The Syrian Conflict Thread

A third strike would be instant action, let's see if israel are brave enough to attack and murder some more soldiers. See i reckon israel thought maybe we can hit them and they won't respond, then we do it again and perhaps again but now we wait and see if israel will strike again and perhaps take an immediate hit or not. I highly doubt they will though. I think murdering so many soldiers has not been seen in a good light across the globe so i don't think it is a popular move or supported tactic.

With the new syrian government tactics though they are destroying the rebels at the moment, israel may have to hit them again because right now the rebels are on the run for the first time since the war began, no defensive tactics from the government. Interesting because they reckon if this offensive move fails the army may turn on assad but for now the tactic is working very well, crushing the rebels which i guess is expected. Rebels wanted a fight now, now they getting whipped and only intervention can really stop it. So will israel strike again hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i doubt it.

Here you go, from the article you link to...Seems there are some out there that share your opinion. :p

And Syrian ally Iran warned of a "crushing response,"

So you think soldiers are murdered? They were shifting weaponry in a long term strategy against Israel. They were simply killed as in any combat situation.

Here's your answer, from the same link, as to whether Israel will do it again.

While Israel has not acknowledged responsibility for the attacks, the country has long said it would target any transfer of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups.

"We are watching everything when it comes to the movement of these types of weapons. We have the means to do that," a senior Israeli defense official told CNN's Sara Sidner on Sunday. The official is not authorized to speak to the media.

Shaul Mofaz, a lawmaker in Israel's Knesset, told Israeli Army Radio on Sunday that Israel isn't meddling with Syria's civil war. But Israel must protect itself from Lebanese militants, he said.

"For Israel, it is very important that the front group for Iran, which is in Lebanon, needs to be stopped," Mofaz said.
 
Last edited:
The trouble for the US is if they want to go to war with iran they need assad gone but at the same time they need back up from the likes of turkey etc but israel and the US do not seem to be on the same page at the moment. You cannot go and kill up to 100 soldiers because you feel like it. That is a violation of international law, yet people are defending these actions based on the fact that there is a civil war. Does it make the strike right? The US don't kill soldiers like this so blatantly so i really doubt the US were involved with this strike. Blatant disregard for international law, o wait iraq war hmmmm maybe they are involved.

Confused much? See the Israeli reply in my post above.
 
The bolded part sums up the Syrian conflict well.

"There is also a fierce geostrategic rivalry unfolding in Syria between Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, a rivalry invested and fuelled with sectarianism. A real danger exists that this complex conflict in Syria could escalate into a region-wide battle involving Syria's major allies -- Iran and Hezbollah, and Israel, other regional powers, and the Western states."

Analysts say that as part of the Lebanese government the group would be risking a great deal if it responded to Israeli aggression with force. Israeli officials are betting that al-Assad will not retaliate, both because his forces have their hands full already and because any strike against Israel would risk Israeli counterstrikes that might seriously degrade his advantages in the civil war, like airpower. "They don't want to open a new front that might be the last one they open," says one Israeli military official on condition of anonymity. "They would suffer a knockout punch."

Syria's military is exhausted by the civil war and it would make little sense to open a new front against the best equipped military in the region, unless it was in a last-ditch attempt to garner flagging support as its internal morale vanished.

But two years into the Syrian civil war there does not seem to be a military solution. "It is a long war of attrition with no end in sight," wrote Gerges. "Neither internal camp seems to have the means to deliver a decisive blow.

"Only a political solution will put an end to the shedding of Syrian blood and prevent the unthinkable: a region-wide conflict that would have catastrophic consequences."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/opinion/opinion-gerges-syria/index.html
 
Yes i think soldiers that are killed by a country they are not at war with are murdered. Am i wrong? i didn't know israel was at war with syria. So they broke international law and murdered a a pretty large amount of soldiers, sure the amount isn't close to the 80000 dead people but the two scenario's are different.

So if iran went and killed 50 US soldiers in the US or israeli soldiers citing the movement of arms, even though it was a complex they hit then that would be the same thing right and would be perfectly acceptable?

