The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Grant]

You can list one thing russia has done in last 10 years but the we can list plenty more for the US yet russia are the bad guys.

could you define exactly who the "you" & "we" are in your statement

 

[killadoob]

could you define exactly who the "you" & "we" are in your statement

Sorry so busy not proof reading, i just mean the pro US people and the anti US people. I actually need to change that though. I am anti war and anti anyone who thinks they run the world and dictate international law. Only answered you because you tend to get very agitated if i don't answer for a few hours haha

As i said, nobody is better or worse. All bad. I guess maybe there are levels of bad that people have but bad is my level .

 

[Grant]

The people going to war and killing with drones are not demonized but russia well they are bad ones.

oh the double standards !!
how quickly and conveniently we choose to forget mother russia's indiscriminate bombing of entire villages during the chechnya conflict

 

[Lightscribe]

Obviously gary, none of us care about them, we live on this planet, we live with them so you have to factor them in. Lightscribe i can't even answer you after i say israel does not want to give anyone an excuse to attack them and you word it differently but you mean exactly what i do, why? No idea.

It's called a confirmation.

lightscribe “Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,

Instead of your wiki link perhaps read the resolution bud. It isn't difficult.

Erm, that statement you quote is about the gadsffiduck regime's actions, against the people of Libya. WTFU. Instead of obfuscating some more, read your original post again:

They had no support to drop 40000 bombs on libya and enforce a regime change. Limited in scope and protect civilians. Resolution meaning to the US, bomb the shyte out of them.

My answer was to show that the USA actions had support, including the support of the people of Libya, opposed to gadaffiduck.

It might take the occasional 2 or 3 weeks of a bombing campaign to degrade the enemy, as well as drone strikes or other covert action which I am sure is always taking place.Happy for my taxes to fund this

Wise words. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

Calling you ignorant is not an insult, again you are telling me i am lying and i only did it to show i don't believe media.

Perhaps ask grant what happened with those french documents, i will look go for the posts later and show you a shocked grant when i refused to read an rt report on the french report or any media report.

I don't need to need to defend myself, your ignorance on this matter no in general isn't worth getting worked up over. I don't believe anything i read, i may read it but i don't believe everything. I base my opinion on more than an article from rt so being ignorant is not an insult. I didn't say you were ignorant in general i said you are being ignorant regarding my rt.com believing ways and you are .

Anyways believe what you like but my opinion is based on my opinion and not what someone tells me is the truth. I don't know what the truth is in syria and i have said that over and over. If i insulted or you feel insulted i apologize, i didn't know calling someone ignorant when they won't believe someone would be an insult.

What a load of BS...WTFU.

 

[Grant]

Barack Obama puts military strike on hold

US President Barack Obama has put military action against Syria on hold and vowed to pursue diplomacy to remove the regime's chemical weapons.
Damascus now admits it has chemical weapons and has agreed to abide by a Russian plan to hand over its arsenal.

On the ground, the army is trying to retake the Christian town of Maaloula
Maaloula had been overrun by rebel forces including members of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, at the weekend.
Some Syrian media reported that the government forces had recaptured the town.
But our Middle East editor says the fighting is ongoing, with al-Nusra still present in parts of the town. He says smoke is rising from some districts and he has seen injured government soldiers being evacuated.

Meanwhile, the latest report by UN rights experts, released on Wednesday, says torture and rape are widespread and war crimes are being committed by both sides.

In a televised speech from the White House, President Obama said the Russian plan and the regime's admission that it held chemical weapons were "encouraging signs".
"It's too early to tell whether [the Russian plan] will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments," he said.
"But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies."
He said the diplomatic movements were in part a result of the credible threat of US military action, but that he was willing to hold off pushing for a congressional vote in order to allow diplomacy to be pursued.

