Syria

Article
Seems that both the government and the rebels are accusing each other of carrying out the attack near Aleppo. I'm inclined to believe it was the government, because I don't see how the rebels could get their hands the gas. Plus Assad has fired scuds at civilian areas before. This just goes to show that he would sooner let Syria burn before handing over power.

Well shit. There's no staying out of this one now. Iraq 2.0 here we come.

Afghanistan 3.0
Vietnam 95?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Afghanistan 3.0
Vietnam 95?

---

What?

Could be a chlorine acid bomb - that would burn out the lungs of those nearby and cause generalised breathing problems for anyone who breathed it in by scaring their lungs.

That would be within the abilities of the rebels - in any case the failure of the West to intervene has resulted in the Rebels becoming as bad as Assad, a point I made two years ago. We should have crushed Assad 18 months ago.

So - yay us - all moral in not escalating the conflict.

They could have tried to cook Meth to fund the effort and messed up, creating mustard gas. Being honest, there are lots of 'low tech' technologies which are effective.

Horrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Well shit. There's no staying out of this one now. Iraq 2.0 here we come.

---

I'm sure we'll think of some way to excuse ourselves from our promise. Given that the origin is disputed, we could claim that we don't have enough information to actually go in.

I'm not sure I want us to stay out.

Has any of this stuff about a chemical attack been substantiated? Last I heard, it was a lot of "he anthraxed/she anthraxed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Has any of this stuff about a chemical attack been substantiated? Last I heard, it was a lot of "he anthraxed/she anthraxed."

---

Probably a case of premature inoculation.

Hmm could be that it was neither Assad or the FSA but Hizbullah instead, strategically for them it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I'm not sure I want us to stay out.

---

Why? Do you feel it is the business of the West to get involved because we are the rich and moral West?

I did say I'm not sure.
On the one hand: Assad's evil and noone else is/will, on the other hand: Iraq 2.0

Those are very strange usages of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'.

Let me take a stab at this.

From an outside point-of-view the facts that matter are cherry-picked and give a neat clean solution.

On the ground, history, bad-blood, rumor, innuendo and feelings change the facts that matter; the perception of the situation might be unrecognizable to an outside observer.

Another way of putting it would be that we're used to living by rules, and if the west has a uniform religion, it is a belief in the rule of law. We don't believe in personalising justice, which usually results in different standards understood by everyone, and bad blood where one different understanding clashes with another. We have a depersonalised justice system that's reasonably uniform for everyone, and accepted by everyone. So everyone gets on with life within these limits, and there is little danger of things going beyond these limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Why? Do you feel it is the business of the West to get involved because we are the rich and moral West?

---

About time we stayed out of other countries. It only leads to our lads dying pointlessly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

About time we stayed out of other countries. It only leads to our lads dying pointlessly.

---

...and lasses now as well, let's not be sexist.

We should totally intervene because I heard he has so much mustard gas that when we take it over we can use it to pay for the war itself. I love mustard, especially on hot dogs and biscuits, sign me up for 5 bottles.

Also we should do it for Israel, in gratitude for all the things they have done for us, like bagels and Natalie Portman.

The frenzied interventionism that characterized the Western foreign policy of the last decade is an almost natural extension of the "right of interference" concept developed by Kouchner in the 80s-90s. I must say that I was seduced by the idea. I participated in a symposium at the University of Law of Aix en Provence to discuss it.
This is only later, confronted with the problem(s) in Yugoslavia that I began to doubt. I saw live how the 'good' were chosen, and the 'baddies' referred to the mob. The reality is that the “right” of intervention is neither more nor less than the direct heir of the gunboat policy.
To mention only the French examples, we invaded and colonized Congo to free the slaves (noble cause if it was), the Viet Nam to protect the Catholic minorities oppressed by the Emperor of Annam, and finally a large part of Africa to free the peoples of their tyrants and replace it with an administration that will sell the workforce to mining and forestry companies (In short). I will add the expedition to Mexico by Napoleon III for non-repayment of debt (Cyprus should beware) and regime change. The only result will be the battle of Camerón, who will become one of the Founder Myth of the Foreign Legion. So, we can say that, as early as the 19th century, we had the instruments, models, to justify our intervention:
- Human Rights,
- Minorities Right,
- Democratization and Regime Change,
- Higher interests of the nation.

