US : Assad no longer 'has to go' ??

[Rod1]

wtf has that got to do with anything? what people want and what happens are 2 very different things

Yet you keep portraying the rebels as democracy looking youth, when most were either military opportunists on a bid for power and islamists.

 

[Rod1]

I find it hard to understand sarcasm in the English language. I can tell that you're doing it but I'm not sure I get the insult correctly.

Did Assad handle the Arab Spring in the most diplomatic way possible ?

More diplomatically than plenty of US allies.

Were the protesters really proxy militants and not really protesters? How do I find out? Your time would have been more wisely spent telling me those things rather

No, they were legit, but militant groups and power bidders used them as a pretext to make their move.

Democracy was never the aim of armed groups, it was only the aim of unarmed freedom looking individuals, individuals that also would love to live under Assad than under ISIS.

than throwing a war reference to which I don't understand how it applies to Assad and Syria or how it was supposed to be used against me to illustrate how ridiculous my post was? All it did was confuse me more. I understand english very well, but these "implied" forms of speech confuse me completely.

You are blaming deaths on Assad as if he was the only party at war. All the crimes of the rebels and ISIS are being pointed at Assad. Yet, we keep ignoring the massive flight and death caused by ISIS.

The point i was trying to make is that the Yazidi/christian/non-sunni genocide carried by islamists, would still happen with or without Assad.

Yes I do. Even if my understanding of the conflict were 100% accurate, I still realize that he is still the lesser of two evils. But does that mean we should ally with him and provide arms and training when it could be used against us in the future ?

Who is us? Assad regime has never attacked any western interest.

 

[Perfidious]

Yes I do. Even if my understanding of the conflict were 100% accurate, I still realize that he is still the lesser of two evils. But does that mean we should ally with him and provide arms and training when it could be used against us in the future ?

I didn't understand that was the context of your posts. No, I don't think we should arm Assad. I think we should've just mind our own business and not arm him or any rebels. Let him sort it out.

 

[Straight Right]

The king of SA just died. Good riddance.

 

[MicroBrew]

The king of SA just died. Good riddance.

It is unfortunate he did not suffer a long drawn out painfull death. Saudi kings are truly some of the most evil beings out there. I am agnostic but hope there is a theistic god out there that meets out justice.

 

[Straight Right]

It is unfortunate he did not suffer a long drawn out painfull death. Saudi kings are truly some of the most evil beings out there. I am agnostic but hope there is a theistic god out there that meets out justice.

The sad thing is the prince wont be any better.

 

[Banchan]

You are blaming deaths on Assad as if he was the only party at war. All the crimes of the rebels and ISIS are being pointed at Assad. Yet, we keep ignoring the massive flight and death caused by ISIS.

Who is us? Assad regime has never attacked any western interest.

I think this is because I didn't express my post well. I should write in Korean. I am not blaming everything on Assad. My post was focused only on Assad and his part in the beginnings of ISIS regime so it may come off that I am blaming everything on them.

I meant if there is another conflict in that area, the weapons and training we give his army now will probably be used against us and our allies in the future.

 

[Fronk]

I think this is because I didn't express my post well. I should write in Korean. I am not blaming everything on Assad. My post was focused only on Assad and his part in the beginnings of ISIS regime so it may come off that I am blaming everything on them.

I meant if there is another conflict in that area, the weapons and training we give his army now will probably be used against us and our allies in the future.

I don't think the US should arm or help Assad either. But the low intensity support of the rebels does nothing but prolong the conflict and only helps to create more bloodshed. I don't see this conflict ever being solved through military means unless Iraqi shia militias kick ISIS out of Iraq and follows them all the way to Raqqa.

 

[MicroBrew]

Just to reiterate,

ISIS is concentrated in North-Eastern and Eastern Syria , while the Alawites are concentrated along the coast. ISIS was not the threat closest to Assad and his Alawite base.

Fighter aircraft can target multiple bogies, but their computers prioritize those bogies that poses the most immediate threat.

 

[whougonnacall]

Yet you keep portraying the rebels as democracy looking youth, when most were either military opportunists on a bid for power and islamists.

Yeah all those hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters were one of those two things right

 

[whougonnacall]

-More diplomatically than plenty of US allies.



-no, they were legit, but militant groups and power bidders used them as a pretext to make their move.

-democracy was never the aim of armed groups, it was only the aim of unarmed freedom looking individuals, individuals that also would love to live under Assad than under ISIS.



-you are blaming deaths on Assad as if he was the only party at war. All the crimes of the rebels and ISIS are being pointed at Assad. Yet, we keep ignoring the massive flight and death caused by ISIS.

The point i was trying to make is that the Yazidi/christian/non-sunni genocide carried by islamists, would still happen with or without Assad.



-who is us? Assad regime has never attacked any western interest.

