The Syrian Conflict Thread

[NarrowBandFtw]

Right so we should just support the reinstatement of Assad and be fine with his torture? Just turn a blind eye?

Reinstatement implies he isn't still in control with Russia having his back, which he is btw

Xarog's point comes to mind though, we're all willing to turn a blind eye to US torture, why hold Assad to a higher standard?

Note the bulk of the UN report refers to torture of detainees suspected of being rebels / traitors, it is not just random torturing of innocents. Ok the judicial system could probably do with some control, so how about deploying UN observers for a while? They can monitor court cases, elections etc, no need to turn a blind eye, but there is also no need to push for regime change if it makes everything even worse.

 

[Unhappy1]

Reinstatement implies he isn't still in control with Russia having his back, which he is btw

Xarog's point comes to mind though, we're all willing to turn a blind eye to US torture, why hold Assad to a higher standard?

I dont turn a blind eye to US torture its wrong but they aren't torturing their entire population to keep it under control.

Note the bulk of the UN report refers to torture of detainees suspected of being rebels / traitors, it is not just random torturing of innocents. Ok the judicial system could probably do with some control, so how about deploying UN observers for a while? They can monitor court cases, elections etc, no need to turn a blind eye, but there is also no need to push for regime change if it makes everything even worse.

You cant torture someone regardless of who they are suspected to be. I would support the UN observers and its better than torture or all out war. Do you think every party involved would support it though?

 

[Xarog]

I dont turn a blind eye to US torture its wrong but they aren't torturing their entire population to keep it under control.

Yeah, cuz the United States is totes in a state of civil war. It's completely the same situation.

 

[Unhappy1]

Yeah, cuz the United States is totes in a state of civil war. It's completely the same situation.

Enough evidence to suggest Assad tortured long before the start of the civil war.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

I would support the UN observers and its better than torture or all out war. Do you think every party involved would support it though?

To be honest no, but I don't know if it has been tried yet, and even if it has and failed before I am virtually certain Russia can and will convince Assad to allow it if it means he effectively stays on until elections are held and he is free to win again.

Hell it might even win some points in the international press if he proposes it himself to the UN. ISIS won't accept any kind of deal and must be annihilated, plain and simple. The "moderates" will be the hardest to convince I reckon, they're all over the show and might only respond to something extreme like the US backing Assad and pulling their support of the rebels.

 

[Xarog]

Enough evidence to suggest Assad tortured long before the start of the civil war.

So you really think the pre-war torture rate is the same as the post-war torture rate?

Cuz the United States isn't in a civil war (yet... - Trump? ...) and yet it has resorted to torture and murder and numerous other flagrant abuses of human rights.

The point being that if you're denouncing Assad for what he's done and supporting the fall of his regime, why are you not applying the same standards to everyone? What justifies the apologetics for the U.S.? Why shouldn't the regime in washington fall? Why can't you simply say in public that if a fire is bad, then anyone who fans the flames bears some measure of responsibility for whatever the fire burns? Is it because it's OK for the United States to conspire to create wars to get rid of people it deems politically unpalatable?

Does one really need to bring out the laundry list of all the ****ed-up things the United States has done to the rest of the world in the last decade and a half? Why is hostility toward it for what it has done to innocent people so unreasonable?

 

[Unhappy1]

So you really think the pre-war torture rate is the same as the post-war torture rate?

Cuz the United States isn't in a civil war (yet... - Trump? ...) and yet it has resorted to torture and murder and numerous other flagrant abuses of human rights.

The point being that if you're denouncing Assad for what he's done and supporting the fall of his regime, why are you not applying the same standards to everyone? What justifies the apologetics for the U.S.? Why shouldn't the regime in washington fall? Why can't you simply say in public that if a fire is bad, then anyone who fans the flames bears some measure of responsibility for whatever the fire burns? Is it because it's OK for the United States to conspire to create wars to get rid of people it deems politically unpalatable?

Does one really need to bring out the laundry list of all the ****ed-up things the United States has done to the rest of the world in the last decade and a half? Why is hostility toward it for what it has done to innocent people so unreasonable?