Grant it isn't that rt are authorities but it does show that aljazeera and cnn are a bit slow to put out news that perhaps paints syria in a different light, lightscribe i know about the syrian rebels and i have said it all along, what happens after assad? Nobody can answer, the easy answer is remove him now, what is the long term solution? There isn't one because the common enemy is gone now we kill each other will take over. It also shows RT are a legitimate source of info as is haaretz actually, they are on the ball pretty fast as well.

Depending whether assad's removal is intervention or occupation would determine a few other factors but i see iraq all over again. Look at the democratic iraq now, people are scared to even walk in the streets. If anything iraq is getting worse now that US troops are gone, more time to focus on each other. I wonder if the US are going to arm the al queda rebel group in syria.
 
Last edited:
Yes i think soldiers that are killed by a country they are not at war with are murdered. Am i wrong? i didn't know israel was at war with syria. So they broke international war and murdered a a pretty large amount of soldiers, sure the amount isn't close to the 80000 dead people but the two scenario's are different.

I Googled "israel murdered syrian soldiers". The responses are all "killed". You are wrong. You are welcome to try have Israel tried for "war crimes" over the attacks, though. Let us know when you have succeeded.

So if iran went and killed 50 US soldiers in the US or israeli soldiers citing the movement of arms, even though it was a complex they hit then that would be the same thing right and would be perfectly acceptable?

Only in the minds of confused people and the Iranian leadership. ;)
 
So would it be fine for iran to hit targets and kill soldiers?

Simple yes or no would be perfectly fine as an answer lightscribe, i know deflecting the obvious facts is easier than admitting them but give it a shot.

Did israel break international law and kill soldiers of a foreign country they are not at war with? I would say that is murder, it can't be a war crime because they are not at war with syria nor did they declare they are at war with syria, so it is outright murder.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/israel-says-air-strike-on-damascus-targeted-hezbollah/

When iran can go around bombing it's neighbours with impunity i will let it go i guess. Until then it seems breaking international law is perfectly fine and you won't even get sanctioned for doing it. Yet some countries are so badly sanctioned and they haven't fought a war in 3 or 4 decades.

http://rt.com/usa/syria-corker-arm-rebels-963/
Now i wonder which group will get the amazing new toys and will israel deem it a problem to allow the rebels and possible jihadists like al queda to get advanced weapons inside of syria, i am guessing any US shipment to any group inside syria will be fine even though it could end up in hezbollah's hands or worse an al queda backed rebel group.
 
Last edited:
So would it be fine for iran to hit targets and kill soldiers?

Simple yes or no would be perfectly fine as an answer lightscribe, i know deflecting the obvious facts is easier than admitting them but give it a shot.

Did israel break international law and kill soldiers of a foreign country they are not at war with? I would say that is murder, it can't be a war crime because they are not at war with syria. it is outright murder based on the fact that they say the complex has weapons bound for hezbollah but why would assad be sending weapons from the capital to hezbollah instead of his own troops so the excuse is a poor one.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/israel-says-air-strike-on-damascus-targeted-hezbollah/

If Iran for example did it against say Iraq because Iraq was sending weapons to terrorists In Iran then surely they would be justified? Take the nuclear issue out of it and the fact that Iran is intent on wiping out Israel
 
If Iran for example did it against say Iraq because Iraq was sending weapons to terrorists In Iran then surely they would be justified? Take the nuclear issue out of it and the fact that Iran is intent on wiping out Israel

You are avoiding as lightscribe has done answering some very simple questions. I can't use an example like that because iran and iraq are buddies.

I have shown you time and again that speech was not what cnn and co told you marine. http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel...media-to-justify-an-all-out-war-on-iran/21188

Other than that blatant attemp to make it seem like iran is hell bent on killing every jew while housing 30000 jews where is your proof? give orbital the links he needs to see where iran has ever said they want to destroy israel.
 
So would it be fine for iran to hit targets and kill soldiers?

Simple yes or no would be perfectly fine as an answer lightscribe, i know deflecting the obvious facts is easier than admitting them but give it a shot.