The example of Syria and Assad follows the pattern already in use. No one questions why some people choose to support a dictator or a tyrant. Because the answer would be that others (the goods) want to kill them, as they did in the past. The Alawis (not considered as Muslims) are allied with those who protected them from their killers, as the Assyro-Chaldeans teamed up to Saddam. Less dramatic but just as real, the Jewish and Protestant France communities are fundamentally Republican because they were more than abused by the monarchy.
How we refer to the good, ignoring the recent past, leads to a race to the media popularity by lynching, and win the one with the best communication. The counterpart of this process is the 'demonization' of the 'baddies '. This will be well reinforced by Judeo-Christian morality, in which the victim is always perceived as innocent, and therefore the villain an abject executioner without real legitimate claims... And to be sure of our good right, in an exercise in self-justification, we create a court such as The Hague, version modernized of the 'white man's burden ".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

True freedom is payed for in blood, and signed for with wisdom in victory.

---

I've heard and read comments (this is not my opinion) about this civil war in Syria that say something like this: "Thousands die = no freedom .. we sing few songs = freedom"

But I agree with you. If anyone interferes things might(and probably will) turn worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

True freedom is payed for in blood, and signed for with wisdom in victory.

---

the other way of thinking is

"the altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood," Daniel O'Connell (6 August 1775 – 15 May 1847)

Quote:

---

in which the victim is always perceived as innocent,

---

Except where it concerns rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

the other way of thinking is

"the altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood," Daniel O'Connell (6 August 1775 – 15 May 1847)

---

Great man though he was, Dan didn't succeed. DeV and Collins did.


The tree must be refreshed with blood at times, but -- in this we agree -- it cannot be the only nutriment.

Wretched though they were.

It took a long time for Ireland to recover, and it's debatable that independence was best for Her in the long run.

The Big problem with Syria, though, is that most of the decent people are dead or embittered now. By supporting the Rebels in Libya we gave moderates some credibility (because they mobalised international firepower) and we prevented the entire populace from being drawn into the fighting, and thence brutalised. We should have done the same in Syria, but we didn't and now it's just not worth it.

Who here actually thinks that this situation will be anything other than a violent civil war that will result in the victory of the incumbent dictator or the victory of a new dictator?

“If anyone is going to intervene in Syria, I say we make France do it.” No no no no… If you want to do it, ask your usual best friend and the special relationship… In both case I am done as it would be either my family or pay with my taxes…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Awww, c'mon. You already did it to one of your ex colonies. What's another? :creep:

---

Yeah, all the cool nations are doing it. Don't you want to be cool too?

“You already did it to one of your ex colonies”: Rhaa, again a common misconception and deception propagated by the Anglo-Saxon Media …
France bombed Serbia (Kosovo), Bosnia (Serbs), followed in Afghanistan, Libya, and had numerous interventions in Arica, most of them without any backing or UN resolutions… And what did we get for it: Surrendering Cheese Eaters Monkeys… And all the very funny jokes, and freedom frites, wine poured in the gutters etc… So as the US and the special relationship country showed no gratitude to whatever France does to follow orders, ya basta, and that is it.

I say bring the boys home, and let the goods to do what mistakes they want without the Foreign Legion that could be better employed in restoring electricity (in France, when EDF was still the property of the ones who paid for it, the French Taxes Payers) and building roads and schools in Africa. If someone decides to help the Islamists to kill the non-Muslim in Syria (as they were doing before the Assad Dynasty), well, I say without France. In a Civil War, the winners are always the best equipped, and not always the good. Not that I support the Assad Dynasty…

Unfortunately, François III the Mou will probably follow as he has no idea what to do to resolved the climbing social crisis in France and will try to divert attention. The French are not know to go down quietly, and a record number of unemployed and poor in a Country that was never so rich (European Champion for Millionaires in USD) is a kind of situation, err, sensitive, in my country of birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I say bring the boys home, and let the goods to do what mistakes they want without the Foreign Legion that could be better employed in restoring electricity

---

Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.

“Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.”
It was. In fact, the Foreign Legion was created by the King to get read of immigrants… And it was not really popular as was completely useless (yes, even at these times)…

:yes:You are still living on old clichés pre and after WW2, about Germans (Pre: Anti-Nazi, after: former Nazi). And from when the French Government was shying away to spent the French Voters Blood (see WW1 and WW2 casualties list)? That is part of what left from the “bashing the French” campaign. The French do wars with foreigners… Yeah, right…

The French Foreign Legion (as there is a Spanish one, due to the gift from the French King to the Spanish King of half of the Legion), not being part of the “regular” French Army can be deployed without declaration of war and vote from the French Parliament… Reason why it still exist, probably… And now, the Legion is part of the French Culture, I suppose.
The Legion is the negative picture of the European Political Landscape: Italians, Germans around the WW2, Yugoslav in the 70, Brits, Americans and Irish in the 80, Yugoslav again in the 90…
I think it is the most filmed and romanticised unit in the World.

Quote:

---

I think it is the most filmed and romanticised unit in the World.

---

US Marines beat them on that score.

You have to admit that the sheer senselessness of the Legion's ethics and deeds is awesome, in the old sense of the word.

As for the contemporary legion, my impression was that it's mostly composed of Latin-Americans and Eastern Europeans...

“US Marines beat them on that score.” How and when?
When someone had his heart broken, does he join the US Marine? Nope. When you want to forget do you join the US Marines or the Legion? When Death wants to forget, did he join the Ktlachian Foreign Legion or the Klatchian Marine Corps? Did Indiana Jones join the US Marines (in the series)? Perhaps there are films and movies about the US Marines, but the Corps is not as romanticised as the Legion. You won’t find the equivalent of “Mon Légionnaire” song for the US Marines…
You might have more movies about US Marines but the Corps will still have to beat the Legion’s aura. Even foreign countries made movies about the Legion, only US does it for the US Marines…

The romanticisation of the US marines is only a phenomenon amoung their own countrymen, the legion is romantisized in all of europe and beyond.

What's hilarous is the number of Norwegians who join the Navy, thinking it's super-awesome because our names for "navy" and "marine" are the same("marinen").

Then they proceed to spend their conscript year on guard duty in front of a beached ship, occasionally getting to clean it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.”
It was. In fact, the Foreign Legion was created by the King to get read of immigrants… And it was not really popular as was completely useless (yes, even at these times)…

:yes:You are still living on old clichés pre and after WW2, about Germans (Pre: Anti-Nazi, after: former Nazi). And from when the French Government was shying away to spent the French Voters Blood (see WW1 and WW2 casualties list)? That is part of what left from the “bashing the French” campaign. The French do wars with foreigners… Yeah, right…

---

I was actually jokingly referring to the Legion's earliest days, when it was sent into Spain because the defence minister at the time (Soult?) saw it as a way to meet foreign policy commitments without upsetting the French voters. While later incarnations of the Legion weren't viewed quite so cynically as expendable cannon fodder, AFAIK they were still the front line in France's foreign adventures, probably for the same reason (the Legion can get sent anywhere without needing to consult too many bodies).

“I was actually jokingly referring to the Legion's earliest days, when it was sent into Spain because the defence minister at the time (Soult?) saw it as a way to meet foreign policy commitments without upsetting the French voters.” Err, Soult (Napoleon -1815), Foreign Legion (King Louis Philip - 1831) so not possible. And when did Napoleon was afraid to spill the blood of the French (who were not voting at the time)?
You might mix-up with his nephew Napoleon III.

However, the “German” Legion was only after WW2. So I am not sure I buy your explanation. I am sure it was a joke, but, probably not knowingly, you used the “bash the French” rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Marines are romanticized for no good reason at all. Much to the chagrin of everyone in the far larger and more active Army. Can't stand em.

