Syria

One of the more apalling aspects of this conflict is how much it resembles a Cold War flashpoint. External powers supplying rebel/government forces with aid but not entering themselves or providing any meaningful direct military support.

Not that I blame them. This thing would go down worse than Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo combined.. still might..

Maybe I've come a little late to conversation, but I don't think getting heated over the topic of religion is going to help this discussion, this conflict or any discussion/conflict ever. I recognise the big part religion has with this war (i.e. politico-religious-ethnic(?) sectarianism within Syria that led to the conflict in the first place), but it is further making the situation worse for the rebels. More fundamentalists are getting involved in the fighting and this is making many of the external powers and interest groups less inclined to help. In fact, the last UN vote saw less 'Yes' votes for a motion against Syria (i.e. angry letter), same amount of 'No' votes, but I think the point is that many countries are positioning themselves for a post-war Syria with Assad still in place. Is this because they don't think the rebels will win and want to distance themselves politically? Or are they concerned that if the rebels win what will be left will be a lawless moonscape run by religious fundamentalists? Maybe both?

Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the worst. Last I saw the estimated civilian deaths in Syria are over 90,000 in 2 years... compared with civilian deaths in Iraq for the last 10 years at around 115,000... and no end in sight. Just more hatred, more killing, more futures and lives wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

ah! it doesnt matter its your Islamic trait! its your answer to any objection and Criticism of islam!! because you know you dont have anything, then you offense and assault and excommunicate !! but i dont know in where i have even Spoke about islam, and i just asked, that your hatred goes upper than aerosphere!!

but anyway. if in Islamic Opinion and Beliefs, im heretic and Murtad, so yes im proud to have solace in your so called hell!! i die happy in Humans Freedom and Peace !!

---

yeesh I know English isn't your first language but you really need to learn sarcasm - ACIN was baiting you with a blatantly outrageous statement to get the response you gave him... calm down a little

back on to Syria - I see there are reports that Shia fighters from Iraq have been crossing the border and joining the Pro Assad militias... unofficial sources say "thousands" but I am guessing they are exaggerating...

Not a promising development... it is only going to get worse if foreign fighters start getting involved for purely religious reasons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

yeesh I know English isn't your first language but you really need to learn sarcasm - ACIN was baiting you with a blatantly outrageous statement to get the response you gave him... calm down a little

---

yea !! i didnt continue english for almost 8 years! and thats pretty lots of years to forget english, if no i hadnt Kurdish-English Dictionary, i couldnt post!!!! can i ask why your language is so complicated and hard!!!!!! what is this language!! i wish German was a universal language, i know german is very hard, but at least doesnt have exceptions in any situations like English!! why the world should obey the colonization of the British New World Order !!!

Hey Be Coooool!! Dont Be Angry !! i was just Joking !!!!! ~:)

but i dont know where i have responsed furiously ?!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

Hey Be Coooool!! Dont Be Angry !! i was just Joking !!!!! ~:)

but i dont know where i have responsed furiously ?!!

---

Don't worry you don't come across as angry just... enthusiastic... very enthusiastic.

Helpful guide to the players courtesy of The Economist:

https://i.imgur.com/EIKj670.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

can i ask why your language is so complicated and hard!!!!!! what is this language!! i wish German was a universal language, i know german is very hard, but at least doesnt have exceptions in any situations like English!! why the world should obey the colonization of the British New World Order !!!

---

It's due to the history of the English people. It started off similarly to (old) German, but was heavily corrupted at the root level by the major players in English history, most notably the Normans and the Norse. As a result, it developed a pattern of absorbing foreign words at an unusually high rate, and has continually added in new words and grammatical rules from many other languages right up to the present day. As a result, English has some basic rules, but also an incredibly large number of exceptions that result from about a millennium of foreign influence. It is thus one of the most international languages in the world, in that it contains elements from many different cultures. Unfortunately, this makes it extremely counter-intuitive and confusing for people learning it as a second language. It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

---

It is more the American dominance in the world stage, but you could count that as an extension of British Colonialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Helpful guide to the players courtesy of The Economist:

---

First thing that comes to mind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

It is more the American dominance in the world stage, but you could count that as an extension of British Colonialism.

