Reason I support Assad in this Civil War

firstly dont get me wrong hes no Saint and not someone i would say is a good leader

But on the other hand we have a situation where you have Islamists and those affiliated with al qaeda fighting government forces who have made it very clear they want the country to follow strict Islamic laws

we have seen what has happened in Libya where Weapons and explosives ram saked from weapons dumps and those given by the french have ended up in the hands of extremists

Now if the Syrian Government falls, whats to stop Fanatics from getting their hands on Long range weapons and other advanced weapons, and we know they have gotten chemical weapons and aren't afraid to use them

Unlike Syria the Rebels dont have the air support given by the US and allied forces as its being blocked by Russia which to be honest is a good thing.

one thing I did find funny was when the US state department got angry at Russia for giving anti ship missiles to Syria when Turkey and its allies are providing weapons to terrorist and rebels (and to quote William Hague) we will supply them even if it means breaking our own arms embargo

one reason I dont trust the BBC and other media here, as it seems to be all black and white and they never seem to show the full picture.

at the end of the day we do not need another country disestablished(not that Syria isn't screwed already) and run amok with fanatics who will do anything to get things their own way

reply to post by bodrul


Though I don't often see eye to eye with you, I think that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. If anyone if under the impression that the FSA will be tolerant and have free, fair elections, respect human rights ect....... boy are you in for a surprise.


There are no good players in the Syrian Civil War. I don't even know if there is a good outcome anymore with it. Ideally both combatants wear themselves down and eventually some sort of shared government agreement comes out of it. Highly unlikely, but better than any of the other alternatives.

We as the U.S. totally played this one wrong. We waited too long to pick a horse in this race and now our choice is probably the least likely of the three to take over Syria. Now giving arms to the main Syrian Rebel groups, you might as will be arming AQ in Afghanistan back in the 80's.

I'm surprised Israel's not expressing more opinion of which side to back in Syria. I know they hate baby Assad and would love to see him fall, but they can't be happy with who will take over after him. At least with Assad and the Syrian Military, you pretty much know what you are going to get.

Bodrul is right, the one thing we need is fewer unstable countries in the Middle East. If find it amusing that the Saudi's and Qataris are funding most of this war.....it will come back to bite them, mark my words.

reply to post by bodrul


Iraq is a hell hole and so is Libya and that's all thanks to the west/Israel. In fact, I just read today ANOTHER string of deadly attacks hit Iraq killing over 70 people, Wave of attacks kills at least 70 in Iraq. So I agree, if I had to choose a lesser of 2 evils I choose Assad over Al Qaeda all day any day.

That being said, YouTube Assad + Secret Police + Protest. Assad is a scumbag whose regime does need to fall but not to the hands of Al Qaeda.

reply to post by pavil


Israel doesn't side with Al Qaeda, Israeli official: Assad preferable to extremist rebels, The Times of London reports, but they also don't side with other known terrorists who are fighting with Assad, Hezbollah steps up Syria battle, Israel threatens more strikes.

I support neither side. You CAN do that, you know?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


I sure wish nations could. In fact, the US supporting neither side would be my best hope...since there really is no good side. Only shades of bad.

What makes one killer better than the next?,if we learnt anything from our pasts if two children fight there sticks are taken away and both are sent to detention and/or expelled,same logic should apply here,its he only way the region is going to get overcome the trauma and recover.Though i understand the concept of a leader defending his nation, he is slaughtering his own people in doing so.There is no easy solution to the Syrian war
and It is clear it has reached a point regardless of who started it where all parties are guilty of needless death
but it can be contained and this is the third side that should be considered,by implementing and enforcing an arms blockade and the freezing of contracts to limit if not stop the flow of arms and ammo to those who choose bloodshed over peace.now.mmedia.me...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Reuters indicated that the U.S. made a statement regarding the intense fighting over the last couple of days. Now supposedly Next Month they are supposed to have talks. If those talks Don't go the way we want WE are going to consider stepping up Aide.

It's ALL a Hell Hole, . Period.

With so many groups (aka Countries or what ever the hell you want to call them) getting involved, this could be Where It ALL Starts.

Also, with what is being reported it is somewhat Contradictory as to who is Good and Who is Bad.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by pavil

 

Israel doesn't side with Al Qaeda, Israeli official: Assad preferable to extremist rebels, The Times of London reports, but they also don't side with other known terrorists who are fighting with Assad, Hezbollah steps up Syria battle, Israel threatens more strikes.

Yes .... this is quite funny really .... if it wasn't so serious.

Israel (and by association the USA and UK) should be supporting Assad and yet decides to bomb his facilities.

I hope it all comes back to haunt them.

I don't think UK should be funding ALCIADA but if it bad for Israel then ok I'll let it go.

I dont like to "make light" of the situation but I just wish the US stance was like Washington Hogwallop responding to his brother in the movie, "Oh Brother, Where art thou?" With three words changed.

