Syria conflict: US says Russian air strikes 'indiscriminate'

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I wonder if anyone knows why exactly the USA has decided to remove Assad? Examples of what his regime has done wrong would help?

Oh thats an easy one, his government fought back against the terrorists which were trying to overthrow him in 2011 after they destroyed Libya.

Yeah. fighting back against those trying to kill you is probably a crime in Obama's eye's. Especially if Obama wants you dead. Just like using a gun to fight back against armed criminals is a crime.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Proof? Seriously, have you been living under a rock with your head under a pillow.

There is ample evidence out there for you to look at without having to reply on "the media"..

I would have thought the steady stream of refugees with the stories they have to tell would be enough, but if not, there is plenty of video evidence of his security forces firing on protesters back in 2011.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Not even remotely close - the Syrian "Arab Spring" started at the same time as the Libya one was going on...

Bunching everyone into the bracket of "terrorist" is just idiotic.

Oh so now you start name calling which is against T&C of ATS who is idiotic?

And yes those were indeed the same bunch of terrorists behold the truth there were quite a few news reports of one group after another being sent from Libya to Syria here is just one of them, but there are many many more:

edition.cnn.com...
Their war for freedom in Libya may be over, but almost a year after they won the battle for the Libyan capital, a group of fighters have a new battlefield: Syria.

Under the command of one of Libya's most well known rebel commanders, Al-Mahdi al-Harati, more than 30 Libyan fighters have made their way into Syria to support the Free Syrian Army rebels in their war against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Al-Harati, who commanded the Tripoli Revolutionary brigade -- which was the first group of rebels to enter the Libyan capital last August -- has been in Syria for months leading some of his former men and Syrian military defectors who have joined his "Liwaa al-Umma" or "The Banner of the Nation" brigade.

Recent YouTube videos show at least two different Syrian rebel factions announcing that they are part of the Liwa al-Umma.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Name calling? I did no such thing.. I said putting everyone into the bracket of terrorist was idiotic, I didn't call you an idiot. Ironic you should whine about that, then do exactly the same thing.

As for your link - a whole 30 Libyan fighters, hey? So all this trouble in Syria that started in 2011 is down to 30 Libyans who went there in 2012?

Righto...

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Name calling? I did no such thing.. I said putting everyone into the bracket of terrorist was idiotic, I didn't call you an idiot. Ironic you should whine about that, then do exactly the same thing.

As for your link - a whole 30 Libyan fighters, hey? So all this trouble in Syria that started in 2011 is down to 30 Libyans who went there in 2012?

Righto...

Saying people who believe X are idiots in reference to some topic is considered a snarky comment which is against T&C of ATS.

Libya became a training ground for the fighters then they went to Syria, it wasnt 30, that news report was about one group.

If you were keeping track during the start of the war you would know that multiple countries began sending in terrorists to topple the Assad government, and they were all calling for jihad against the the Assad government and Syrian people.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I wonder what central bank Syria is using? Maybe the same one as Libya was using just before Kadafi was hunted down and slaughtered by savages.

They say Assad is killing his own people and that he is a bad guy. What proof does anyone have other than the allies and Obama's word?

Perhaps the only ones killed by Assad are those trying to kill him. Thugs trained by the coalition.

I have no proof of anything. I'm not sure who is good if any. I don't believe anything belched up from the toads running things these days, unless I see it with my own eye's.

Well, you won't get it from the ra-ra crowd here, but team USA is really just chump muscle/cash in this whole thing. When you really start to look at it, I think it's obvious pdq that it's hard to figure out why the US would be backing the interests that it's backing.

Some of the real interests driving it go like this:

Saudi's and Qatar against Russia, China, and to a much lesser extent Iran, for extracting wealth from and having influence over Europe by energy supply. It's the same deal as with Ukraine. The 'western allied arabs' would like to run a pipeline to Europe. This means more competition for Russia, and more options for Europe.

Old school Germany vs Russia. This one is much more clearly the motive for the western initiated war in Ukraine. It was a straight up gangster move, and an inept one at that. It was a botched attempt to knee-cap Russia that will ultimately, eventually, inevitably result in the breakup of Ukraine into a German dominated West Ukraine and Russian dominated East Ukraine. It has already basically failed at any of the goals which supposedly justified such a needless and irresponsible move.

Syria is really just this same conflict too, because the Germans are so screwed that they've thrown in with the Saudis and Qatar in a desperate bid to remain the dominant force behind their failing European Union. Thus the refuge crisis falling hard on Europe is the chickens coming home to roost. It is just as Putin has said: the west straight up backed Islamic terrorism to destabilize a stable state in the ineptly conceived hope of furthering their own geopolitical interests.

Hate to say it, but the US is doing something completely stupid by backing the obvious losers here aka Germany, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. They even mostly back those Arab states out of tradition; practically speaking it is ultimately far more in the interests of the UK than the USA. Germany has pretty much run the EU into the ground so it's ridiculous to favor them so much as well.

The 'silent partner' in all this is China, but they're basically on Russia's side in this. They're the ones who are increasingly going to be the hegemon dominating Iran, for example. China keeps a low profile in this area, but they're quietly winning this whole thing more than just about anyone else is.

Germany in particular doesn't seem to get how they are already falling under the influence of their rivals here: advancing their partnerships with China is increasingly their hope for beating their old rivals, the Russians. It's wildly stupid. All I can figure is that once again, the romantic/fanciful side of the German psyche is to blame. It has become fixated on the historical narrative of Germans vs Russians and doesn't realize that falling under the influence of China is basically what the whole game is all about anyway. To counter Russian influence, Germany and Europe in general will increasingly turn to China. So the whole thing is 'heads you lose, tails I win' for China.

a reply to: stumason

Syrias internal politics and whether assad is evil or not is irrelevant now. It was none of our buisness really to begin with.

Seeing as tge UK is quite happy to get into bed with saudi arabia and the UAE we are in no position to play judge jury and executioner. Assad may be a rotton guy but the Saudis make pre war syria look like a becon of freedom!

UK priority should be the elimination bof ISIS and stabilising syria, even IF under Assad now.

Fact is we should of gone in and forced a cease fire as soon as ISIS emerged and the war spilled out of syria.
We didnt and missed the chance to end the war on our terms.

Now Russia stepped up whether we like it or not and there is F all you or me can do about that. So Assad it appears is staying. So we can either cause more trouble or help Russia (even if not ideal) to establish some sort of order in syria as quickly as possible.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Doesn't the whole problem come down to the definition of discrimination?
His policy is that if you are in the area and you are not backed by the legitimate government you are a terrorist.
Given that the whole region is overrun by terrorists why not hit what is there?