Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Latest attack in Syria

427 replies

Jammybean · 21/08/2013 22:11

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

OP posts:
NicholasTeakozy · 25/08/2013 21:03

Now deleted article stating the US would sanction a chemical attack and then wade in.

Kungfutea · 25/08/2013 21:48

It's no surprise that the best outcome for Israel is that a weakened Assad remains in place - Israeli commentators have been saying this for ages, I remember hearing it on Israeli TV back in January. Although Assad's support for Hezbollah was a problem, Assad kept the Syrian border quiet and Israel knew how to deal with Assad having had either the father or the son for last 40-odd years.

That's not to say that people in Israel aren't horrified by what's happening in Syria, of course, and many Syrian civilians are being treated (secretly) in Israeli hospitals.

MiniTheMinx · 25/08/2013 23:18

"Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels" in Aug 2012

www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801

They are happy to arm known Islamist Terrorists, Al-Qaeda, why? because they always have been? maybe? who knows!

longfingernails · 26/08/2013 12:55

Let the Middle East sort it out the 'international response' themselves (and let Obama dither more, if he likes). It's their problem, not ours. Iraq was a monumental disaster - Bush should have focussed all resources on finding Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda quickly in Afghanistan, and then quickly gotten out. And this is a million times worse.

These crazies (on both sides), fortunately, are not (currently) a threat to Britain. We have enough problems of our own. If the cost of intervention is almost guaranteed disaster, then usually it is best to stick with the status quo.

However we should increase defence expenditure significantly. It's a dangerous world. We have to be prepared for it.

CoteDAzur · 26/08/2013 13:16

Mini - The article you linked to says "The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons" and is about the US providing intelligence to Syrian rebels, not arms.

Animation · 26/08/2013 13:17

Hopefully USA and Britain have learnt lessons after Iraq.

Rather than call all out war on a country - it seems to me you go get the evil individuals who start it. Countries don't start wars - it's usually a psychopath.

CoteDAzur · 26/08/2013 13:22

Are you saying UK should assassinate the President of Syria?

Animation · 26/08/2013 13:32

I don't know who is the evil bastard behind the atrocities but if he is the man - why target anyone else - (dead or alive).

CoteDAzur · 26/08/2013 13:46

I think I'll just pretend you never said that.

Animation · 26/08/2013 13:56

Why?

What would you do?

MiniTheMinx · 26/08/2013 15:00

Arms have been pouring in over the Turkish boarder, apparently these are from Saudi and Qatar, many are U.S made. If America really didn't want the Islamist rebels armed they wouldn't sit back and condone (or encourage) the Saudis. I think it will be years before we finally get to hear whether the CIA have been stoking up the unrest from the start. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.

What happens after they oust Bashar al-Assad? I suppose thousands more will be killed by sectarian struggle for control.

Another interesting thing in the news today "Mugabe Threatens Western Firms Over Sanctions" apparently Mr Mugabe objects to sanctions, imperialism, economic asymmetry and wants firms that operate in Zimbabwe to hand over 51% shares to black Zimbabwe people and then went on to say his rivals are "pathetic puppets" and "western-sponsored stooges" I wonder at what point the West decides that Zimbabwe hasn't made the necessary neo-liberal reforms that would allow western banks and corporations to steal from its people, will we then march into Zimbabwe because this is how it works when economic sanctions, CIA trouble making and threats fail to force free market reform.

Nat37 · 26/08/2013 15:26

What I find so astonishing is how people are still stupid enough not to see that the brutal thugs, sorry "rebels" that are killing and maiming innocent people, including decapitating Christians in Syria and eating the organs of a soldier, always seem to do no wrong in the eyes of the meida! Seriously, there is so much misinformation and uneducated towards the facts surrounding the violence in Syria that it's sickening!

Nat37 · 26/08/2013 15:30

Well said MinitheMinx! At last someone with an education! :)

ThelastBloke · 26/08/2013 15:53

As said before the one thing over looked is that many of the "rebels" are actually are enemy for reasons I'm sure you all know.

Now i ain't against military intervention but we can't have "boots on the ground". It's just too dangerous.

