What if Assad is telling the truth?

1stimpressions · 08-06-2012 2:12am

Suff first I would just like to say I'm so sorry at what is going on in your country.

I think you have given us a very good insight into whats going on. You are a valuable source for us living far away from it trying to grapple with the whole situation. However I would like other Syrian views (not necessarily contradictory) and I was wondering what sources, newspapers, twitter accounts or journalist are doing a good job of reporting if any. Do you only get your news from friends and family or is there other sources you think reliable we could follow. Even though I know so little about Syria I find much of the reporting unbelievably presumptuous or lacking in detail or context.

I have trained myself as a journalist but I really just want the sources to try and understand the news I'm hearing.

Jonny7 · 08-06-2012 9:21am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The question is, is it good for Syria or good for America- I mean the world?

People will be critical of the US regardless of what they do and regardless of how involved or not they are in a situation. In some cases it appears to be their sole aim.

The roots of this unnecessary violence and bloodshed lays within a classic case of a decades-old coup-proof family dictatorship preserving power by any means. Whether the Syrian people capitulate and accept it or whether they fight against it, they suffer either way. Assad is just making sure they suffer a hell of a lot more if they try to remove him.

Suff · 08-06-2012 9:51am

gurramok wrote: »

Whats the next excuse from the Assad apologists? Aljazeera is a western backed mouthpiece??!

Al Jazeera is owned and operated by the government of Qatar... enough said!

Link on the reliability of the channel

Suff · 08-06-2012 10:20am

1stimpressions wrote: »

Suff first I would just like to say I'm so sorry at what is going on in your country.

Thank you, it does break my heart. It is unbelievable to witness such events in the country that was the cradle of civilisations and in my home city - Damascus, the city of Jasmine.

I think you have given us a very good insight into whats going on. You are a valuable source for us living far away from it trying to grapple with the whole situation. However I would like other Syrian views (not necessarily contradictory) and I was wondering what sources, newspapers, twitter accounts or journalist are doing a good job of reporting if any. Do you only get your news from friends and family or is there other sources you think reliable we could follow. Even though I know so little about Syria I find much of the reporting unbelievably presumptuous or lacking in detail or context.

I have trained myself as a journalist but I really just want the sources to try and understand the news I'm hearing.

When the events started last year, we didn't know which sources to believe.

The National Syrian TV, Al Dounia TV and the Syrian news channel, when compared to Aljazeera (qatar) and Al Arabiya(saudi) the difference was unreal, it was as if each were reporting on a different conflict in two different countries. One stated that 'Terrorists groups' were killing people and the army is defending the country, the other were 'heavily' campaigning against the regime. Even to a point that Al Jazeera have used old footage from the 2006 Lebanon Israeli war trying to pass them as being taken from Syria.
Al Jazeera have lost all its credibility due to such acts, which lead to the resignations of all their senior staff. Link 1

Link 2

The BBC, CNN or France24, their source of information was Aljazeera and Al Arabiya as you have seen on your TV.

All the above lead me to ignore all major news channels as a reliable source. since they have their own agenda; for or against the conflict.

I follow the situation by constantly being in touch with my friends using social media and voip applications (Viber and Skype). I have friends in Homs, Aleppo and of course Damascus. Each one has their own views, some are supportive of Assad other are against, but within these two none would call for foreign intervention or civil war. We all know the consequences of a civil war, we have lived it once witnessing Lebanon's civil war in the 80's.

I don't trust the media any more. There was once a time when the media had reliable sources to back up stories but now, anything goes as long as its controversial.

Jonny7 · 08-06-2012 10:32am

Suff wrote: »

The National Syrian TV, Al Dounia TV and the Syrian news channel

How many of these are state-run?

Basically, if the regime is killing civilians have any of these channels ever reported it or is it always blamed on "terrorists"?

Suff · 08-06-2012 10:32am

Here's an interesting link to view on the credibility of the Al Jazeera news channel.

Who's been the 'ONLY' source of information on the events in Syria.

Suff · 08-06-2012 10:34am

Jonny7 wrote: »

How many of these are state-run?

Basically, if the regime is killing civilians have any of these channels ever reported it or is it always blamed on "terrorists"?

They are all state run, and of course they'll blame it on the 'terrorists' thats why they have no credibility what so ever.

Jonny7 · 08-06-2012 10:50am

Suff wrote: »

They are all state run, and of course they'll blame it on the 'terrorists' thats why they have no credibility what so ever.