Did israel break international law and kill soldiers of a foreign country they are not at war with? I would say that is murder, it can't be a war crime because they are not at war with syria nor did they declare they are at war with syria, so it is outright murder.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/israel-says-air-strike-on-damascus-targeted-hezbollah/

When iran can go around bombing it's neighbours with impunity i will let it go i guess. Until then it seems breaking international law is perfectly fine and you won't even get sanctioned for doing it. Yet some countries are so badly sanctioned and they haven't fought a war in 3 or 4 decades.

http://rt.com/usa/syria-corker-arm-rebels-963/
Now i wonder which group will get the amazing new toys and will israel deem it a problem to allow the rebels and possible jihadists like al queda to get advanced weapons inside of syria, i am guessing any US shipment to any group inside syria will be fine even though it could end up in hezbollah's hands or worse an al queda backed rebel group.

Any question you pose needs context. The way you phrase it, no. If however, you mean that Iran was stopping it's neighboring enemies, from receiving weaponry, from another of it's neighboring enemies, then yes, a preemptive strike, would be justified.
 
Any question you pose needs context. The way you phrase it, no. If however, you mean that Iran was stopping it's neighboring enemies, from receiving weaponry, from another of it's neighboring enemies, then yes, a preemptive strike, would be justified.

I did say that if the americans were shipping arms to israel and iran struck that shipment, would that be fine and along with the shipments being destroyed 100-150 missing pressumed dead US and israeli troops.

Would that be acceptable? There is your context. Why don't you just admit that it would not be acceptable and more than likely trigger a war because both parties are well equipped to go in and fight.

What if iran struck a nuclear site like israel did in syria, the secret site that nobody knows about, how would that go down?

Dance light dance :D, getting a simple answer out of you is proving to be challenging even though the facts are clear and accurate.
 
I did say that if the americans were shipping arms to israel and iran struck that shipment, would that be fine and along with the shipments being destroyed 100-150 missing pressumed dead US and israeli troops.

Would that be acceptable? There is your context. Why don't you just admit that it would not be acceptable and more than likely trigger a war because both parties are well equipped to go in and fight.

What if iran struck a nuclear site like israel did in syria, the secret site that nobody knows about, how would that go down?

Part of the larger context is that Israel has received hostility and aggression from their neighbours since the country's inception.
 
syria have been in a permanent state of war with Israel since 1948 and currently there is a cease fire that gets tested here and there.
Moving missiles to a terrorist militia is an act of war, and they were hit.

The 1974 cease fire between Israel and Syria gets renewed by both sides every 6 months, and the current 6 months is up, nothing preventing Syria from not renewing and signing it.
 
Rebels Shoot Down Fighter Jet

Rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad shot down a fighter jet early on Wednesday over the north Syrian province of Aleppo, a watchdog said, as battles raged across the strife-torn country.

"Opposition fighters shot down a fighter jet that was shelling areas near Minnigh military air base... and the pilot's fate remains unknown," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Rebels and troops have been fighting over Minnigh airport and other bases in Aleppo province for some two months.

The Britain-based Observatory also reported fighting near the international airport in Aleppo province, closed since January, and Nayrab air base.

In Daraa in southern Syria, clashes were reported as the army stormed the town of Khirbet Ghazaleh, said the watchdog that relies on a network of medics and activists on the ground for its information.

The United Nations says more than 70,000 people have been killed in the violence in Syria since the uprising against Assad's regime erupted in March 2011.


Source : Sapa-AFP /pk
Date : 08 May 2013 09:31
 
Assad's 'Plan B' is 'Ethnic Cleansing'

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of resorting to a new strategy of "ethnic cleansing" to create a safe zone for his Alawite sect, in an interview published Wednesday.

"What concerned us about the Banias incident is that (Assad) has switched to a new strategy to reinstate influence by subjecting a certain area to ethnic cleansing," Davutoglu told the Hurriyet newspaper.

He was referring to the Mediterranean city of Banias where rights monitors say dozens of people were killed in attacks in a Sunni neighbourhood condemned by the international community.