So we have this situation now in which if we help the rebels then Syria would see a lot more atrocities on minority groups WHICH our friendly Bashar al-Assad has actually been protecting. Syria would be a pile of rubble and there will still be fighting because the rebels would be squawking over who gets what.

The Assad regime had Syria pretty nicely sewn up until this all kicked off. Things had been ticking over pretty well until then, it was even considered to be a luxurious and cultural holiday destination. The rebels kicked this off simply because they didn't like the fact that their leader worshipped Allah in a very slightly different (and less extreme) way to them.

Now ask yourselves this...

Where are these rebels getting arms from?
Are they the same group of radicals that are shooting at the lads on Herrick?
Are the Rebel's the ones popping agents and gases (not Assad's forces)?
Who can be trusted?

(By the hello! My first post you see...)

CoteDAzur · 26/08/2013 16:06

Animation - I wouldn't do a thing except point out to you what a dumb bad idea it is to advocate assassinating foreign heads of state. I thought I would spare you, but let me know if you really need to be told and I will explain.

flatpackhamster · 26/08/2013 16:13

Animation

I don't know who is the evil bastard behind the atrocities but if he is the man - why target anyone else - (dead or alive).

OK. So let's say you knock over the evil dictator causing the atrocities. What then? How does it change the lives of the people in the country for the better?

MiniTheMinx

Arms have been pouring in over the Turkish boarder, apparently these are from Saudi and Qatar, many are U.S made. If America really didn't want the Islamist rebels armed they wouldn't sit back and condone (or encourage) the Saudis.

Most of the rebels' weapons are derivatives of the Soviet-built AK-47. If you watch the TV, you can see that Assad's forces are entirely armed with Soviet equipment, because Syria was a Soviet puppet during the Cold War. Look at their AA. Look at their technicals. Look at their sidearms and their support weapons. All Russian made.

This is a religious war between Sunni and Shi'a, and it's a fallout of the Cold War, just as Libya, and Egypt, and Tunisia are.

Although it is amusing that the usual suspects have turned up to blame the Americans. Wasn't George Galloway claiming this week that the CIA has been plotting with Al-Qaeda?

Animation · 26/08/2013 16:35

CoteDAzur

You have a superior wisdom to me I am sure.

I think the psychopathic murderer/ murders should be the target, whoever they are, not the people of Syria. And not NECESSARILY kill them James Bond style - maybe haul them in.

I don't KNOW who they are - maybe MI5 know.

Animation · 26/08/2013 16:37

'OK. So let's say you knock over the evil dictator causing the atrocities. What then?'

Is he the one - the psychopathic murderer - I don't know?

MiniTheMinx · 26/08/2013 21:06

This is a religious war between Sunni and Shi'a, and it's a fallout of the Cold War, just as Libya, and Egypt, and Tunisia are.

I agree with you that this is situation is as a result of what went before.

Although it is amusing that the usual suspects have turned up to blame the Americans. Wasn't George Galloway claiming this week that the CIA has been plotting with Al-Qaeda?

I don't know what George Galloway has had to say but I think he know substantially more about middle east politics than Joe bloggs. America was training & funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the cold war. Osama Bin Laden was helping to fund this and he too was being trained by the CIA. Bush Snr had connections to the Bin laden family through the Carlyle Group. Bush, the father of President Bush, worked for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, this was reported in the Wall Street Journal soon after the September 11 attacks.

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai once admitted that with the US military bases established permanently in Afghanistan there?ll be economic prosperity and end to the violence in the country. At the same time, the US economy continues in dire straits yet little is being done to address it."

The historian and journalist Nick Turse explained, ?What I?m relatively sure of is that there are no less than 1,077 US bases or sites in foreign countries?.and likely there are many more than that, we just can?t be sure.? rt.com/usa/usa-empire-military-bases/

"We're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries," Paul said. "We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke." Ron Paul (nut Job) but even those on the right conclude that the American Empire is near collapse and has overstretched itself www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

But why? is it because the American state wants to extend Western style democracy or is it just protecting America? Or is because America, the land of the corporations and the biggest investment banks has a revolving door policy with wall street and seeks to extend capitalism into every part of the globe. Even if other countries have elected socialist governments the American state has sought to impose sanctions, economic asymmetries, CIA coups and threats of invasion on cooked up charges. The fact is capital must be allowed to grow, in order to do this it must plunder the entire globe and America has set itself up as the defender of this system.

