Re: Syria

by Cruijf Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:56 pm

Yeah. In the civil war alone, Assad has killed 15,000 people while ISIS has killed 2,000.

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civilian-death-toll-number-isis-victims-2015-much-less-assad-regime-inflicted-2242839

The idea that ISIS is worse and we have to go after them first is absolutely ridiculous and borne out of eurocentric racism.

As for whether Russia is going after the rebels or ISIS, again, that is abundantly clear to anyone who has been paying attention. All of their airstrikes have been in rebel held areas to support Assad in taking them back, and almost all of the casualties have been civilians.

http://time.com/4129222/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilian-casualties-isis/

by Adit Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:03 pm

Isis is definitely worse though. Their aim is to take over the whole world, they will badly attack Europe, India,Russia,Israel etc if they gets control of the region.

Asad while being a cruel dictator is not a threat to other countries at least.

by Cruijf Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:07 pm

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and ask to clarify.

Are you saying you don't care what Assad does to his people as long as he leaves the rest of the world alone?

by Pedram Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:42 pm

I can't believe people here are comparing ISIL with Assad. Laughing

At least Assad is killing his own people, Daesh terrorists are killing people all over the world.

by Adit Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:49 pm

Cruijf wrote:I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and ask to clarify.

Are you saying you don't care what Assad does to his people as long as he leaves the rest of the world alone?

I don't know what is there to clarify. Isis getting land= terrorist activities all over the world going sky high.

Not saying what Asad doing is OK but he isn't a religious terrorist, what he wants is power in Syria and he isn't a big threat to the world.

by BarrileteCosmico Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:51 pm

...so a dictator should be allowed to willfully kill his own people so long as he doesn't bother his neighbors?

by Adit Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:09 pm

Nobody said that though. If choice comes down to Asad getting the land or Isis getting the land then Asad is definitely better.

It's matter of choice, not that I want to watch Asad killing innocent people. Take him out after ISIS is gone, isn't that a better idea.

by Cruijf Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:31 pm

Even when you know Assad will kill more people?

That's straight up racist 'our lives matter more than theirs" rubbish. Makes me sick.

by Adit Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:40 am

Isis will be killing more people once they spread.

Recent Paris attack tells you anything?

So yeah, if it is about Isis setting up a global Islamic terrorist organization all over the world and affecting the entire world and Asad killing people in Syria it is a no brainer.

Islamic terrorism once spread is so hard to contain. Asad can be taken out any time,he is a dictator not one with ideologies.

by BarrileteCosmico Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:30 pm

How many people died in Paris? Or in California? I'm sorry but when we are talking about the death of literally hundreds of thousands of people then a few deaths in the western world should not enter the equation.

by FennecFox7 Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:18 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:How many people died in Paris? Or in California? I'm sorry but when we are talking about the death of literally hundreds of thousands of people then a few deaths in the western world should not enter the equation.

Seriously. No need to be sorry. Adit, you're being an idiot bro. Both options are wrong.

I hate what the middle east has become.. its full of bright young people torn up by war.

It seems like the only sane "Arabic" country left is Morroco.. and Algeria, Morroco, Tunisia, and Libya are definitely berber countries, just Arabized.

by Il Diavolo Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:05 pm

I am a little dumbfounded at the debate going on here between Assad vs ISIS. Assad has been in control of Syria since 2000 and his Dad was in control of Syria for 30 years before that.

I do not support dictators by any means and believe that ideally the people of Syria would get to vote in whoever they feel is best to rule. But this situation is far from ideal.

Consider this, Syria was doing (relatively) fine before the West (along with Saudi Arabia and co) started funding and weaponizing rebels. What do you expect will happen if a bunch of lunatics are funded and provided weaponry anywhere in the world? I don't think the results would be much different anywhere else.

So why did the west fund this bunch of crazies? Because they wanted to get rid of Assad, just like they wanted to (and successfully did) get rid of Mobarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. But the situation in Syria turned really ugly and here we are. Assad is pro-Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel (two of the west`s biggest allies in the region are very anti-Iran). Please connect some dots.

Again, I am ideologically opposed to dictators. Assad maybe a very bad person who has killed a lot of his own civilians, very similar to all the other dictators out there in the world currently. I mean Saudi Arabia has more be headings than ISIS, but no one seems to care too much about that.

But ultimately, ISIS is an internationally recognized group of barbarians with brains full of shit, and they should die the most horrific death. I (and I am sure most Syrians) would have Assad over ISIS any day of the week.

by Cruijf Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:54 pm

I have nothing against you mate but in this case you're just flat out wrong on several key issues.

The West did not initiate the Arab Spring or even support any of the uprisings until it became clear they would be successful. In fact, there are hints from their foreign policy that they actually would've preferred the revolutions failed, such as their support for Sisi in his military coup in Egypt (overthrowing the democratically elected government and essentially undoing the revolution).

In Syria's case, what is now a civil war started as peaceful demonstrations, just like every other country experiencing the Arab Spring. This difference is Assad proved far more stubborn than other dictators in the region, and when he cracked down violently on the demonstrators the conflict quickly escalated far beyond any of the other revolts. The civil war has now been going on for nearly 5 years, and for much of that time the West refused to so much as lift a finger to prevent the suffering of hundreds and thousands of civilians. Sure, the West would prefer if Assad was overthrown, which is why they armed the rebels, but that did little more than escalate the conflict. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but even at the time many people were calling for military intervention to end the conflict and the West refused.

The inaction of the West has now led to a failed state that is near anarchy, while Assad continues to kill innocent men women and children by the thousands.