He stated: (my modification)

"Sorry, Syria, I know we're human, but they got this sequester on. I gots to do for me and mine!"

Every time I think of Syria I just cannot get that modified quote out of my head.

The MSM is being blatant in their misinforming bias too. Extrapolating ideas as if there is only one murderous group there... the Syrian Government Forces.

It makes me sick all the way around.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It would be a refreshing change to see the US sit one out for once, don't you think?

There are 4 options actually for the US. 1.Assad 2.Rebels/Terrorist 3.Sit this one out and the one option they already have decided and are doing now 4. give the rebels just enough aid through 3rd parties as to not lose but not enough to win there by dragging out a decades long conflict with no winner or loser example Iran/Iraq war of the 80's. This will keep Syria from becoming another staging ground for Terrorist but also deny Russia/Iran a capable and functioning ally in the region.

The real loser in this decision is the civilians of Syria who are going to die or become refugees and have no hope for a peace for the foreseeable future.

Well what you have is 3 sides. The Rebels mostly ex Syrian Army, Islamic radicals who mostly fight with Assads force but, clash with the rebels on occasion but, mostly they are preparing for fighting each other when Assad falls and then you have Assad side, some loyal Syrian forces with Iranian special ops, Lebanese militias and Hezbollah. More and more Hezbollah and the militias have had to step up do to the problems with Syrian forces changing sides.

What you have in Syria now is like what you had in China in WW2. 3 sides. One is doomed Assad. The other two trying to fight a common enemy while at the same time not weakening themselves for the fight against each other when Assad falls. To make it worse. When Assad falls those forces fighting on his side are going to take the Syrians that were loyal to Assad and head into Lebanon to complete take that joint over. If the West is wise they are arming and training special rebels forces to be used to hit the radicals the day Assad goes down maybe even with some air support. You have to wonder if Assad had avoided shooting protestors if this entire thing might have blown over. If and armer revolt had broken out instead of an unarmed one his military would not have changed sides.

It's none of our business. I just can't say it better than that.

But there is a much bigger picture going on behind the scenes. There has been no conflict in recent times that has had any kind of clarity. There are not just two sides fighting one another. There are behind the scenes players with behind the scenes goals, intentions, and expected payoffs. Secret funding from foreign governments. Foreign intelligence services attempting to influence all of the other parties involved. And all of them have different goals, although some could have the same goal. But they all feel there is something to gain.

It's sounding like the Cold War proxy states scenario all over again with the added heat of religion rather than ideology. The more fanatical they get the more fanatical and undemocratic the West gets. Perhaps that's why the West is backing the extremists as it allows them to push a more fundamental vision at home. I can think of no other reason they would supply a fundamentalist group with ties to extremist organisations listed as terrorist organisations domestically. It seems they have a wish to go back to a Berlin Wall mentality with religion not politics calling as both the division and motivation.

It's now somewhat difficult to grasp just what freedom we do have, however one thing's for sure, the way they are lining this up there be even further strictures on the way. Nicely set up to increase the impact of the maxim 'if you're not with us you're against us', an end in sight for anyone thinking for themselves?

Originally posted by bodrul
Unlike Syria the Rebels dont have the air support

But they do have the option of leaving. It's not North Korea. They will not be shot by border guards.

They can leave and drink beer and surf in Austrailia, maybe even fornicate. Might be a violation of Sharia law, but it's not armed rebellion against Assad while having the option to leave peacefully.

For all we know, since they do have the internet. They possibly might have made allegiances with the pink teddy bear of doom like Josh Powell.

Until we can ascertain the possibility that they have or have not made allegiances to the pink teddy bear of doom and are avoiding downloading felony content from the internet we have no business arming them when they have the option of leaving.

Is Assad any better? Not if he chooses to aid Hezbollah instead of enlisting them under the Syrian flag and swearing them in as legal Syrian fighters who operate according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions which religious thugs with weapons do not adhere to. Essentially if he uses religious thugs then Assad is a war criminal.

Both sides could be guilty here.

I don't support Assad. I don't support the (terrorist backed) rebels.
I support the people who are being crushed between the two.
I wish one of them could rise up from the hell hole around them and lead.
So I guess I support that unnamed person who has yet to show him/her self.

I wouldn't call it a CIVIL war.
Its an insurrection brought about by foreign powers.

At any rate, the best way for a bloodless regime change is to leave
countries alone. You lead by example. When the US was seen as a
beacon of freedom, people around the world were inspired to make changes
in their own countries. It takes time, but when it does happen, you know
its a true and lasting change.

When you have something that somebody wants; they will find a way to get it themselves.
You don't need to put a gun to their head and force it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well lets hope the victor is at least a Syrian citizen,the FSA leader is American
www.nytimes.com...