Yeah they are basically bull**** propaganda stations, so anything from those sources is essentially nonsense. Information has been relatively sparse from Syrian due to heavy restrictions on foreign media. However information is still coming out of the country.

Foreign media have had access to doctors, interviewed eyewitnesses, seen the grim videos, pcitures, reports, also information from the Arab league, observers. Whilst individual media outlets may be subject to mistakes, misreporting, misrepresentation and even bias - the overall picture is unmistakeable.

Jonny7 · 08-06-2012 10:56am

Suff wrote: »

Who's been the 'ONLY' source of information on the events in Syria.

No, there have been dozens of outlets with reporters in Syria, however as the conflict has gone on this has tapered off, there were several reporters killed including in the shelling. Al Jazeera have been one of the top sources for the Arab Spring (and accused of bias) however they are far from the only source on Syria.

Eggy Baby! · 08-06-2012 4:42pm

One thing I noticed- I don't recall there being as much of an international outcry over Assad Senior's mass-murdering of his own people (I believe he killed 20,000 in one massacre in Homs no less; the tally so far in Syria doesn't even come close to one massacre this guy did) so we have to ask the question- is it more convenient now for there to be interest in the internal affairs of Syria or what?

plasmaguy · 08-06-2012 4:49pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

One thing I noticed- I don't recall there being as much of an international outcry over Assad Senior's mass-murdering of his own people (I believe he killed 20,000 in one massacre in Homs no less; the tally so far in Syria doesn't even come close to one massacre this guy did) so we have to ask the question- is it more convenient now for there to be interest in the internal affairs of Syria or what?

I believe you are moving increasingly into troll territory, the same
territory which was occupied by many in the thread about Libya.

However, in answer to your question, there was no internet in those days and much media in general including facebook, twitter, youtube and so on.

Assad junior thought he could repeat what his father did and no-one would take any notice but in that he was wrong, except for people like you who have still to come out and condemn Assad unequivocally.

gurramok · 08-06-2012 7:31pm

Syria was an ally of the USSR back then involved in the Cold War. Information about that atrocity was hard to come by just like atrocities in the USSR. Sure atrocities were committed in Salvador for example under the watchful eye of the USA who simply did not care and the info did not get huge publicity. Back then, both sides could hide any involvement in crimes unless the info got out.

Not anymore as the world order has shifted since 1989. Its harder to hide atrocities now unless you want a state like North Korea. The open internet has helped inform people too.

Eggy Baby! · 08-06-2012 8:38pm

I believe you are moving increasingly into troll territory, the same
territory which was occupied by many in the thread about Libya.

Nice to know your lack of debating skills has reached such a low that to resort to labelling those who have any opinions that are different from yours as trolls. I would really like to reply to your comment with just a rolleyes smiley, but considering I got an infraction for it before I don't think I will.

Honestly mate, explain to me how I am a troll? I am simply stating my opinion and asking relevant questions. It is always important to question sources and not to simply regurgitate them.

You seem to like the word troll- in fact using it in the wrong context all over the place. I'm through arguing with you if you continue with this line of banter.

I want to be very informal in my condemnation of you, but this is a civilised forum, and I want to respect the rules of debate and of conduct. You may continue your zealotry if you want, but from now on, I'm just going to ignore you, because you're not worth my time.

Syria was an ally of the USSR back then involved in the Cold War. Information about that atrocity was hard to come by just like atrocities in the USSR. Sure atrocities were committed in Salvador for example under the watchful eye of the USA who simply did not care and the info did not get huge publicity. Back then, both sides could hide any involvement in crimes unless the info got out.

But isn't Syrian internet highly regulated and censored? Even then we are not sure about a lot of things in this conflict. We are however aware of it I suppose.

Also, that attack was in Hama, not Homs. My mistake.

plasmaguy · 08-06-2012 8:55pm

Eggy, you are just a waste of space like everyone who fails to unequivically condemn Assad.

I suppose you will deny the latest massacre in Hama was also the work of Assad thugs.

You and your ilk truely disgust me.

gurramok · 08-06-2012 9:16pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

But isn't Syrian internet highly regulated and censored? Even then we are not sure about a lot of things in this conflict. We are however aware of it I suppose.

Syrians ain't thick, they can circumvent official access.