Washington said it would "not fall for stalling tactics" and France warned against falling into a "trap" that would scupper any meaningful action against Syria.
The French put forward a draft resolution that would be enforced by Chapter VII of the UN charter, which would in effect sanction the use of force if Syria failed in its obligations.
Correspondents say Moscow opposes any resolution that would be authorised under Chapter VII, and that talks have foundered on the issue.
Russia has also said any draft resolution putting the blame on the Syrian government would be unacceptable, and urged a non-binding declaration backing its initiative.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24043751

 

[killadoob]

So you break international law because other countries support breaking it, LOL lightscribe ok then.

 

[snoopdoggydog]

WOMAN BEHIND CASE FOR SYRIA STRIKE FIRED FOR LYING

The Syria researcher whose Wall Street Journal op-piece was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during congressional hearings about the use of force has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D., the group announced on Wednesday.

“The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University,” the institute said in a statement. “ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.”

O’Bagy told POLITICO’s Kate Brannen in an interview Monday that she had submitted and defended her dissertation and was waiting for Georgetown University to confer her degree.

O’Bagy’s Aug. 30 op-ed piece for the Journal, “On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War,” was cited by both Kerry and McCain last week. McCain read from the piece last Tuesday to Kerry, calling it “an important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy.” The next day, Kerry also brought up the piece before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and described it as a “very interesting article” and recommended that members read it.

But the piece had also come under fire for misrepresenting her affiliations. Originally the op-ed only listed O’Bagy, 26, as only “a senior analyst” at the ISW, later adding a clarification that disclosed her connection to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.

“In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition,” the WSJ added in its clarification.

O’Bagy wrote on Twitter after the uproar that “I have never tried to hide that Ive worked closely with opposition & rebel commanders. Thats what allows me to travel more safely in Syria,” adding that “I’m not trying to trick America here. I’m just trying to show a different side to the conflict that few people have the chance to see.”

The Wall Street Journal has not yet returned a request for comment.

O’Bagy, who has traveled widely with rebel forces in Syria, had been a senior research analyst with ISW. Her biography on the site before she was fired stated that “Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy is a Senior Research Analyst and the Syria Team Lead at the Institute for the Study of War, where she focuses on Syrian politics and security. Her major reports on the Syrian opposition include: The Free Syrian Army, Jihad in Syria, and Syria’s Political Opposition.”

And in the press release announcing she joined the Syrian Emergency Task Force, the group called her “Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy” and said she “recently gained a Master’s in Arab Studies from Georgetown University. Prior to ISW, she received a Critical Language Scholarship to study Arabic in Tangier Morocco and studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo.”

The Georgetown University office of communications told POLITICO they are currently looking into O’Bagy’s status and will release further information later today. The university’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies lists O’Bagy as one of the 20 graduates from this year’s Master of Arts in Arab Studies program.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html

 

[Lightscribe]

So you break international law because other countries support breaking it, LOL lightscribe ok then.

You need to make clear, which international laws were broken, by which countries and also during which events, whilst pointing out which countries are trying to get these "broken laws" prosecuted. Otherwise you are again, simply making another very broad, non specific statement, in another attempt to obfuscate.

 

[Lightscribe]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/wall-street-journal-elizabeth-obagy-fired-96637.html

Showing your true colours, I see...

You edited out this piece, from the text you posted above:

Kimberly Kagan, who founded the ISW in 2007, said in an interview that while she was “deeply saddened” by the situation, she stands by O’Bagy’s work on Syria.

”Everything I’ve looked at is rock solid,” Kagan told POLITICO. “Every thread that we have pulled upon has been verified through multiple sources.”

 

[snoopdoggydog]

Showing your true colours, I see...

You edited out this piece, from the text you posted above:

Yes, that's why I left the link to the story. Doesn't change the fact that she's a lying piece of **** and that's why the US has given Russia an opportunity to remove the egg from their faces because Obama found out she's the female Colin Powell.

 

[Lightscribe]

Yes, that's why I left the link to the story. Doesn't change the fact that she's a lying piece of **** and that's why the US has given Russia an opportunity to remove the egg from their faces because Obama found out she's the female Colin Powell.

The issue is that you deliberately removed the particular piece, that shows her work was fine...Really slimy...