Clearly there is vast difference in the scope and scale between US or Chinese or Russian torture compared to Assads but it seems you're not interested in that. Btw this idea of simply overthrowing Assad is not one i support, so you i don't know where you are getting that idea from. I merely don't subscribe to the idea of letting Assad get away with his torture. I like ideas like Narrowband provided with UN monitors etc, the problem is getting everyone to agree to such things.

 

[Unhappy1]

To be honest no, but I don't know if it has been tried yet, and even if it has and failed before I am virtually certain Russia can and will convince Assad to allow it if it means he effectively stays on until elections are held and he is free to win again.

Hell it might even win some points in the international press if he proposes it himself to the UN. ISIS won't accept any kind of deal and must be annihilated, plain and simple. The "moderates" will be the hardest to convince I reckon, they're all over the show and might only respond to something extreme like the US backing Assad and pulling their support of the rebels.

I agree with this and added to it i would like to see something to be put in place that can aid in properly allowing actual opposition to form. So Syrians have realistic alternatives if they so wish to vote on them.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

I agree with this and added to it i would like to see something to be put in place that can aid in properly allowing actual opposition to form. So Syrians have realistic alternatives if they so wish to vote on them.

I always maintain hope that we can agree on some things

In terms of aiding a proper opposition, that might just be what swings the "moderates", let them form political parties and let them campaign freely under UN observation and the first one to start shooting is marked a confirmed terrorist group by the UN and loses any political participation rights.

 

[Xarog]

Clearly there is vast difference in the scope and scale between US or Chinese or Russian torture compared to Assads but it seems you're not interested in that.

Also clearly a vast difference in the scope and scale of the dilemmas Syria finds itself in relative to those countries. Can you honestly say you think the picture in Russia and China would be more rosy if either country was beset by a civil war?

Btw this idea of simply overthrowing Assad is not one i support, so you i don't know where you are getting that idea from. I merely don't subscribe to the idea of letting Assad get away with his torture. I like ideas like Narrowband provided with UN monitors etc, the problem is getting everyone to agree to such things.

Because once again you misinterpreted what Narrowband was actually saying with respect to the commentary about what's going on in Syria being the result of an attempted smearjob which thus makes the "information" from those sources dubious. When you responded with disgust, well, there's only so many reasons why Narrowband's (actual) sentiments could attract that kind of reaction.

No one wants Assad to get away with torture. But by the same token the United States is trying to leverage that sentiment in order to get rid of Assad. Again, this is a very valid concern with respect to the veracity of the information we are dealing with.

As for solutions, in this regard I am a pessimist. Once someone cries havoc and the dogs of war are slipped, leashing them again is no mean feat. That's precisely why I get so angry at entities that knowingly aggravate tensions or conflicts for their own gain.

 

[Grant]

Syrian war: Russia and opposition allege truce breaches

Anti-government rebels and Russia have both reported breaches of the fragile truce in Syria - now in its second day.
Russian planes have attacked several sites in northern Syria, activists say.

Russia has not confirmed any sorties on Sunday and says it has also identified nine breaches of the truce.
A cessation of hostilities was agreed as part of a US-Russian plan. Russia says that in general it is holding. It is the first major cessation of hostilities in the five years of war.

More than 250,000 have been killed in the fight against President Bashar al-Assad.
Millions more have been forced from their homes. Humanitarian agencies are hoping use the truce to deliver aid to besieged areas of the country.
The Syrian opposition has complained of 15 violations of the ceasefire by the government side, which is supported by Russia.
The Syrian opposition umbrella group the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) said it would be sending a formal letter of complaint about the breaches to the UN and other world powers.
However, the HNC said that despite violations "here and there", it was "positive to see people getting relief …to be safe, and free from fear".

Some Syrian activists say the target of the air strikes in the north, near Aleppo, was the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.The truce involves Syrian government and rebel forces, but not the so-called Islamic State group (IS) or the Nusra Front, so an attack on them would not count as a breach.
But the villages also contain fighters from the Western-backed opposition as territorial control in Syria is often blurred, reports the BBC's Mark Lowen from the Turkish border.