---

I disagree. Certainly American post-WW2 dominance has helped solidify it, but English had already taken a heavy lead prior to that date. For obvious reasons, English became the dominant language of business and government in all British colonies. Most notably, this included significant portions of Africa and Asia. Its impact was particularly significant in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, all of which contained so many native languages that communication was already a significant issue. The use of English by the British rulers of those areas gave all of those peoples a single language to learn to succeed at the highest levels of those societies and, as a result, the language was adopted by the powerful and influential in many of those nations. It remained in use for those purposes even after the British pulled out, simply because a common language was immensely useful. You certainly cannot cite US influence as the cause of the dominance of English in India in 1947.

The fact is that English was already entrenched across the globe at the end of WW2, before American influence propelled it further. I would agree that it likely would not have spread as fast without US influence, but I think it still would have become the global common language even without it. The development of a common language was inevitable once globalization began, and the common language that was chosen was always going to be the most wide-spread language at the time that that movement began. That language was clearly English right from the start of the 20th Century, and that was entirely due to the British. If you want to alter the timeline and have another language develop as the global common language, I think you would have to go back in time and have France win the Napoleonic Wars or something similar.

Wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself... sure the US economy and manufactoring was something to behold and North American culture was growing in its dominance from that period, but I think fundamental political and economic practises were (and are) still very different. One of the key differences is the socialistic leanings of most European governments, which is definitely NOT how USA turned out... I think its a pity that they didn't put all that wealth and prosperity of the post-war period into establishing a solid social support structure (though plenty were trying at the time). It would have been one of things you look back on and couldn't think of how you would have done without it... reality is different of course..

Hmm... I think a fair few people may disagree with the notion that Europe was rebuilt by the US army... You may have a case for Berlin (part of it anyway) but there's much more to Europe than that one city and I'd disagree with you on the idea in general...
The concept that America single-handedly saved Europe from the Nazis is really only perpetuated in American culture. If one were to make such black and white projections of history one would conclude that America AND Russia saved the rest of Europe, but I doubt that would get much traction in the US and I also think its more complicated than that.

Nonetheless, I live in Australia and we have universal healthcare, free schools, welfare for the unemployed, disabled and other disadvantaged groups, etc., etc. and as far as I know we didn't need the US army to do help us do that... not to mention every other country in the world that manages to provide social support for its citizens without turning it into a hysterical politcal issue...

This does raise an interesting point when considering Syria. What is the likely outcome of a larger organised force entering now, like UN or NATO? Who would they fight? What would be the legal framework for action at this point? Personally, I can't see any ethical or legal reasons to support any of the players in this conflict. And that may well be how it turns out... continue until no one is left standing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

It's due to the history of the English people. It started off similarly to (old) German, but was heavily corrupted at the root level by the major players in English history, most notably the Normans and the Norse. As a result, it developed a pattern of absorbing foreign words at an unusually high rate, and has continually added in new words and grammatical rules from many other languages right up to the present day. As a result, English has some basic rules, but also an incredibly large number of exceptions that result from about a millennium of foreign influence. It is thus one of the most international languages in the world, in that it contains elements from many different cultures. Unfortunately, this makes it extremely counter-intuitive and confusing for people learning it as a second language. It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

---

yes your right ! but i again think German or anyother must have benn International 1st language !! now i could have conversation with you very easily!!!!! and your right again! the british shimed the way and USA asphalted it! im just surprised how those british imposed & Inflicted those poor Indians & Africans to forcibly learn that hard english!! its just too much unjustice!! but i can see The USA too is continuing that way too but in a more smoothy way, like for example, HOLLYWOOD !! The Great controled Culture Changer of makind!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gedingradski

Hmm... I think a fair few people may disagree with the notion that Europe was rebuilt by the US army... You may have a case for Berlin (part of it anyway) but there's much more to Europe than that one city and I'd disagree with you on the idea in general...
The concept that America single-handedly saved Europe from the Nazis is really only perpetuated in American culture. If one were to make such black and white projections of history one would conclude that America AND Russia saved the rest of Europe, but I doubt that would get much traction in the US and I also think its more complicated than that.
This does raise an interesting point when considering Syria. What is the likely outcome of a larger organised force entering now, like UN or NATO? Who would they fight? What would be the legal framework for action at this point? Personally, I can't see any ethical or legal reasons to support any of the players in this conflict. And that may well be how it turns out... continue until no one is left standing...