Severe restrictions on reporting has resulted in citizens uploading thousands of videos often of massacres in motion, most are genuine despite the effort of fakes from the regime.

Have a look(if you can digest) at the disgusting videos of protesters being shot dead by Assad's forces, they ain't actors.

southsiderosie · 08-06-2012 10:06pm

MOD NOTE:

This thread seems to be spiraling into a mess of personal abuse, and is generating more heat than light. If things do not get back on track soon, I see little reason to keep this thread open much longer.

Eggy Baby! · 08-06-2012 11:03pm

Syrians ain't thick, they can circumvent official access.

Severe restrictions on reporting has resulted in citizens uploading thousands of videos often of massacres in motion, most are genuine despite the effort of fakes from the regime.

Have a look(if you can digest) at the disgusting videos of protesters being shot dead by Assad's forces, they ain't actors.

I've seen those actually. I've also seen videos of protracted gun and sniper battles between factions.

I also remember a video that the Syrian regime put up of guys who were apparently "armed terrorists" firing with pistols at a camera- although that looked weird and staged.

And I didn't say Syrians were thick, they clearly aren't if they are rising up against this farce of a government. Although I maintain that the initial protests were sparked by economic conditions, like in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere, then developed into criticisms of the regimes of those places.

gurramok · 08-06-2012 11:26pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

And I didn't say Syrians were thick, they clearly aren't if they are rising up against this farce of a government. Although I maintain that the initial protests were sparked by economic conditions, like in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere, then developed into criticisms of the regimes of those places.

Yes, it was that with the unarmed peaceful demo's. I fear now what Assad is playing is his last card. That is using his religious Alawite position as a weapon of fear among Alawite\Christian\whoever listens and using it as a battering ram against the majority Sunni's. He is trying to create a sectarian war.

Reminds me of Milosevic in Bosnia, fermenting and inciting local Bosnian Serbs to act against Bosniaks in a genocidal way using fear of the future as a weapon. In this case, Assad is using the Sunni extremists by branding them as mainstream when they are not, control of state tv is a useful propaganda tool.

We all know where the next stages in Syria are leading without any change of mind from Russia\China. Its going to be a sectarian war with Assad leading it and it will draw in Lebanon.

cyberhog · 09-06-2012 1:17am

Channel 4 journalist Alex Thomson claims the FSA rebels deliberately put him in harms way in the hope he would be killed so they could blame Assad.

I’m quite clear the rebels deliberately set us up to be shot by the Syrian Army. Dead journos are bad for Damascus.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/hostile-territory/1863

plasmaguy · 10-06-2012 12:30am

The Russians are complicit in Assads massacres no mistake about it, both by vetoing a number of UN sanctions against him and also by supplying arms to him.

Their latest idea is for a conference on Syria.

Its fairly apparant they are up to their old tricks of trying to distract the international community away from armed intervention, thus allowing Assad to continue.

Russia don't want Assad gone, no matter what they say.

Contrast Libya today where armed intervention ousted a tyrant not unlike Assad with what is happening in Syria. The lessons are clear. The only way to remove tyrants like Assad is through armed intervention, the Russians know that as much as anyone, that is why they are playing their games and trying to buy time for Assad. They say one thing but always mean the opposite.

plasmaguy · 10-06-2012 12:33am

cyberhog wrote: »

Channel 4 journalist Alex Thomson claims the FSA rebels deliberately put him in harms way in the hope he would be killed so they could blame Assad.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/hostile-territory/1863

Eye witness report of Hama Massacre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9316829/Syria-eyewitness-charred-bodies-proof-of-Hama-massacre.html

Very similar indeed to what happened in Bosnia, Al-Kubeir was a small Sunni enclave surrounded by Alwite villages. It looks like Assad and Assad alone is trying to foment a sectarian bloodbath across the country.

By the way the FSA had no presence in the area and the villagers had not shown any support for the revolution. You could understand if the Assad militia had attacked because the villagers were anti Assad, but there is little evidence the villagers were pro or anti Assad just normal people going about their business.

cyberhog · 10-06-2012 3:02am

A reporter for a high-profile national German newspaper interviewed members of the Syrian opposition and they say Sunni rebels committed the Houla massacre.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/neue-erkenntnisse-zu-getoeteten-von-hula-abermals-massaker-in-syrien-11776496.html

Here is a partial translation courtesy of www.moonofalabama.org

Syrian opposition members who are from that region were during the last days able to reconstruct the most likely sequence of events based on accounts from authentic witnesses. Their result contradicts the pretenses from the rebels who had accused regime allied Shabiha they alleged were acting under the protection of the Syrian army. As opposition members who reject the use of lethal force were recently killed or at least threatened, the opposition members [talking to me] asked that their names be withheld.