"This is a so-called Plan B strategy based on sectarian clashes and opening a space or corridor for a certain sect," he said, suggesting Assad was trying to create an all-Alawite zone stretching from the embattled city of Homs to Lebanon.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday he was appalled by the photographs of children massacred by the regime and called on the UN Security Council to "urgently convene" over the Banias killings.

Davutoglu said Banias was occupying a critical location in the corridor extending to Lebanon.

"This is a dangerous game. This is an ethnic cleansing," he said.

"The goal is to intimidate the residents and to force them to leave. In fact, the majority of one million refugees who fled to Lebanon is Sunnis."

Assad's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, has dominated Syria for decades.

Sunni-majority Turkey cut contact with Damascus after the regime's deadly crackdown on opponents in a revolt erupted in March 2011.

Ankara has sided with the rebels fighting to topple Assad's regime, taken in around 400,000 refugees as well as army defectors and repeatedly called on the international community to act on the unfolding crisis.


Source : Sapa-AFP /sdv
Date : 08 May 2013 15:09
 
This is the same country condemning israel right? So it shows you even though turkey wants to get in there how israel did it was not right.

Obama is thinking clearly and intelligently, if bush was president they would already be in the country. Think long term and it's a bit late in the game to really attack syria now with all the different groups and al queda operating.

Add to that iran and lebanon fighters waiting for the call i honestly can't see how anyone can intervene in syria right now unless they do so illegally, arming the rebels sounds like a great plan but i wonder what is better for israel long term, civil war in syria or assad gone?
 
Political not Military solution needed

The problems that plague the Middle East, including Iran's nuclear ambitions and Syria's civil war, require "political, not military" solutions, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

Saying the "old order" was vanishing in the region, Hagel stressed in a speech that the United States would work to promote democratic reform while bearing in mind the "limitations" of American power.

Although the Pentagon chief made clear that Washington had not ruled out potential military action against Iran or Syria, his remarks highlighted President Barack Obama's cautious stance on resorting to armed force in the volatile region.

He said that regional challenges including "the nuclear challenge posed by Iran, dangerous instability in Syria, or the continuing threat of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups" must be addressed through "coalitions of common interests," including Israel and other allies in the region.

"A common thread woven into the Middle East fabric is that the most enduring and effective solutions to the challenges facing the region are political, not military," Hagel told an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"America's role in the Middle East is to continue to help influence and shape the course of events -- using diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, intelligence, and security tools in coordination with our allies," he said.

Arab uprisings had shaken the established political landscape in the Middle East, he said.

"The old order in the Middle East is disappearing, and what will replace it remains unknown.

"There will continue to be instability in the region as this process plays out and we all must adjust accordingly."

Prospects for stability in the longer run would hinge on the outcome of political transitions in Egypt, Libya and Syria, said Hagel, who traveled to the region last month.

"The best hope for long-term stability relies on countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria making transitions to democratic rule," he said.

The United States would "remain engaged in helping shape the new order, but we must engage wisely," he said.

"This will require a clear understanding of our national interests, our limitations, and an appreciation for the complexities of this unpredictable, contradictory, yet hopeful region of the world," he said.

The war in Syria was turning "sectarian" and the possibility the state would break apart was "increasing," he said.

The war was putting Syria's "stockpiles of chemical weapons and advanced conventional weapons at risk, and the escalation of violence threatens to spill across its borders," he said.

But Hagel struck a restrained tone on Syria and did not reiterate Obama's declared "red line" warning Damascus not to use its chemical weapons.

The Obama administration has faced renewed calls for intervention after US intelligence agencies said the Syrian regime probably used chemical weapons on a small-scale. But the White House says the spy services are still investigating the allegations.

After the speech, when asked about Syria, Hagel said the administration would not take any action until it had all the facts and alluded to the intelligence disaster in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.

"It's fair to say that we're all probably a little wiser today than we were before and when we take action, there is always the reality -- that you accept -- that there may be consequences and unintended consequences may come from that," he said.

"There are also consequences and unintended consequences that come from inaction," he added.

In answering the question on Syria, Hagel joked about his outspoken style before he took over at the Pentagon in February.

