.

    I would very much like to continue to have reasonable and rational discussions with you, it seems that when you choose to, you can be very pleasant. (I read probably 30 times more Threads than I post in)

    If you get the chance, read my other Postings and try to get some insight from them - I do not type very well or very fast and I would hate to re-explain all of the explaining I have done over the last few days because of a...shall we say a Poster that preferred to shout louder than me and use some inflaming tactics that caused some ensuing collateral attacks.

    BTW - I am not an anti-Semite.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    There are people on here very willing to sacrifice other people's lives for their high principles.
    Armchair Generals.
    "Boots on the Ground" euphemism for "Dead bodies in the Ground"

    For your more extreme racist, Irish are Jews too. Lost tribe of Dan.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Would you count me in that group? I consider myself neutral on the issue provided you're neutral on Israel's right to self-defense. If you don't care enough about 120,000+ dead Syrians to want forceful action taken to stop the conflict, then I expect you also won't care enough to intervene for Shia Lebanese civilians killed next to the guerrilla fighters they shelter if those same fighters attack Israelis next, as they've been openly threatening for years. There's no such thing as proportionality when a nation defends itself against the unprovoked military aggression of radical Islamic hatemongers. Sound fair?

    I just learned about British Israelism for the first time yesterday when I was looking up details about Jeff Rense. What a hilarious crock. First a nation persecutes and discriminates against Jews for centuries, only to then proclaim themselves the real Jews as justification for conquering the planet (or in Ireland's case, presumably conquering North America and screaming at Britain about "stolen" Celtic lands).
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict.
    It's probably coming soon, so we'll find out for sure won't we?
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Like I say, I respect your opinions and can't forcefully argue against them. No one should be forced into this war against their will or choose to enter it without a plan and the willingness to take a fair share of the responsibility for whatever doesn't go according to plan. My expectation is that Israel will be attacked on a large scale at some point, one way or another, and regardless of the outcome in the present Israeli-Palestinian negotiations- either when Assad finds himself decisively losing and attempts a desperate ploy to unite the Muslim sects behind him, or after Assad completes his victory and Iran's axis has consolidated its control over Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. I don't want to see another repeat of the 2006 conflict- if the destruction of that war wasn't sufficient to deter Hezbollah, then the next war needs to be the last one it will be able to fight for a very long time.

    Frankly though, with Israel out of the equation, would you still reject a military intervention if Assad does indeed look to lose, and he starts gassing his whole country in desperation?
  10. p-brane Registered Senior Member

    Nice try Hitler. Welcome to my ignore list.
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Military intervention, if done at all, should be by UN forces.
    American solutions, through recent history, have caused more harm than good.
    Their school report would read:
    Bombing skills, B+.
    Planning ahead, E-
  12. Bells Staff Member

    How many times must you be asked to stop posting this crap?

    No, really. How many times?
  13. Bells Staff Member

    And yet, you don't whine about the intervention and involvement (from the start of this civil war) from the Russians, Hezbollah and Iran.

    For example, the death toll would be far less had Russia not armed Assad. And yet, any attempt by the world community to get Putin to stop selling Assad arms has fallen on death ears and any attempt to get him to stop in the UN is met with Russia's veto power.

    In other words, the boots on the ground in Syria at the moment consist of Russia's boots and Hezbollah's boots. You aren't complaining about them. You don't complain or bitch about their intervention and involvement in this conflict, which has resulted in chemical weapons being used.

    Oh no, instead, you are whining that the West wants to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Because if Assad (with Russia and Hezbollah's help) kills innocent civilians, then it's okay. You aren't concerned about those boots on the ground. You're more concerned that the US wants to have targeted strikes against Assad for using chemical weapons and you are whining about any possible deaths from that. Fuck the actual deaths from the war at present and the deaths which have arisen because of Russia's and Hezbollah's help. No, you are more concerned about hypothetical deaths that may rise if the US strikes Syria.

    I think that is more sickening.

    Why are you encouraging his racist ideology?

    Exactly what Putin says. Right before he sells them more arms. Funny that, huh?

    Because the countries saying "forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict" have been the countries to gain from this conflict. And Russia is getting rich off it. When the world demanded he stop selling Assad weapons, he refused and sold him more. And this was at the start, when Assad was shooting up peaceful protesters.

    If what you say is true, then to truly stop the conflict, Russia should be stopping all arms sales to Syria. But it is not. But you don't complain about that. You don't complain about the actual loss of life from Russia's intervention in this civil war. Or don't you think supplying weapons to Syria is forceful action enough to warrant your notice? Hell, you don't think using chemical weapons is worthy of consideration or forceful enough to warrant action.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    How would a UN military intervention be any different than a coalition of the willing? If Britain doesn't want to get involved on grounds of risk to its troops or lack of moral clarity, why would a UN vote suddenly change that? I assume you care more about dead Syrian protesters than Russia's hurt feelings, so how do you think a UN action would differ from a US-led initiative? Who has a better track record than the US when it comes to humanitarian military interventions? Would you consider the Korean, Kosovo and Bosnian wars as US failures too?