The massacre of Houla happened after Friday prayers. The fighting started when Sunni rebels attacked three Syrian army checkpoints around Houla. These checkpoints were set up to protect the Alawi villages around the predominantly Sunni Houla from assaults.

One attacked checkpoint called up units from the Syrian army, which has barracks some 1500 meters away, for help and was immediately reinforced. Dozens of soldiers and rebels were killed during the fighting around Houla which is said to have lasted about 90 minutes. During these fights the three villages were closed off from the outside world.

According to the witness accounts the massacre happened during this timeframe. Killed were nearly exclusively families from the Alawi and Shia minorities in Houla which has a more than 90% Sunni population. Several dozen members of one extended family, which had in recent years converted from Sunni to Shia believe, were slaughtered. Also killed were members of the Alawi family Shomaliya and the family of a Sunni member of parliament who was [by the rebels] considered a government collaborator. Members of the Syrian government confirmed this version but pointed out that the government committed to not publicly speak of Sunnis and Alawis. President al-Assad is Alawi while the opposition is overwhelmingly from the Sunni population majority.

Jaafa · 10-06-2012 11:41am

And this is why people shouldn't try to draw conclusions, definitive scenarios and talk as if they know whats going on about something that happened thousands of miles away in the middle of a war zone. Even the above article may not hold all the facts, but it certainly seems a lot more plausible to me.

Eggy Baby! · 10-06-2012 12:12pm

This suggests either one of two things-
-That rebs were involved in the Houla massacre to some degree.
or;
-That the Syrian opposition is folding in on itself and they are resorting to using lies and slander on their own comrades in a cynical attempt to gain power for themselves.

Or both.

cyberhog · 10-06-2012 4:00pm

Jaafa wrote: »

And this is why people shouldn't try to draw conclusions, definitive scenarios and talk as if they know whats going on about something that happened thousands of miles away in the middle of a war zone. Even the above article may not hold all the facts, but it certainly seems a lot more plausible to me.

I agree, but don't expect the regime change crowd to pay any attention to your advice. Clinton, Hague and their ilk couldn't care less if rebels massacre women and children. All the cowardly warmongers care about is taking advantage of the emotional tidal wave of support for regime change before it blows up in their faces.

plasmaguy · 10-06-2012 6:04pm

cyberhog wrote: »

I agree, but don't expect the regime change crowd to pay any attention to your advice. Clinton, Hague and their ilk couldn't care less if rebels massacre women and children. All the cowardly warmongers care about is taking advantage of the emotional tidal wave of support for regime change before it blows up in their faces.

If you don't think the regime needs to be changed in Syria, then there is somethine very wrong with you.

I am all for regime change by democratic means but Assad has banned anyone from standing against him in the last two presidential elections and when people protested in the street he shot and murdered them in much the same way the Brits shot at and murdered people in Derry in 1972. There is no possibility of a democratic regime change in Syria and Assad must be forced out just as there needed to be regime change in Nazi Germany.

The blame for this conflict lies 100% with Assad. You still have not produced any credible evidence that the massacre in Houla was carried out by anyone other than Assad thugs.

Citing RT, SANA, Voltairenet, annonymous sources who spoke to German newspapers and every non-credible source bar the back of a cornflakes box prooves little. I am in favour of a full investigation of the Houla massacre involving the ICC as well but so far Assad has declined such an investigation.

I am still waiting for people like you to condemn Assad and the hundreds other massacres he carried out.

Leaving a mass murdering thug in power any longer is simply not an option. The anti western brigade who are opposed to outside intervention, opposed outside intervention in Libya as you clearly did, never admit when they are wrong.

When they admit they were wrong on Libya and are wrong on Syria then I will listen to them.

But like I said if they continue to peddle support for Assad however well camoflauged or else try to take advantage of a tragedy in Syria to further their anti western agenda then they will be heading for ignore.

plasmaguy · 10-06-2012 6:09pm

cyberhog wrote: »

I agree, but don't expect the regime change crowd to pay any attention to your advice. Clinton, Hague and their ilk couldn't care less if rebels massacre women and children. All the cowardly warmongers care about is taking advantage of the emotional tidal wave of support for regime change before it blows up in their faces.