Now, when you have a bunch of armed fighters who hate Assad and have reason to hate the West, of course crazy factions like ISIS are going to spring up. But you can't let a few attacks in Western countries distract you from the reality, which is that Assad is the perpetrator of this entire mess. ISIS is merely a symptom of a larger problem, which is the chaos caused by the West leaving Assad in charge unchecked.

I should add that this mentality of "at least dictators provide stability" is what led to this whole mess in the first place. That's why the West propped Assad up in the first place, and refused to intervene even when he was literally destroying his own country.

There is no reason why the West needs Assad in power for ISIS to be defeated. A coalition of ground forces needs to enter Syria and depose him, because even now he is killing far more people than ISIS. Once a semblance of peace and order is restored in Syria, it will be much easier to eliminate ISIS and prevent groups like that from gaining traction.

by Pedram Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:58 pm

Interesting developments in the last few days, apparently Turkey is sending tanks and jets inside Syria to fight ISIS.

Biden telling the YPG to leave the area while Turkey and FSA are advancing on ISIS territory, Kurds getting abandoned again lmao. Laughing

by LeBéninois Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:58 pm

Cruijf wrote:I have nothing against you mate but in this case you're just flat out wrong on several key issues.

The West did not initiate the Arab Spring or even support any of the uprisings until it became clear they would be successful. In fact, there are hints from their foreign policy that they actually would've preferred the revolutions failed, such as their support for Sisi in his military coup in Egypt (overthrowing the democratically elected government and essentially undoing the revolution).

In Syria's case, what is now a civil war started as peaceful demonstrations, just like every other country experiencing the Arab Spring. This difference is Assad proved far more stubborn than other dictators in the region, and when he cracked down violently on the demonstrators the conflict quickly escalated far beyond any of the other revolts. The civil war has now been going on for nearly 5 years, and for much of that time the West refused to so much as lift a finger to prevent the suffering of hundreds and thousands of civilians. Sure, the West would prefer if Assad was overthrown, which is why they armed the rebels, but that did little more than escalate the conflict. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but even at the time many people were calling for military intervention to end the conflict and the West refused.

The inaction of the West has now led to a failed state that is near anarchy, while Assad continues to kill innocent men women and children by the thousands.

Now, when you have a bunch of armed fighters who hate Assad and have reason to hate the West, of course crazy factions like ISIS are going to spring up. But you can't let a few attacks in Western countries distract you from the reality, which is that Assad is the perpetrator of this entire mess. ISIS is merely a symptom of a larger problem, which is the chaos caused by the West leaving Assad in charge unchecked.

I should add that this mentality of "at least dictators provide stability" is what led to this whole mess in the first place. That's why the West propped Assad up in the first place, and refused to intervene even when he was literally destroying his own country.

There is no reason why the West needs Assad in power for ISIS to be defeated. A coalition of ground forces needs to enter Syria and depose him, because even now he is killing far more people than ISIS. Once a semblance of peace and order is restored in Syria, it will be much easier to eliminate ISIS and prevent groups like that from gaining traction.

Your post is well-thought but the West didn't want to get involve for more than one reason :

1- The fear of going back there after the Irak and Afghanistan which are overall 2 failures. They didn't have the pretention to '' go there and fix the situation '' anymore.

2- It's was their battle ( throwing out Assad ) so it's was better to let the '' people '' fight against their dictator. i mean , is the west going to intervene everytime there is a revolution ? they let Tunisia, Egypt ... do their thing.

3- How do you know for sure who is a member of Isis or who's not ?

by Sri Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:42 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-why-get-worse.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1 was a good read

by FennecFox7 Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:59 pm

That place is a backwards cesspool. As much as I have some sentiment against the far right in Israel for their shitty politics, I seriously admire that country for the progress they've made. It's sad how Arabs are killing each other like animals

by RealGunner Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:30 am

US, France and UK forms a holy trinity to bomb Syria.

This will fix everything.

by Myesyats Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:01 am

unrest in the country? Drop more bombs

Seems legit.

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:22 pm

Shades of Iraq's WMDs. I would feel more comfortable with this if we waited until we had actual evidence.

by Adit Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:31 pm

U.S has finished Yemen (a country who refused to sell oil in dollars); now they are onto next ,Syria.

I hope one day U.S gets bombed to oblivion.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:40 am

Adit wrote:U.S has finished Yemen (a country who refused to sell oil in dollars); now they are onto next ,Syria.

I hope one day U.S gets bombed to oblivion.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:44 am

Also Trump is an idiot but nobody could reasonably expect us to sit back as Assad gassed women and children. Its a war crime. He's lucky we only bombed his ability to use them in the immediate future. Gadaffi got much worse after just using words.

by CBarca Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:46 am

Adit wrote:U.S has finished Yemen (a country who refused to sell oil in dollars); now they are onto next ,Syria.

I hope one day U.S gets bombed to oblivion.

S A M E

B R O

by Bellabong Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:19 am

It's nearly hilarious that this happens after I hear about the situation surrounding the 1st gulf war.

"They are ripping newborns out of incubators"
-Poor Kuwaiti refugee girl

This sent the world/UN into n uproar and everyone started supporting intervention in the Kuwait invasion.

The girl that made that testimony turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.

I don't believe anything anymore.

by Tomwin Lannister Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:38 am

Didn't this chemical attack happen literally the day after Trump mentioned withdrawing the US from the area? Laughing

I don't even follow these shit shows now, lies and secret agendas everywhere. We just get whatever viewpoint our government want to feed us via the news and pretend we're informed when we know jack shit.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com