How many bases does Russia have?

"The Soviet Union used to have a wide military presence abroad, with bases in Cuba, Poland, Germany, Finland, Somalia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Libya, but eventually these were shut down. Modern Russia has 25 military bases abroad: one located in Syria, and the rest in the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Moldova" rt.com/news/russian-military-bases-abroad/

Syria is strategically important to Russia. Do the Americans have a military base in Syria? do they want one?

Do they care whether sectarian violence continues long after Assad is ousted or whether the Syrian people have democracy. They couldn't give a shit even if the country is run by a Islamist dictator as long as that dictator allows them their base and enacts neo-lib reform that benefits corporations/banks.

NicholasTeakozy · 26/08/2013 22:01

We in the west have governments that are run for the benefit of corporations, not people. Until neoliberalism is overturned we will always advocate war against countries that don't follow the same shit doctrine.

MiniTheMinx · 26/08/2013 22:59

When Bashar al-Assad took over from his father 11% of the population was living in poverty. The government was Arab Socialist Ba'athist. Assad started to reform the economy along free market lines and within 10 years 30% of the population is living in poverty. No doubt some people started rioting because of this but what they will ultimately end up with is more neo-liberalism and more poverty post Assad.

filee777 · 27/08/2013 07:34

I think it would be naive to think there was 'one' psychopathic murderer, middle Eastern countries are very tribal and so you tend to get a lot of hate from various sides.

The reason life is better under a cuntish dictator than under a free-for-all is because at least you know which rules not to break (however strict or tough they are) under a free for all you just don't know who will be killing you next.

niceguy2 · 27/08/2013 11:53

Well...it looks like I may be wrong. It looks like DC will be stupid enough to maybe lobbing missiles. I guess we'd only do it though if the US did too. I can't see even DC being stupid enough to start any action unilaterally.

The best quote I've read from a general is that we '..shouldn't start anything we cannot finish' I can only hope that Downing Street has been given the same advice.

As abhorrent as chemical weapons are, lobbing a few cruise missiles into a foreign country without any realistic means of following it up isn't going to help anything.

The Syrian government will hate us more. The rebels will also hate us for doing half a job. We kill some humans....and for what?

I really hope this is all just sabre rattling. For once I couldn't agree more with Russia & China. Who knew...they'd be the good guys and we're the bad!

crescentmoon · 27/08/2013 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flatpackhamster · 27/08/2013 12:40

MiniTheMinx

I was trying to write a reply to this post but really all you're doing is regurgitating the same old flannel. Look at your source - Russia Today. You're quoting from fucking Pravda.

All I'll say is this - what a crying shame it is you never actually lived in a communist country under the Soviets, because I've never met a single person - not one - who lived under it who thought it was better than the alternative. Except for lovely rich westerners living in a free market democracy which they pretend to despise so much, while lapping up its liberties and its wealth.

When Bashar al-Assad took over from his father 11% of the population was living in poverty. The government was Arab Socialist Ba'athist. Assad started to reform the economy along free market lines and within 10 years 30% of the population is living in poverty. No doubt some people started rioting because of this but what they will ultimately end up with is more neo-liberalism and more poverty post Assad.

I know that socialists are famous for their ignorance about arithmetic, and that's why every time Labour gets in to power it fucks the economy. But watch carefully:

You have 100 people. The average salary is $10. 11 people only earn $4. 11% of the population is 'in poverty'.

The average salary rises to $40. 30 people earn $25. 30% of the population is 'in poverty'. Even though the bottom third earn 2 1/2 times more, under your system, they're 'in poverty'.

In 2000 Syria's GDP was $19 Billion. In 2010 it was $60 Billion. The country's GDP trebled in 10 years.

Swipe left for the next trending thread