One question, were you opposed to international intervention in Libya and do you think that intervention was morally wrong, given that it stopped a tyrant murdering his people?

lagente · 11-06-2012 2:34am

Suff, great posts, Please keep them coming. What is your opinion on the relevancy of ....

The proximity to Iraqs ongoing catastrophe (particularly since the invasion)....
If Assad was to have left power in the previous few years, that could have caused a power vacuum
(and perhaps a religious divided war
like Iraq, considering the location of Syrias huge border with Iraq,..and so the Alawites may have been and
certainly at the moment seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place, in terms of power/ transition to democracy.)
Is there any reconciliation of this (whats seems to be) fact, and how in that it may bring about an understanding to this divided region? Is the radical extremism to both sides mostly... symptomatic of this divide?
I think that the region is one of the fighting rings for the two religions Shia and Sunni, eg Iran, Saudi A, Qatar, Shia elements of Iraq and Sunni elements of Iraq, to fight out a battle for power, and that being the case a direct road to democracy without understanding and planning is not going to quell the violence much/ at all.
What could be the proper steps for the parties to take?

cyberhog · 11-06-2012 2:35am

plasmaguy wrote: »

If you don't think the regime needs to be changed in Syria, then there is somethine very wrong with you.

It's fine to disagree with me, but don't go throwing around random insults. In other words "play the ball, not the player".

plasmaguy wrote: »

The blame for this conflict lies 100% with Assad.

[Kofi Annan] called on all sides of the conflict to end the bloodshed, saying “this message of peace is not only for the government, but for everyone with a gun.”

plasmaguy wrote: »

You still have not produced any credible evidence that the massacre in Houla was carried out by anyone other than Assad thugs.

No one has proof of the involvement of pro-government or opposition forces, so anyone that claims they know who the perpetrators are is full of hot air.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Citing RT, SANA, Voltairenet, annonymous sources who spoke to German newspapers and every non-credible source bar the back of a cornflakes box prooves little.

It also holds true that citing the SNC, SOHR, and anonymous sources that speak to Western newspapers proves little.

plasmaguy wrote: »

I am still waiting for people like you to condemn Assad and the hundreds other massacres he carried out.

Well I'm still waiting for people like you to condemn the rebels and the hundreds of other massacres they have committed. :rolleyes:

plasmaguy wrote: »

Leaving a mass murdering thug in power any longer is simply not an option.

You seem to be forgetting a rather important detail brother. Russia and China are staunchly opposed to forced regime change.

plasmaguy · 11-06-2012 6:00pm

At this stage the Syrian conflict is in a state of stalemate with no side able to finish off the other. This means a long drawn out bloody civil war where everyone in Syria suffers apart from Assad.

If Assad had won a democratic election fair enough, he'd have some legitimacy.

But he has only achieved quasi legitimacy at the barrel of a gun.

The Russians and Chinese, and I know you admire them and think the world of them, have picked the wrong side in this conflict and have guaranteed a long drawn out bloody conflict which is increasingly becoming sectarian in nature.

I'm glad the Libyan people were able to avoid such a conflict, although its more likely Gadaffi would have flattened Misrata and Benghazi.

But at least the Libyans are having a democratic poll this month to draw up a new constitution and that's something we should all be glad of apart from some people who opposed western intervention in Libya.

For the record I am in favour of outside intervention in Syria similar similar to that in Libya with no large military presence on the ground.

As for Assad I don't think many people would care if he was killed by NATO or not. Like Gadaffi, live by the sword, die by the sword. All these dictators are fine so long as they are doing the killing but when they are given a taste of their own medicine they cry like children about regime change and their human rights...as do their apologists.

sweeney1971 · 11-06-2012 6:24pm

20 years in the Lebanon. Now you cannot get any more War torn than that.

Jaafa · 11-06-2012 7:23pm

I'm glad the Libyan people were able to avoid such a conflict,

You seem to be in fantasy world in regards to Libya,the conflict there never ended. Perhaps you just stopped looking at the news from there since the war ended. Then again so did most of the media.

The various militias that sprung up to oppose Qaddafi have each taken control of their own territory, and continue to fight each other for more.

Over 500 dead since the Gaddafi was toppled and continuing to rise.