    Frankly I'm just thinking your position was more rationally justifiable when you left it at "no military intervention, period". I doubt you believe Russian and Chinese approval is what makes the difference between a moral action vs. an immoral one.
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    I read your earlier post about Russia's military industrial interest in supporting Assad, but I don't see how the profits could truly motivate Russia's backing. Russia has a GDP of 1.7 trillion USD per year, whereas arms sales to Syria are something on the order of $2 billion annually, chump change by comparison. Besides, the Saudis just recently offered a much bigger weapons contract, future trade ties and promises that Saudi oil won't compete for Russia's market share, in exchange for breaking ties with the Iran axis, and it was brushed off within the same day. Since Al Qaeda was only a marginal player at the onset, I can only fathom the support for Assad as part of Russia's Cold War mentality, that it seeks prestige and influence in the Middle East at the expense of America's influence, and is willing to support whoever for whatever reason in order to obtain it. Better hundreds of thousands of Arabs die than have America appearing mightier and more popular than the Slavs.

    Edit: All the same, Russia's now claiming they'll support limited action against Assad if they see adequate proof he conducted the chemical attacks. I really hope they're sincere about this and that all necessary proof can be furnished to them without having them tip off Assad's intelligence services.
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Because it would exclude coalitions acting in their own interests.
    Assad's troops are fighting against a whole variety of other groups, some of which are Islamists.

    Were it the case that Assad was pro-American, neutral to Israel, Anti-Russian and anti-Iranian,
    would the groups fighting against Assad would be termed "Terrorists" or Freedom Fighters" ?
  17. Bells Staff Member

    I had posted something earlier about just how much it is.

    But you are correct. It is not the only reason. When you factor in the fact that Syria gives Russia a port in the Mediterranean Sea (so much so that they have a naval base there), it is for Russia's personal interest that Assad remains in power.. One of the most important factors in the twisted relationship is that Assad provides Putin and Russia the influence it desires in the region (so you are correct in that as well). If Assad goes, so too goes Russia's voice and influence in the region.

    When the West attempted a diplomatic response at the beginning of this conflict, they were vetoed in the UNSC. I guess Russia wants the glory and all the powerplays must come from it.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    If the US were acting on behalf of its own interests in Syria, then they would have intervened about 2 years ago, instead of letting this civil war drag on to the point where Assad is gassing his populace with chemical weapons.

    You again disregard Russia's interests in all of this. Why is that?

    Why are you so against the West wanting to respond to the use of chemical weapons, so much so that you accuse them of acting on their interests (an idiotic argument considering how the West has not intervened at all until the desire to do so now since Assad used chemical weapons), but you don't seem to have a problem with Russia's self interest in this conflict?

    Some of the groups fighting with the rebels are already called terrorists. Or did that escape your notice?

    You seem to not understand something very basic here. Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Even if he was pro-American, etc, it would be beside the point.
  19. quinnsong Valued Senior Member


    How does Putin sleep at night or anyone else that uses the bloodshed of others as an opportunity to sell arms, to gain glory or the power that comes with it? Right now it is Putin, tomorrow it May be America doing the same exact thing. Is being a sociopath a requirement for running a country? I am sickened by all of it.
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    I agree with that.

    agree here, too, Bells.

    My vacillation with regards to whether I feel the US should strike Syria in response to the chemical attacks, mainly was due to not having conclusive evidence that Assad’s regime was behind the attacks. That said, it would seem that the closest we can come to having solid evidence has passed, and my belief now in Assad being behind the attack, comes in the form of ruling out that rebels could have had the means (which has been speculated) to carry out such an attack. (not impossible for them, but unlikely in this case)

    My concern now though is…this is going to lead to a war between the US and Iran. It’s very scary to think of this, because Iran is a potentially strong contender, and the threat of them reacting to a US strike against Syria, should be taken seriously. Add Russia into the mix, and it’s the perfect storm. Should Russia get involved and Iran, this will turn into a major war, and the US will be in it for the long haul. (my opinion)

    And this begs the question…If the US strikes Syria or not…will the US still end up in a major conflict with Iran? In my mind’s eye, the answer is yes…it’s just a matter of when and for how long. In other words…I think there’s no way out of going to war with Iran.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    That's hilarious. With Russia and China vetoing everything, nothing would ever happen.
  22. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    It's not just Russia and China who are against the war with Syria. Germany and Britain have also voiced against war with Syria at G20 meeting. And that is what U.N. is for, a mission of which is to come to a unilateral decision between its parties, and not be biased to ANY PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR ALLIANCES.
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    You look through Star and Stripe tinted spectacles.
    What proportion of the vetoes do you suppose are by the United States?

    Yes, selfish states are gradually turning the UN into another League of Nations,
    but the US is doing more than its fair share towards that end.

Share This Page