---

I have a close friend who has been preparing to join the marines for like...5 years now? He spent two years at community college because he said it would give him better opportunities in the military to have some education than just high school. While working his part time job, he has been physically training himself so he can excel in the actual military. When he took that test all recruits take to determine what they are suited for (Just googled it, the ASVAB test), he did well enough that he had options. He plans on making the military his career and staying for 25+ years.

So what does he do after all that planning and hard work? He ends up getting the urge to join the marines as a grunt. His military adviser (a recruiter he became good friends with I think) told him to rethink that decision. But nope. It HAS to be the marines. And he HAS to start out as a grunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I was actually jokingly referring to the Legion's earliest days, when it was sent into Spain because the defence minister at the time (Soult?) saw it as a way to meet foreign policy commitments without upsetting the French voters.” Err, Soult (Napoleon -1815), Foreign Legion (King Louis Philip - 1831) so not possible. And when did Napoleon was afraid to spill the blood of the French (who were not voting at the time)?
You might mix-up with his nephew Napoleon III.

However, the “German” Legion was only after WW2. So I am not sure I buy your explanation. I am sure it was a joke, but, probably not knowingly, you used the “bash the French” rhetoric.

---

If it's bash the French, it was unknowing. The German bit was merely referring to the Legion's own preference, for a while, for Germans over other nationalities.

Just looking at the timelines, I could have remembered rightly after all. The Legion was sent to Spain in 1835 to join their war there, while Soult was Minister of War from 1830 to 1834.

Source

So, take your pick...

1) Israel's strikes are just what they are claimed to be, surgical efforts to remove weapons that threaten Israel's security.

2) Israel's limited efforts to ensure that Assad's government loses in the long run.

3) Israel's efforts as a proxy for US efforts to remove Assad from power without seeming to take sides in anothe arab conflict.

4) Provide you own alternative.


My current thoughts are a combo of 1 and 2 with the added benefit that Israel knows the US will be labeled as supporting the effort, at least on the arab street, edgin up the pressure for Obama to engage.

Seems pretty short term. Given their anti-missile batteries are pretty good.

Remove a possible small threat to unite multiple large ones.

I have absolutely no idea, I follow the news but I have no idea what's real and what's not, or who is who. Supposedly it was a weapon transport from Iran that was bombed, but who knows

Israel thinks the Islamists will succeed, so Israel remove weapons they will use or give or sell.

Of the options given, I would seriously doubt #3. Israel isn't that kind of ally, for a variety of reasons.

Despite what they say, Western governments, including Israel, want Assad to remain in power. If there was an ulterior motivation beyond the destruction of a weapons shipment, I wouldn't be surprised if it was to lend support to the government's narrative of an Israeli backed insurgency.

Somewhat of all 3. It allows them to neutralize a threat at little cost, shades the relationship somewhat with Assad. Without declaring support for overthrow it gives Israel some credit with the rebel forces; might be important should the rebels win.

Israel serves notice that it can and will act if it's interests are at stake; if that also lends support to US aims to see Assad step down, so much the better.

It's such a bizarre web of alliances, who knows?

It's hardly in Israel's interests to support either side. While the FSA has secular elements within it, a victory for them would at best mean Islamists getting a lot of power and possibly a majority with a democratic set up. At worse, it could result in the Nusra Front and the more Islamist FSA elements creating a Salafist theocracy.

On the other hand, Assad who supports Hezbollah and pan-Arab nationalist movements.

So I'm not sure how to interpret Israel's actions. Maybe they are just going to use the instability to take potshots at their enemies while they can get away with it.

By now I would think it's crystal clear that once a rebellion/revolution is in progress, you really, really don't get to decide how it plays out. Not if you're the US, the EU, Israel—frankly, not if you're anyone but one of the thousands of armed men and women on the ground.

We might be able to have a bit of say about whether Assad falls or not, but even there I suspect actors on the ground will have far more influence than anything the West can bring to bear.

http://youtu.be/0cbw_ukb-B4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Despite what they say, Western governments, including Israel, want Assad to remain in power. If there was an ulterior motivation beyond the destruction of a weapons shipment, I wouldn't be surprised if it was to lend support to the government's narrative of an Israeli backed insurgency.