7000 former loyalists are still in jail and rountinely tortured this caused MSF to pull out of the country.

The east of the country continues to attempt cessation from the west. The west in turn threatens war.

Arm's flooding into neighboring countries from Libya has fueled conflicts there including being a major cause of the coup in Mali. And of course we are all aware of the Libyan fighters and arms in Syria too.

Just last week Tripoli's international airport was overrun by a militia forcing the NTC to send in the army to clear them out.

And all this for what? Certainly not democracy and freedom when it's clear it's the Islamist that are rising to power.

A short list of various violent incidents since the end of Qaddafi.

And this is nothing compared to what will happen in Syria if Assad is toppled by military means, the country will fall into a true civil war dwarfing that of Libya and Lebanon will surely be dragged into it too. Assad has to go, but the rebel way is not the right way.

plasmaguy · 11-06-2012 7:53pm

Jaafa wrote: »

You seem to be in fantasy world in regards to Libya,the conflict there never ended. Perhaps you just stopped looking at the news from there since the war ended. Then again so did most of the media.

The various militias that sprung up to oppose Qaddafi have each taken control of their own territory, and continue to fight each other for more.

Over 500 dead since the Gaddafi was toppled and continuing to rise.

7000 former loyalists are still in jail and rountinely tortured this caused MSF to pull out of the country.

The east of the country continues to attempt cessation from the west. The west in turn threatens war.

Arm's flooding into neighboring countries from Libya has fueled conflicts there including being a major cause of the coup in Mali. And of course we are all aware of the Libyan fighters and arms in Syria too.

Just last week Tripoli's international airport was overrun by a militia forcing the NTC to send in the army to clear them out.

And all this for what? Certainly not democracy and freedom when it's clear it's the Islamist that are rising to power.

A short list of various violent incidents since the end of Qaddafi.

And this is nothing compared to what will happen in Syria if Assad is toppled by military means, the country will fall into a true civil war dwarfing that of Libya and Lebanon will surely be dragged into it too. Assad has to go, but the rebel way is not the right way.

And there's over 8000 dead in Syria in the same period or 15 times the number of Libya, but the main difference in Syria is they are 90% innocent men, women and children.

Loyalist thugs don't you mean, who spent decades torturing the Libyan people, there are very few people who have sympathy for them apart from the usual anti-western types.

There's a lot more than 7000 jailed in Syria by the way and are also subjected to the most hidious forms of torture all for asking for democracy, but your sympathy is probably not with them but with the BILLIONAIRE Assad family, as it seems all anti western posters on places like this are. They tie themselves up in such knots that they take the side of billionaires like Assad against the impoverished two dollar a day folks they torture and massacre and then call themselves socialist when they don't even understand the meaning of the word.

You're going ignore anyways, couldn't be arsed discussing any more with you as I know your ilk.

I am putting jaafa, cyberhog and a couple others on ignore since they refuse to recognise the right of the Syrian people to be free of Assad and the free speech of the Syrian people and I'm not going to waste my time with hypocrits like that who use forums like this to condemn the legitimate wishes of the Syrian people to be free of tyrants like Assad who tortures people for expressing their opinion.

Jaafa · 11-06-2012 8:05pm

Plasmaguy:

I am putting jaafa, cyberhog and a couple others on ignore since they refuse to recognise the right of the Syrian people to be free of Assad

Me:

Assad has to go

Oh and before anyone starts with the usual baseless attacks, no I don't support Assad staying in power

Enough of this nonsense, your clearly not interested in any sort of a debate.

Eggy Baby! · 11-06-2012 9:02pm

I am putting jaafa, cyberhog and a couple others on ignore since they refuse to recognise the right of the Syrian people to be free of Assad and the free speech of the Syrian people and I'm not going to waste my time with hypocrits like that who use forums like this to condemn the legitimate wishes of the Syrian people to be free of tyrants like Assad who tortures people for expressing their opinion.

So who are you going to argue with? Yourself? Or are you just going to use this thread as a newsdump or a personal reflection?

"We must respect the free speech of the Syrian people."
*puts everyone who argues on an ignore list* :rolleyes:

"The Syrians must be free from Assad who doesn't allow people to express their opinion."
*calls everyone who disagrees in the slightest a hypocrite* :rolleyes:

"They refuse to recognise the rights of the Syrian people."
*says this having ignored 9 pages of Assad-bashing* :rolleyes:

I'm not going to waste my time with hypocrites

My thoughts exactly!!