Given the terms of this ceasefire deal, it is conceivable that the rebels were targeted under cover of striking the Nusra Front, he adds.
The HNC said two of the strikes were in areas where designated terrorist groups were not operating.

Meanwhile, among the breaches reported by the Russian military was what it described as a "cross-border" attack from Turkey near Tal Abyad.

Russia has asked the US to investigate.

The US military told the BBC that it had continued to attack IS targets in Syria on Saturday, including 10 air strikes near Tal Abyad.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35681256

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Source: Turkey ‘protects & supplies’ Al-Nusra camps at its border – Syria’s YPG (EXCLUSIVE)

Jabhat Al-Nusra terrorists have pitched their camps right next to the border and receive regular supplies from the Turkish side, Syrian Kurdish forces told RT’s Lizzie Phelan, who traveled with YPG to investigate suspicious activity there.

 

[Dave]

Source: Turkey ‘protects & supplies’ Al-Nusra camps at its border – Syria’s YPG (EXCLUSIVE)

Turkey is probably a bigger problem with regard to instability in that region than even IS is.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Turkey is probably a bigger problem with regard to instability in that region than even IS is.

yeah Turkey is volatile as hell, doubt their "allies" even know what to expect next ...

 

[Unhappy1]

Source: Turkey ‘protects & supplies’ Al-Nusra camps at its border – Syria’s YPG (EXCLUSIVE)

Not sure why this is an exclusive, Erdogan pretty much admitted Turkey supports Nusra. He went as far as saying Nusra fights ISIS therefore they aren't that bad.

 

[Draganchor]

Not sure why this is an exclusive, Erdogan pretty much admitted Turkey supports Nusra. He went as far as saying Nusra fights ISIS therefore they aren't that bad.

But he kills Kurds? Double standards, but perhaps having an internal enemy is great for the polls. We all know what the Kurds have done on the ground. Even the US is backing them, this is going to end bad.

 

[Unhappy1]

But he kills Kurds? Double standards, but perhaps having an internal enemy is great for the polls. We all know what the Kurds have done on the ground. Even the US is backing them, this is going to end bad.

And Kurds kill Turks, that's a conflict that's been going on for over 30 years. Nusra doesn't attack Turkey and they also hate Assad, that's his rationalisation behind it, not that im trying to say its sensible because of course its not.

Btw Turkey sees PYD as terrorist organisation so Erdogan really sees no difference with his support for Nusra and USA's support of the PYD.

 

[Draganchor]

And Kurds kill Turks, that's a conflict that's been going on for over 30 years. Nusra doesn't attack Turkey and they also hate Assad, that's his rationalisation behind it, not that im trying to say its sensible because of course its not.

Btw Turkey sees PYD as terrorist organisation so Erdogan really sees no difference with his support for Nusra and USA's support of the PYD.

Good point. But Turks kill Kurds also, I do not know too much about the ottoman empire so I will leave it to you educate me. Apologies for that, my knowledge is some what limited.

But the Kurds seem to be, in my limited knowledge, the most effective ground force in the area.

But again I am limited in knowledge.

 

[Unhappy1]

Good point. But Turks kill Kurds also, I do not know too much about the ottoman empire so I will leave it to you educate me. Apologies for that, my knowledge is some what limited.

But the Kurds seem to be, in my limited knowledge, the most effective ground force in the area.

But again I am limited in knowledge.

Well im no expert either but i agree they are a pretty effective force, they are however starting to run into money problems. I agree with Russia and USA in their support for the Kurds and i think they are a far more stable for the region than a group like Nusra or ISIS. Turkey will never see this though, too long a history of hatred between each other.

 

[Draganchor]

Well im no expert either but i agree they are a pretty effective force, they are however starting to run into money problems. I agree with Russia and USA in their support for the Kurds and i think they are a far more stable for the region than a group like Nusra or ISIS. Turkey will never see this though, too long a history of hatred between each other.

Yep them Turks are nasty. Armenian genocide? Just let the Kurds have a homeland I wish. They will defend itself and at least have a semblance of democracy.