---

They also give stuff to the insurgents. A thought that just came to mind 5 seconds ago, what if the country was supposed to be split up

Hussein? :mellow:

#1 seems likely enough. Israel thought that the materials were going to be shipped towards Lebanon and took them out.

Or with a twist, kind of a cross between 1 & 2:
It's not that Israel suspects Assad of trying to transport high-grade weapons to Hezbollah, but that they've come to realize that Assad's position grows worse, and that he can no longer garantue his own ownership of these weapons. Israel thus decides to take out as many of these arms as possible before the civil war is concluded. If the rebels come out on top, maybe they can polish up their story with some post fact rationalisation that doing so saved Syrian lives.

Option 3 seems extremely unlikely. Israel would be trading a predictable and mostly sensible enemy (Assad) for an unknown future Syrian government that might turn out to be more agressive towards them. They might do this if they had their own reasons, but I doubt that they'd do it for the benefit of anyone else.

Anyway, I'm with this guy: A Syrian War Would Be an Inexplicable Blunder.

Israel will do as it pleases, with no regard for the impact on the USA's interests. And then Israel will expect us to pay for everything. That is our relationship; less of an alliance of equals, more of a surly teen v. parent kinda thing.

And anyone who claims to know how a revolution will turn out is an astonishing idiot.

Turns out it was the Rebels using sarin gas

Off topic.

I know how the revolution will turn out.

Lots of blood and guts spilled by Syrians in general with lots of stern letters from the UN and paternalistic cannily specific intelligence on movements of WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Turns out it was the Rebels using sarin gas

---

Only maybe it wasn't. Nobody knows, including the UN's investigator.

What fun are toys if you can't use them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We've left the rebels out to dry for so long...

---

"We" haven't done anything to the Syrian rebels. You have to escape the mindset that we have an obligation to intervene on behalf of these people, despite the constant barrage of one-sided, sympathetic media coverage coming out of the country. The rebels have a long list of wealthy benefactors of their own, nations and leaders with far more moral authority and insight to act in the region than distant Western powers. If Saudi Arabia is not willing to bankroll this insurgency, why should we? And more importantly, what does that tell us about the true level of support the rebellion has among sympathetic states?

Right now, Assad is winning by not losing, which is the best possible outcome to this situation.

Quote:

---

*If your point is that the Rebels can't be trusted, I agree. I also think that had the UN intervened earlier and more decisively, the Rebels might be trustworthy. If your point is that this extended period of warfare is a good thing because it ties up two of our enemies, then I say shame on you. That kind of warfare hurts civvies more than anybody

---

If you were a dog, I would rap you nose.

The rebels are fascists. To be more clear, the only rebels with any organization are fascists and if they topple Assad the only thing we will get is more of that sweet, sweet Islamic fascism. If we had sent in "the UN" earlier you know what we would have? Better armed and better organized fascists. The Israelis know this and are simply destroying the means for whichever side eventually comes out on top.

There is an insane notion that these Arab spring rebels are running around singing the star spangled banner and shouting Liberté, égalité, fraternité. They are not. They are shouting for stoning and foot-length dresses. They have no notion of our western style of liberalism. It smacks of Western arrogance, the assumption that these rebels fight to be like us. I know the media tries to shove those lines down our throat but in the end it's just feel good bullshit because when you rise against a strongman you have to be fighting for democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The rebels have gone through lots of phases since the conflict began, and for a lot of it they were nothing but a popular uprising against dictatorship with many different groups encompassing that particular cause. By not offering legitimacy to the anti-dictatorship cause (because China and Russia kept saying "Eh, veto") we now have a situation where the uprising has all kinds of sectarian overtones, and a large jihadist footprint.

---

Which in short order was commandeered by the fascists, just like all these other uprisings

.

Quote:

---

..Rap my nose? :inquisitive:

---

rap

/rap/

[COLOR=#878787 !important]Noun[/COLOR] A quick, sharp knock or blow. The smallest amount (used to add emphasis to a statement): "he doesn't care a rap".