Thread's dead baby, thread's dead.

Run_to_da_hills · 11-06-2012 10:12pm

I came across this piece of sensationalist western propaganda today. .

The usual hyped up BS story along with the usual Holywood "behind enemy line back drop". The monocolour henna tattoos on the guys arms are so fake they will more then likely wash off after a good shower, that's if the guy ever takes one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157518/Pictured-Syrias-steroid-mad-Ghost-killers-Assad-power-swooping-villages-massacre-women-children.html

Eggy Baby! · 12-06-2012 12:13am

Funnily enough, I saw that today in the Sun and I thought the exact same thing...!

(Although the Sun and Daily Mail are hardly reputable papers!)

Run_to_da_hills · 12-06-2012 12:23am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Funnily enough, I saw that today in the Sun and I thought the exact same thing...!

(Although the Sun and Daily Mail are hardly reputable papers!)

The fact that these rags have a such high readership and that the majority of people that actually believe in their content is worrying.

cyberhog · 12-06-2012 1:03am

plasmaguy wrote: »

The Russians and Chinese, and I know you admire them and think the world of them, have picked the wrong side in this conflict and have guaranteed a long drawn out bloody conflict which is increasingly becoming sectarian in nature.

It's not a question of admiring Russia so much as recognising that they are better placed than the West to lead negotiations to end the crisis.

Moscow may not be motivated by international altruism, but it is right to criticize the West for not having any political plan for Syria. In several draft Security Council resolutions, rejected by Russia and China, the West has demanded that the Syrian security forces confine themselves to barracks. Lavrov has posed the question: Who would take their place to prevent even worse sectarian violence as victims of the regime seek revenge against their many neighbors who supported Assad? Western diplomats do not have an answer.

Such a lack of attention to detail from the West is hindering a diplomatic solution to Syria’s conflict. Western diplomats and officials have told Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary general, to negotiate a cease-fire with Syria and to establish a dialogue aimed at “political transition,” but they have given him few hints as to exactly what such a transition should look like. There are also currently no inducements for the regime to change its behavior.

An attempt by Russia to negotiate a political transition in Syria should be welcomed. Moscow has made it clear that its future relations are not tied to the power status quo in Damascus.

A phased, compromise transition between the government and opposition groups is probably the only way to avoid worse chaos in the future. This does not mean offering a carte blanche to a brutal regime that has engaged in a litany of appalling war crimes. But neither the Syrian people nor the West can afford to let the current trend continue: There is too much at stake in terms of lives and strategic interest. It is time for some diplomacy based on realism rather than wishful thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/let-russia-show-the-way-on-syria.html?_r=1

Lavrov even said that Moscow would be "glad" to support Assad's departure if Syrians themselves agreed on it.

cyberhog · 12-06-2012 1:56am

More eyewitness accounts point to the involvement of rebels in the Houla massacre.

The FAZ report echoes eyewitness accounts collected from refugees from the Houla region by members of the Monastery of St. James in Qara, Syria. According to monastery sources cited by the Dutch Middle East expert Martin Janssen, armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in the village of Taldo in the Houla region.

Already at the beginning of April, Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery warned of rebel atrocities’ being repackaged in both Arab and Western media accounts as regime atrocities. She cited the case of a massacre in the Khalidiya neighborhood in Homs. According to an account published in French on the monastery’s website, rebels gathered Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in Khalidiya and blew up the building with dynamite. They then attributed the crime to the regular Syrian army. “Even though this act has been attributed to regular army forces . . . , the evidence and testimony are irrefutable: It was an operation undertaken by armed groups affiliated with the opposition,” Mother Agnès-Mariam wrote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal#

gurramok · 12-06-2012 10:38am

Try and defend this the pro-Assad brigade.http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/us-fears-new-syrian-massacre.html

Syrian troops used children as human shields - UN

RTE wrote:

The United Nations branded the Syrian government as one of the worst offenders on its annual "list of shame" of conflict countries where children are killed, tortured and forced to fight.
Human rights groups estimate that about 1,200 children have died during the 15-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.
"Rarely, have I seen such brutality against children as in Syria, where girls and boys are detained, tortured, executed, and used as human shields," Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN special representative for children in armed conflict, told AFP ahead of the report's release.