He said now he had to watch his words more carefully as he was no longer a senator and he couldn't "speak as irresponsibly as I would like."


Source : Sapa-AFP /aw
Date : 10 May 2013 03:34
 
Syria will respond immediately to any Israeli strike

Syria threatened on Thursday an immediate response to any new Israeli strike, after two reported attacks on military targets, as its Lebanese ally Hezbollah said Damascus would arm it with 'game-changing' weapons despite those strikes.

Damascus also welcomed a US-Russian initiative to find a political solution to end the two-year-old civil war, though again balking at Washington's demand that President Bashar al-Assad would need to stand down.

And it said it was ready to receive a UN team to probe claims that chemical weapons had been used in the country.

In an exclusive interview with AFP, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Muqdad said "the instruction has been made to respond immediately to any new Israeli attack without (additional) instruction from any higher leadership, and our retaliation will be strong and will be painful against Israel."

Senior Israeli sources have said strikes on early Friday and Sunday targeted weapons bound for the powerful Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, but Muqdad denied that.

"They absolutely did not achieve their objective and they lied when they said they are targeting Hezbollah," he said, adding there is "no way Syria will allow this to happen again."

In Beirut, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Syria would supply his movement with "game-changing weapons" and open up the front to "resistance fighters" against the Jewish state on the Golan Heights.

Israel captured the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day war and subsequently annexed it.

"You Israelis say your objective is to stop the capability of the resistance (against Israel) from growing... but Syria will provide (Hezbollah) with game-changing weapons it has not had before," Nasrallah said in his televised speech.

"If you (Israel) see Syria as a corridor of arms to (Hezbollah), Syria will provide the resistance with those arms. This is a highly strategic decision."

Israel has repeatedly warned it will intervene to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, with which it fought a devastating 2006 war.

Hezbollah is battling alongside Assad's troops in several parts of the country.

The regime is relying increasingly on its alliance with Hezbollah, and Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar quoted Assad on Thursday as saying Syria would "give Hezbollah everything" for its loyalty.

The military and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights watchdog both reported on Thursday that loyalist forces, including elements of Hezbollah, had advanced in the Qusayr area, which is strategically located along the Lebanese border.

Meanwhile, Syria's foreign ministry welcomed the US-Russian "rapprochement," under which the two countries will seek to convene an international conference to build on a six-point accord agreed in Geneva last year.

The Geneva agreement aimed at finding a path towards a transitional government but made no mention of Assad's departure, which the opposition says is non-negotiable.

US Secretary John Kerry said Assad would have to step down as part of the resolution to the conflict.

That was rejected by the Syrian foreign ministry, which stressed that the decision belongs "only" to the Syrian people.

And the ministry said it was "confident that the Russian position, which is based on the principles of the UN Charter and international law, will not change."

Russia is a top ally of the regime in Damascus and has staunchly resisted any bid to oust Assad.

Meanwhile the United Nations said its Syria envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, has withdrawn a threat to quit and will stay the course in light of the US-Russian agreement.

And the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had informed Washington about the imminent sale to Syria of Russian S-300 missile batteries, advanced ground-to-air weapons that can take out aircraft or guided missiles.

The differences between the United States and Russia were underlined by reports that Israel has warned Washington of Moscow's plans to sell the missile systems.

Reacting to the report, Kerry warned in Rome that the sale would be "potentially destabilising" for the region.

Moscow has continued to supply Damascus with weapons throughout the conflict, which has left more than 70,000 people dead since March 2011.

Under mounting international pressure over the possible use of chemical weapons, Syria said it was ready to receive a UN team to

"We were ready and we are always ready, right now, to receive the delegation that was set up by Ban Ki-moon to investigate what happened in Khan al-Assal," Muqdad said, referring to a village near Aleppo where authorities say rebels used chemical weapons killing 30 people.


Source : Sapa-AFP /ks
Date : 09 May 2013 20:22
 
What a dogs breakfast. Syria is seriously stuffed. Feel for the people. Goes to show that a king is not displaced without much bloodshed.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X