-yeah real diplomatic attacking unarmed protesters

-thats odd the vast bulk of rebel groups have stated theyd want,a democracy or have no objections to democracy(islamic front)

-assad is responsible for the bulk of deaths yes and his war crimes make isis look like noobs in scale

-apart from his assistance to groups killing western troops in iraq and his support for hezbollah

 

[Rod1]

-yeah real diplomatic attacking unarmed protesters

Yes, like what happened in Egypt, Bahrain and other arab countries that are US aligned, yet nobody bats an eye, at least Assad tried to appease, the gulf arabs and Egypt just cracked down harder and harder with western approval.

-thats odd the vast bulk of rebel groups have stated theyd want,a democracy or have no objections to democracy(islamic front)

LOL.

The Islamic Front's charter rejects the concepts of representative democracy and secularism, instead seeking to establish an Islamic state ruled by a Majlis-ash-Shura and implementing sharia.

-assad is responsible for the bulk of deaths yes and his war crimes make isis look like noobs in scale

Again, 40 years under Alawite rule and no sectarian violence.

less than 3 years under rebel rule and genocide are already taking place, in REBEL HELD areas.

-apart from his assistance to groups killing western troops in iraq and his support for hezbollah

Evidence? and the last time hezbollah attacked western targets was against soldiers in Lebanob, so stay the fuck away of lebanon and hezbollah stops being a problem.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah all those hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters were one of those two things right

As you said, they were unarmed protesters, the rebels are not unarmed and they never gave 2 shits about what the protesters wanted.

Lets stop pretending that rebels = protesters, they are not the same group.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It took THIS long for the U.S to realize dictators who control things in powder keg countries are better than anti-American terrorist filled tribes in terms of running things? Really?

 

[Banchan]

Again, 40 years under Alawite rule and no sectarian violence.

Just poverty, brutality and oppression. It's okay because that's all they know.

 

[whougonnacall]

-Yes, like what happened in Egypt, Bahrain and other arab countries that are US aligned, yet nobody bats an eye, at least Assad tried to appease, the gulf arabs and Egypt just cracked down harder and harder with western approval.



-LOL.
The Islamic Front's charter rejects the concepts of representative democracy and secularism, instead seeking to establish an Islamic state ruled by a Majlis-ash-Shura and implementing sharia.



-Again, 40 years under Alawite rule and no sectarian violence.
less than 3 years under rebel rule and genocide are already taking place, in REBEL HELD areas.



-Evidence? and the last time hezbollah attacked western targets was against soldiers in Lebanob, so stay the fuck away of lebanon and hezbollah stops being a problem.

- By appeasing u mean machine gunning, turning his shabiha loose to commit genocide, locking up en masse , enforced disapearances and mass torture/rape etc etc
and lets not pretend it was even on the same scale as assad unleased in those countries , egypt being possibly close


-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/syrian-rebels-seek-islamic-democracy_n_1914366.html
as for the IF ''One member of the political assembly of the group has stated that the Islamic Front could accept Syria as a democracy, as long as sharia is "sovereign
fits with this http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=54233
seems they reject the word democracy ....but also say they want democratic election of leaders and allocaton of resources , mixed message admitedly





- 40 years of violence u mean in of the most brutal repressive regiemes on earth
and 3 years of a war where the vast bulk of war crimes are on the regiemes side

-lets see from the DoD reports on iraq 2007
'Syria continues to provide safe haven, border transit, and limited logistical support to some Iraqi insurgents, especially former Saddam-era Iraqi Baath Party elements. Syria also permits former regime elements to engage in organizational activities, such that Syria has emerged as an important organizational and coordination hub for elements of the former Iraqi regime.'

'Approximately 90% of suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign fighters, and most continue to use Syria as their main transit route to Iraq. This network funnels about 50 to 80 suicide bombers per month into Iraq to conduct operations. Since January, there have been nearly 280 suicide attacks, accounting for nearly 5,500 deaths, mostly of innocent Iraqi civilians.'

 

[whougonnacall]

As you said, they were unarmed protesters, the rebels are not unarmed and they never gave 2 shits about what the protesters wanted.

Lets stop pretending that rebels = protesters, they are not the same group.

so u think literaly hundreds of thousands who risked their lives by turning out onto the streets are nowhere among those slowly overthrowing assad as we speak?did they all up and vanish?

 

[Rod1]

Just poverty, brutality and oppression. It's okay because that's all they know.

Nowhere near as bad as in the places ruled by the islamists.

 

[Rod1]

so u think literaly hundreds of thousands who risked their lives by turning out onto the streets are nowhere among those slowly overthrowing assad as we speak?did they all up and vanish?

They are certainly not fighting for the jihadists.

Also the ones doing the oppression for Assad were the military, and the early "moderate rebels" were led by such military that was happily oppressing the Syrians under Assad until they saw the chance to jump wagon.

Im pretty sure that such military experts in quelling revolts would immediatly drop their weapons and allow a secular democracy to flourish, like they did in Egypt right?

The Syrian people never had a chance, at best it would had been a change from one dictator to another, at worst, Syria became an islamic state.

 

[whougonnacall]

They are certainly not fighting for the jihadists.

why wouldnt they be? as long as they arent isis level extreme then all that matters is the groups effectiveness against assad, competent leadership, supply situation etc