[COLOR=#878787 !important]Synonyms[/COLOR] verb. knock - tap - hit noun. knock - tap

[/COLOR]

Was it ever a "democratic" revolution?

My understanding is that the Sunni majority wishes to usurp the Alawite minority in power. Essentially swap one ruling elite for another.

The diverse minority populations that make up almost half of the country appear to have little to gain from the swap; it is also unclear how the new regime would walk the tight-rope between an "Islamic" state and a newly fledged democracy.

if Israel & USA would Invade Iran and Kick The Islamic Regime out !! now Assad would have gone 1 Year ago like anywhere else !!
the Source of These Bloodsheding its The Islamic Regime of IRAN !! Iranians Too Wanted Aid by West in 2009 Revolt !! but what the west did was seeing its profits & Benefits !! USA & European Union want their benefits in anything !! and they claim "DEMOCRACY" !! this word its a huge DECEPTION !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya

if Israel & USA would Invade Iran and Kick The Islamic Regime out !! now Assad would have gone 1 Year ago like anywhere else !!
the Source of These Bloodsheding its The Islamic Regime of IRAN !! Iranians Too Wanted Aid by West in 2009 Revolt !! but what the west did was seeing its profits & Benefits !! USA & European Union want their benefits in anything !! and they claim "DEMOCRACY" !! this word its a huge DECEPTION !!

---

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

Since when does democracy say anything about which foreign policy a nation has to follow? :inquisitive:

Europe doesn't even have enough weapons to help anyone, remember when we ran out of bombs in Libya?

The only ones with enough explosives to do something are the USA and Israel, but Russia seems determined to stay with Assad.
If you have a problem with the UN doing nothing, ask yourself why Russia vetoed every idea of doing anything and why any nations have to have veto rights in the first place. The UN should be more like the senate of the old republic but since people don't even like the EU, I suppose they would hate that even more. So instead we give some nations veto powers, make sure the UN never gets anything done and then complain that it never really does anything...

Oh god no, why would we want the old Republic's senate? They let a gungan give palpatine war powers for goodess sake!

Video of one of the strikes in Syria.

http://youtu.be/f_j8ID-m1pU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

---

Iran supports Assad

the Saudis support the Rebels

why? Iran is Shia as is Assad, Saudi is Sunni as are most the rebels... a good old religious proxy war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Off topic.

---

Surely if the Rebels are using chemical weapons then that will have an impact on how Israel can (or cannot) justify its actions?!

It goes deeper than that, allthough much of it does seem to boil down to religious differences.

IIRC Rafik Hariri (a Lebanese politician who was murdered) was a close friend of the Saudi royal family. Syrian involvement was always suspected, but I believe it was never proven.

Syria was one of the few (the only one?) which didn't lend Iraq any help when it invaded Iran. Syria and Iran became progressively friendlier afterwards. Besides that the Syrian regime and Iran have no religious hostility between them, another obvious reason was that Iraq and Syria did not get along for the rather mundane reason that they both tried to achieve a leading role in the Arab world.

Syria actively meddles in Lebanese affairs, but outside that I don't think they've tried to stir up the Shia in other Arab countries. Most gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have Shia minorities under the boot. Iran does seem to take an active interest in these Shia, for which it is regarded with suspicion (and fear) by most of the Arab countries. Except Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure.

---

The only support that would have made a difference in the 2009 revolt in Iran was armed intervention. Other sorts of support, moral and otherwise, were extended but the rebellion was squelched pretty quickly.

Sometimes, foreign policy decisions come down to very simple metrics.

How many dead Nederladers were you willing to pay to assist the cause of Iranian freedom?

“Since when does democracy say anything about which foreign policy a nation has to follow? “ Since when it didn’t? If a country policy is against your own interests, you bomb and invade. Ooops, sorry, you intervene and liberate…

“Europe doesn't even have enough weapons to help anyone, remember when we ran out of bombs in Libya?” Good opportunity to re-launch the production and to save jobs (and to make money: by the way, the French auto-proclaimed Socialist Party will soon enough privatise armament industry).

