Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
TheNewTeddy

Syrian Civil War

Recommended Posts

Actually you're just upset that, once again, a simple search could have shown you the facts before shooting-off your mouth...errr...typing fingers.

I'm glad you NOW agree that Hezbollah has Scud-Bs.

Troll harder Dog, the mods are never watching anymore. A person only gets banned if they swear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since you have just admited defeat, you should just run along from this thread if you're not going to participate. But, I do look forward to kicking your rear-end next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since you have just admited defeat, you should just run along from this thread if you're not going to participate. But, I do look forward to kicking your rear-end next time.

Troll harder, can't prove what you think I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghosthacked: So if Hezbollah has SCUDS, why do they piddle around with crude homemade rockets? Nice that out of the 4 top links the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th links are Israeli papers.

Not only did you doubt Hezbollah had Scuds, you made some allusion to the links being biased and thus false. Plus, as mentioned, you confused Hezbollah with Hamas which is typical of you, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only did you doubt Hezbollah had Scuds, you made some allusion to the links being biased and thus false. Plus, as mentioned, you confused Hezbollah with Hamas which is typical of you, as well.

Yes, I got confused on Hamas and Hezbollah. Still does not prove what you think I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I got confused on Hamas and Hezbollah. Still does not prove what you think I said.

Unless you care to re-explain what exactly you meant, it does say just that. I took your quote verbatim. What exactly DID you mean when you said: "So if Hezbollah has SCUDS, why do they piddle around with crude homemade rockets?" Plus, what exactly did you mean when you said: "Nice that out of the 4 top links the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th links are Israeli papers." ?

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll harder Dog, the mods are never watching anymore. A person only gets banned if they swear.

Yes your posts and Bud's make that abundantly clear. Just so Dog knows I am not being sarcastic which is sometimes misunderstood on this forum as me being serious I was being serious. No not Syrian, serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes your posts and Bud's make that abundantly clear. Just so Dog knows I am not being sarcastic which is sometimes misunderstood on this forum as me being serious I was being serious. No not Syrian, serious.

i'm sure you've been misunderstood often in your lifetime. it's a shame that people don't get how awesome you are, despite all the self patting and long announcements you make about yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian mess is Exhibit "A" for what Israel would face after making "peace" with its neighbors. Syria shows the quality of local governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada and the US is also supporting the rebels with weapons but its not public knowledge, I guess. I heard one person say something about the US and Canada helping on news show. My guess NATO will be back into the Middle-East after the US election.

Today is was made public knowledge of the US helping the rebels. The report says its was a secret but as you will note, I reported here in July. So now do we have NATO going in or after the US elections? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-authorizes-secret-support-syrian-rebels-010014457.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian mess is Exhibit "A" for what Israel would face after making "peace" with its neighbors. Syria shows the quality of local governance.

and Israeli apartheid is exhibit "A" for Palestinians face after Arab nations made "peace" with Israel...Israel shows the quality of oppressive/illegal occupation when left unchallenged...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Israeli apartheid is exhibit "A" for Palestinians face after Arab nations made "peace" with Israel...Israel shows the quality of oppressive/illegal occupation when left unchallenged...

Even if you were right, compared to what's going on in Syria that's pretty good. Savagery begets savagery.

Keep in mind, Israel's policies were a good deal more liberal before someone came up with the idea of an "Intifada" in 1987.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you were right, compared to what's going on in Syria that's pretty good. Savagery begets savagery.

Keep in mind, Israel's policies were a good deal more liberal before someone came up with the idea of an "Intifada" in 1987.

No worries Iron Dome just got some major funding.

Yes that is 70 BILLION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Iron Dome just got some major funding.

Yes that is 70 BILLION.

It's 70 million if you actually look at the numbers. Obama misspoke in that speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

It's 70 million if you actually look at the numbers. Obama misspoke in that speech.

Oddly enough, he first correctly stated it as 70 million and then corrected himself - to get it wrong. Not surprisingly, there are websites out there proclaiming the "70 billion" as the truth, claiming the media are all lying by saying it's 70 million. Apparently even Egypt and Iran are helping to spread the 70 million "lie."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you were right, compared to what's going on in Syria that's pretty good. Savagery begets savagery.

Keep in mind, Israel's policies were a good deal more liberal before someone came up with the idea of an "Intifada" in 1987.

ya those damn Palestinians they should grateful for the permanent occupation of the benevolent apartheid regime... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you think that NATO would go into Syria like they did with Libya? There is a difference though, its Russia and Iran and probably China. I think if NATO went into there, Israel would be pulled in. I wouldn't want more young people getting killed on either side. I'm sure that Russia and Iran is getting help to Syria, just like the rebels are getting help from the West and this what keeps the war going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a history major, Ill put in my analysis on this:

The world doesnt know who the rebels are. Therefore, no one can really help them. In Libya, the situation was completely different. Everyone knew that the rebels were the "good guys", so therefore, the U.S. and the international community was able to go in and get rid of Gaddafi. The rebels in Syria could well be Al-Qaeda numerous reports indicate that there are traces of them in the rebel organization.