Cry us a river about USA/Russia relations.

 

[Alan]

She has been quoted absolutely everywhere. Just the other day I committed on that to somebody when she appeared on CNN. Guess wont be seeing any more of her then

 

[killadoob]

You need to make clear, which international laws were broken, by which countries and also during which events, whilst pointing out which countries are trying to get these "broken laws" prosecuted. Otherwise you are again, simply making another very broad, non specific statement, in another attempt to obfuscate.

Obfuscate your new fav word dude?

Read the libya resolution. Then come back to me.

 

[Lightscribe]

Obfuscate your new fav word dude?

Read the libya resolution. Then come back to me.

It's a word that describes your behavior...and has been used by me, on you, for quite some time now...

You go read it. Don't bother coming back to me after.

 

[killadoob]

It's a word that describes your behavior...and has been used by me, on you, for quite some time now...

You go read it. Don't bother coming back to me after.

I am not the one claiming is was acceptable to drop 40000 bombs on libya, you are and your logic is their friends wanted it done. Sorry but the world does work like that. My friends want to bomb syria so i will, what is this a gang or school yard?

Libya is over and it alienated obama back home and abroad. So he only has himself to blame for the lack of support at home and abroad. Don't come ask me to spoon feed you, i told you to read the resolution. There is no part of the resolution that says: If you and your friends want to kill innocent people and destroy libya you can. You really need to read the resolution to understand why russia and china vetoed the resolution in syria. You will avoid that because you know it was wrong, you know it was abused and you won't read it so let's call it a draw a move on.



Interesting israel backing the russian peaceful plan. Good to see countries rallying around a country who wants peace and not war. Go russia, showing the world you are the main okes and perhaps there would be less war if you were policing the world . Israel showing support for this operation, brilliant.

 

[zippy]

I don't think there'll ever be an end game Killa after one they'll just go looking for another

End games are for Hollywood and people who live in some fantasy world.

 

[killadoob]

End games are for Hollywood and people who live in some fantasy world.

How do you know it isn't a fantasy world? Look around you bud. Fantasy everywhere.

 

[Lightscribe]

I am not the one claiming is was acceptable to drop 40000 bombs on libya, you are and your logic is their friends wanted it done. Sorry but the world does work like that. My friends want to bomb syria so i will, what is this a gang or school yard?

Libya is over and it alienated obama back home and abroad. So he only has himself to blame for the lack of support at home and abroad. Don't come ask me to spoon feed you, i told you to read the resolution. There is no part of the resolution that says: If you and your friends want to kill innocent people and destroy libya you can. You really need to read the resolution to understand why russia and china vetoed the resolution in syria. You will avoid that because you know it was wrong, you know it was abused and you won't read it so let's call it a draw a move on.



Interesting israel backing the russian peaceful plan. Good to see countries rallying around a country who wants peace and not war. Go russia, showing the world you are the main okes and perhaps there would be less war if you were policing the world . Israel showing support for this operation, brilliant.

Mmmm C'mon, post the piece you want me to take notice of. C'mon, spooonfeeed me Elmore! Show the world thy genius by pointing out whatever it is you, in your latest attempt at obfuscation, want me to admit/see/know...or whatever...

The exact piece quoted here, thanks.

PS. No more long obfuscations please. Be succinct.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So Putin has an opinion piece in the New York Times.

RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

 

[killadoob]

Mmmm C'mon, post the piece you want me to take notice of. C'mon, spooonfeeed me Elmore! Show the world thy genius by pointing out whatever it is you, in your latest attempt at obfuscation, want me to admit/see/know...or whatever...

The exact piece quoted here, thanks.

If you haven't bothered to read the resolution to back your my friends said i could do it so i did, i really can't argue about it or debate it. You are right if your friends say do it then do it. Logic --> window.

Ok so back to syria now...

Rt claims to be fighting jihadists in christian town, Guess they didn't want to pull out as staggy and myself questioned.

Go syria, kill those twisted jihadists!!!