---

Imperialists, They loved the war to be started (USA & BRITISH) to fulfill another of their important phases to create NEW WORLD ORDER not only in Europe but in the world and specially creating USA !! we see the transfering of supreme power from old Imperialist bitain to new Imperialist USA!! and why i said specially Israel?! because the next supreme power that must be transfered from USA to them, maybe its Israel when that time we have The Unite and One Money in The World and thats Electronic money that its distributor is MONDEX Smartacrds that is in all of advanced countries, when that BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!! (You Can Google, VERCHIP or Mondex Smartcards).

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

...BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!!...

---

..not gonna touch that one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!:rolleyes:

---

While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

I Mean criticism of ISLAM!! not Muslims!! Muslims are Hypnotized by Kuran !! They have no Fault !!



yea, its strange that european governments despite dont like Islam because they bother europe, but they let them do anything!!
but in any muslim country i mean all of them, cant tolerate NON-MUSLIMS!! i was an ex-muslim myself, and know better than any of you, how much their hatred is high!! but good thing is Muslim Kurds are somehow not REAL MUSLIM!!, i mean they dont hate non-muslims and will not kill,stone,or suicide bombing!!!(Except some Damn fooled Extremist)
and........many needs discussion!

and i dont know do what Rhyfelwyr says or drone??!!!

---

I meant on this site, if you keep it civilised you can get away with almost anything. I went too far a few times and got a few warnings for being too offensive but it never got me into trouble

The West is probably just happy this is "Russia's baby". The veto blocks any Security Council sanctioned actions (one bullet dodged) and there is just no compelling reason for unilateral action.

With the divisions, Russia just might be on the right side policy-wise; back the existing regime and hope for a return to stability or prop them up long enough for everyone to get sick of killing each other.

I wish the Syrian people peace and prosperity; I just don't see how any external power can stop the bloodbath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gedingradski

..not gonna touch that one...



While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

---

all good reasons however there is another reason we haven't got involved - the Syrian Army isn't antiquated

Libya had horrifically out of date air defenses and thus we had pretty much air dominance once the pathetically small air force was crushed

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

---

Yes, excellent point. I doubt anyone wants to get too aquianted with modern Russian AA defense systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I meant on this site, if you keep it civilised you can get away with almost anything. I went too far a few times and got a few warnings for being too offensive but it never got me into trouble

---

do you have proofs and reasons to criticize Islam?! you know, Islam is much more complicated than you think, if dont have anything to say, then you can easily convert to Islam!! because it is too much powerful than Christianity!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gedingradski

..not gonna touch that one...



While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

---

good proofs, actually i brought Qazzafi knew some secrets, i Quoted from an Arab jurnalist in Al Jazeera English, but while some of your proofs are right, but for many you just see the Apearances! of course im not Mossad to bring you the classified and top secrets of Nato EU UN & and imperialists like USA & Britain.
but it needs a little thinkink and researching about many things, they are all in a way of New World Order, you believe it or not, they are doing their work, but of course war in Syria has too much profits for USA & Nato & Israel!! how they sell their old fashioned guns!!(like the LORD movie!!) and of course to more weaken Islamic Republic of Iran, and then the raising of a SuperPower Israel!! so the New World Order will go much Further!! if they wanted to invade Syria they could! like Iraq & Afghanistan & etc they. they want to fix the problem slowly and undirectly. because they have taughted lesson from Iraqs War's Consequences. the fact is, when they comfortably think what has the most benefits for them to do, in that coursed land, the apart from men, children and women are suffering a beautiful hell that no one except Kurds suffered in history!!
in the end, they dont want freedom for people, they just see where & what has the most profits & Benefits!! yes!! its an Imperialistic Trait !!

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm not entirely convinced that Empire, Truth, and Relism aren't all just the same troll, myself. :shrug:

---

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

---

hey whats going on in here !?!?!? who's Total Relism ?!?!? please somebody explain for me !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

who's Total Relism ?!?!?

---

Some Turk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Some Turk.

---

a Catholic Turk ?!!!!!
and whats that with my name ?!

Looks like Syrian forces in conjunction with Hezbollah have recaptured the city of Qusair. Geez, never in my life did I think I'd ever support a military operation conducted by Hezbollah, yet here I am. Go Bashar! Crush those rebels.

If anyone can explain this I'd apreciate it, I am absolutily lost

Lost in what sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

---

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Lost in what sense?

---

The 'I absolutely have no idea what's happening right now' variation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

---

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.

Quote:

---

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

---

Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.

Quote:

---

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

---

It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.

Quote:

---

Assad's finished, long term...

---

People have been saying this for a year and a half now.

Quote:

---

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

---

I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.