“If you have a problem with the UN doing nothing, ask yourself why Russia vetoed every idea of doing anything and why any nations have to have veto rights in the first place. The UN should be more like the senate of the old republic but since people don't even like the EU, I suppose they would hate that even more. So instead we give some nations veto powers, make sure the UN never gets anything done and then complain that it never really does anything...” They learned their lessons. Agree with deny fly zone then you’ve got a US base near your borders 2 years after…
And try to have a UN resolution on Israel, and see who is vetoing…

I would be rather careful when it comes to stressing the religious ties between Iran and Syria. I've argued in the past that any Iranian support of Hamas was relatively unlikely due to their different religious backgrounds, however I feel that I would not do so again: I feel that in many cases, religion will adapt itself to the geopolitical reality of a certain region, and although it may exert some influence over the formulation and phrasing of certain political ideas, within states (and certainly in the post-colonial Middle-East) it doesn't play that big a role. I feel that many times, the Shi‘a-Sunni is utilised in order to create a dichotomy that is easy to understand and apply, but it doesn't really reflect the geopolitical reality.

Quote:

---

if Israel & USA would Invade Iran and Kick The Islamic Regime out !! now Assad would have gone 1 Year ago like anywhere else !!

---

Who are ​you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I would be rather careful when it comes to stressing the religious ties between Iran and Syria.

---

I recall reading that Syrian Alawites have, despite their Shia roots, over time become much more Sunni in their outlook. IIRC the article actually said they were all but indistinguishable from regular Syrian Sunnis (Salafists etc excluded).

Wish I had the article to hand, but I don't. :shrug:

Relax. Perhaps all is proceeding as planned :evilgrin:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...200437919.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

---

Its For Sure ISlamic Republic (DONT SAY IRAN !!) Supports Assad !! Assad is Shia And Their puppet ! ISlamic Republic Of Iran Has Significant Benefits & Profits in Syria !!
Why Russia & China Vetoed the UN ?! Why They Specially Russia Support Assad ?!! Because Islamic Republic Bribes Them !! Assad Has Nothing for Russia !! only It Is Iran That will do anything at all cost to dont let Assad Fall !! I Dont know why you dont know these !!!!!

And Hey! If you say Europe & USA dont want to cost anything for Iran!! let me tell you that they brought this cruel Islamist bloodthirsty totalitarian dictatorial regime !! it was i think 1953 that USA & Britain Removed The Beloved pacificist & Democracy bringer: Mosaddeq with a military Coup designed by CIA & MI6 because their profits & Benefits were in danger by him in Times of Pahlavi Dynasty !! he wanted a free & Advanced Iranian but they wanted Iran as a Profit Machine tool & Be Slaved for them !! and when they saw Mohamad Reza SHAH dont want to tribute USA & Britain anymore, they arranged & designed a Islamic Revolution & Brought Khomeini to power in 1979!!(as we see they made a huge mistake that Khomeini rfuse to serve US & Britain anymore and destroyed all of its enemies & Killed lots of Innocent people and stablized a killer regime!)
have you forgotten US & Europe Colonization in world !??
have you forgotten Vietnam ?
Do you Know They (Imperialism of US & Britain & Europe) splited Deutschland teroritories and Specially Kurdistans Independence Gaved to 4 Racist & Cruel Criminal of Turks & Arabs & Persians in Treaty of Severe in 1920??
and .................. will be too much to tel !! just wanna say that Imperialists governments of Europe & USA want Benefit & Controling Minds of People !! DEMOCRACY is a huge Deception and JOKE !! now the Direct Colonization has ended and the mind colonization has been started !! the example is the Hollywood !!!
i have much more to tell with proof but this place is too small to tell all the truth !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Relax. Perhaps all is proceeding as planned :evilgrin:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...200437919.html

---

Exactly !! The New Middle East Designing By The Zionists Israel !! The Grand Master of USA !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The only support that would have made a difference in the 2009 revolt in Iran was armed intervention. Other sorts of support, moral and otherwise, were extended but the rebellion was squelched pretty quickly.