The reports of Al-queda in Lybia/Egypt/Tunisia ect were reported. All those leaders talked about foreign fighters causing most of the problems. We sure do know who the rebels are.

The situation is pretty much the same, the west will look to arm the rebels (if they have not already) which have Al-queda among them. So are is the US/NATO arming Al-Queda? Sure, I don't see ANY blowback happening from this eh?

Secondly, the rebels are also doing a lot of crazy things as well. Theres even been reports of them attacking and killing the already small Christian population in Syria. I feel really sketchy about this "Free Syria Army". Im not a fan of Bashar Al-Assad at all, either, but this will have to blow over by itself; its already a huge civil war as it is. If any country intervenes, this conflict could well spill into Jordan, Turkey, or even Israel. This needs to blow over by itself; intervening in it could well start something resembling World War III.

We now hear talks of no fly zones and secure refugee camps within the Syrian borders. ON that notion, there will have to be an invasion by NATO/UN whoever into Syria in order to accomplish this.

Why would the west arm Al-queda terrorists to take down Assad? I thought Al-Queda were the bad guys, the ones that are claimed to have taken down several buildings in NYC. I thought THEY were the enemy?

The only thing that will allow NATO to go full tilt into Syria is if they can create a divide between Russia and China in their support of Syria and get one partially on their side. But both China and Russia have seen the UN/NATO shenanigans enough to take the stance that they are taking. They both know that once Syria is 'resolved' then Iran is next.

But you are correct in thinking that this can easily escalate into another world war. One which will be quite devastating to many countries around the world. Tensions are high and this is no walk in the park. This will have great global impact and will be felt by everyone.

The only way a bigger war can be avoided is if NATO does NOT back the rebels and let's Syria take care of it's own affairs. Because NATO is supplying the rebels, and Iran knows it's in the sites as well, and Iran has stepped up and sent some members of the Iranian military to assist Assad.

An invasion of Syria by NATO will trigger a much bigger regional war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a history major, Ill put in my analysis on this:

The world doesnt know who the rebels are. Therefore, no one can really help them. In Libya, the situation was completely different. Everyone knew that the rebels were the "good guys", so therefore, the U.S. and the international community was able to go in and get rid of Gaddafi. The rebels in Syria could well be Al-Qaeda numerous reports indicate that there are traces of them in the rebel organization.

Secondly, the rebels are also doing a lot of crazy things as well. Theres even been reports of them attacking and killing the already small Christian population in Syria. I feel really sketchy about this "Free Syria Army". Im not a fan of Bashar Al-Assad at all, either, but this will have to blow over by itself; its already a huge civil war as it is. If any country intervenes, this conflict could well spill into Jordan, Turkey, or even Israel. This needs to blow over by itself; intervening in it could well start something resembling World War III.

The reports of Al-queda in Lybia/Egypt/Tunisia ect were reported. All those leaders talked about foreign fighters causing most of the problems. We sure do know who the rebels are.

The situation is pretty much the same, the west will look to arm the rebels (if they have not already) which have Al-queda among them. So are is the US/NATO arming Al-Queda? Sure, I don't see ANY blowback happening from this eh?

We now hear talks of no fly zones and secure refugee camps within the Syrian borders. ON that notion, there will have to be an invasion by NATO/UN whoever into Syria in order to accomplish this.

Why would the west arm Al-queda terrorists to take down Assad? I thought Al-Queda were the bad guys, the ones that are claimed to have taken down several buildings in NYC. I thought THEY were the enemy?

The only thing that will allow NATO to go full tilt into Syria is if they can create a divide between Russia and China in their support of Syria and get one partially on their side. But both China and Russia have seen the UN/NATO shenanigans enough to take the stance that they are taking. They both know that once Syria is 'resolved' then Iran is next.

But you are correct in thinking that this can easily escalate into another world war. One which will be quite devastating to many countries around the world. Tensions are high and this is no walk in the park. This will have great global impact and will be felt by everyone.

The only way a bigger war can be avoided is if NATO does NOT back the rebels and let's Syria take care of it's own affairs. Because NATO is supplying the rebels, and Iran knows it's in the sites as well, and Iran has stepped up and sent some members of the Iranian military to assist Assad.

An invasion of Syria by NATO will trigger a much bigger regional war.

With regard to the rebels, I couldn't disagree with you (and agree with GH)more.

However, Syria will not lead to WW3. Yes, there will be a proxy war between several competing countries but Syria is mostly important because of Iran and to a lesser extent Russia. In the grand scheme of things none of these countries will risk a massive war just to settle Syria. It isn't THAT important. Too often, people talk about a war and then jump to the 'it is going to cause another world war!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports out today, says someone used chemical weapons and have killed 16 people and injured more. The Russians are say ing the rebels are the ones and the rebels say it was the government. In my view, it could be anyone , including the countries that support the rebels or the government but who ever did it, the world has a big problem! TV reports say it was chlorine, which is nasty stuff. Now the concern will be what will be used next. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/19/syria-chemical-weapon-accusations.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...