Sometimes, foreign policy decisions come down to very simple metrics.

How many dead Nederladers were you willing to pay to assist the cause of Iranian freedom?

---

Yeah that's a tricky question. But the Dutch army also lost troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while they could have been fighting Iran, which would have made more sense on the long term. Iranians are no donkey-herders they are our natural allies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I recall reading that Syrian Alawites have, despite their Shia roots, over time become much more Sunni in their outlook. IIRC the article actually said they were all but indistinguishable from regular Syrian Sunnis (Salafists etc excluded).

Wish I had the article to hand, but I don't. :shrug:

---

Well, when it comes to actual practice, the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnites are pretty much neglectable. In its modern context, it's become much more a political allegiance than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Well, when it comes to actual practice, the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnites are pretty much neglectable. In its modern context, it's become much more a political allegiance than anything else.

---

Oh common, completily ignore the demographics and 1600 years of war between them why not. There is a very big difference as there is a major dispute over religious leaderhip after Ali as he was the last descendent of Mohammed.

Which had virtually zero impact when it concerns the day-to-day life of Sunnis and Shi'a's. Of the few Shi'i states that have been existence only one (the Safavids) imposed their religion on the population and sought to proselytise them.

If you'd actually analyse the demographics, you'll notice that there hasn't been that much of a shift in the Sunni-to-Shi‘i ratio, but do you actually believe that mixed areas such as the Levant and Iraq were in constant conflict with one another? The historical reality is that even when Shi‘a states were nominally in control of an area (such as the Buyids, the Fatimids, and the Isma'ilis in Alamut) they were not really interested in spreading their particular interpretation of Islam.

Quote:

---

There is a very big difference as there is a major dispute over religious leaderhip after Ali as he was the last descendent of Mohammed.

---

No. Just no.

The political dispute concerned the succession of Muhammad, not ‘Ali. With Muhammad's death, several candidates were put forward: the greater part of the Muslims chose Abu Bakr, but a minority suggested that ‘Ali (who wasn't Muhammad's descendant, but his nephew and the husband of Muhammad's daughter) would be better. This did not immediately result in a schism, which of course came (as you rightly point out) the moment Ali was assassinated, which (according to Shi‘i views) led to the usurption of power by Mu‘awiya. At this moment, the split was still purely political, it is only from the 9th century onwards that we find spiritual motivation to declare that leadership is passed on by blood (possibly through influence of Zoroastrian ideas of Kingship).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Which had virtually zero impact when it concerns the day-to-day life of Sunnis and Shi'a's. Of the few Shi'i states that have been existence only one (the Safavids) imposed their religion on the population and sought to proselytise them.

If you'd actually analyse the demographics, you'll notice that there hasn't been that much of a shift in the Sunni-to-Shi‘i ratio, but do you actually believe that mixed areas such as the Levant and Iraq were in constant conflict with one another? The historical reality is that even when Shi‘a states were nominally in control of an area (such as the Buyids, the Fatimids, and the Isma'ilis in Alamut) they were not really interested in spreading their particular interpretation of Islam.



No. Just no.

The political dispute concerned the succession of Muhammad, not ‘Ali. With Muhammad's death, several candidates were put forward: the greater part of the Muslims chose Abu Bakr, but a minority suggested that ‘Ali (who wasn't Muhammad's descendant, but his nephew and the husband of Muhammad's daughter) would be better. This did not immediately result in a schism, which of course came (as you rightly point out) the moment Ali was assassinated, which (according to Shi‘i views) led to the usurption of power by Mu‘awiya. At this moment, the split was still purely political, it is only from the 9th century onwards that we find spiritual motivation to declare that leadership is passed on by blood (possibly through influence of Zoroastrian ideas of Kingship).

---

Really studying arab, the 5 good khalifs. Ali was the last of them. That's the schism

Edit, I see now that I misread your post. But it's still ball between these factions as can be seen in Iraq, wouldn't call it political though but it can be argued after Damascus became the capital

Before anyone says it, I know Damascus lays in Syria