Government forces rounded up dozens of boys aged eight to 13 before an attack on the village of Ayn l'Arouz in Idlib province on 9 March, the report said.
Reports from Syria cannot be independently verified as state authorities have barred international journalists and rights groups.
The children were "used by soldiers and militia members as human shields, placing them in front of the windows of buses carrying military personnel into the raid on the village," it said.
Quoting witnesses, the UN report said Syrian military and intelligence forces, as well as pro-government Shabiha militiamen, surrounded the village for an attack that lasted more than four days.
Among the 11 dead on the first day were three boys aged 15 to 17. Another 34 people, including two boys aged 14 and 16 and a nine-year-old girl, were detained.
"Eventually, the village was reportedly left burned and four out of the 34 detainees were shot and burned, including the two boys aged 14 and 16 years," the Children in Armed Conflict report said.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon said the report had uncovered one of many "grave violations" against children.
The Syrian government, and its allied militias, was one of four new parties added to the UN's list of shame - along with organisations and political parties in Sudan and Yemen.
The list includes 52 parties in 11 countries, ranging from the Afghan national police and the anti-US Haqqani network to the Lord's Resistance Army in central Africa, Sudanese armed forces and various Darfur rebel groups.

The report said children in Syria as young as nine had been victims of killing and maiming, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and ill-treatment, including sexual violence.
Schools have been regularly raided and used as military bases and detention centres, the report said.
The report was completed before the Houla massacre on 25 May, when 49 of the 108 victims were said to be children, some as young as two and three, who were shot in the head or had their skulls smashed with blunt instruments.
"Most child victims of torture described being beaten, blindfolded, subjected to stress positions, whipped with heavy electrical cables, scarred by cigarette burns and, in one recorded case, subjected to electrical shock to the genitals," said the UN report.
At least one witness told investigators he had seen a boy of approximately 15 succumb to repeated beatings.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch said the UN Security Council should impose an arms embargo and other sanctions on the Assad government over its violations against children.
HRW quoted the Syria Violations Documentation Center, a network of Syrian activists, as saying that at least 1,176 children have been killed since February 2011.
It also said there were "credible allegations" that armed opposition groups, including the Free Syrian Army are recruiting children as soldiers.

wes · 12-06-2012 10:45am

It really does seem to be that both side are nearly as bad as one another. Assad's force using Children as Human Shields, and the opposition fighters apparently recruiting child soldiers.

The real victim seems to be the average Syrian.

plasmaguy · 12-06-2012 2:16pm

wes wrote: »

It really does seem to be that both side are nearly as bad as one another. Assad's force using Children as Human Shields, and the opposition fighters apparently recruiting child soldiers.

The real victim seems to be the average Syrian.

How are they as bad as each other?

Did the FSA demolish entire cities with heavy artillery?

A typical attempt to muddy the waters from another Assad apologist. Suppose like all Assad apologists you will deny you are one.

The same sort of people used to post on the Libyan forum. Gadaffi apologists who denied they were when called on it.

For the record, Assad is 1000 times worse than the FSA so please don't say they are all the same.

Its like saying the French Resistance (who also murdered civilian collaborators and no doubt recruited child soldiers) were as bad as the Nazis.

wes · 12-06-2012 3:12pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

How are they as bad as each other?

Not going to waste time replying to your entire post, but you seem to not understand the meaning of the word "nearly". That or you deliberately ignored it, to go on a rant. Seriously your "debating" style amounts to hyperbole. I stand by my comment, any group that uses a child soldier imho deserve little or no respect. I have a huge problem with anyone putting children in danger, and so when Assad does it I take issue with it, but if I were to ignore the other side doing it, then that would make me a hypocrite. Yes, Assad is worse than the other guy, but that no excuse for them using child soldiers, and that on its own nearly (notice the word nearly again) make them as bad.

BTW, I was supportive of the ousting of Ghaddafi, but then you like to go off an silly rants...............

plasmaguy · 12-06-2012 3:58pm

wes wrote: »

Not going to waste time replying to your entire post, but you seem to not understand the meaning of the word "nearly". That or you deliberately ignored it, to go on a rant. Seriously your "debating" style amounts to hyperbole. I stand by my comment, any group that uses a child soldier imho deserve little or no respect. I have a huge problem with anyone putting children in danger, and so when Assad does it I take issue with it, but if I were to ignore the other side doing it, then that would make me a hypocrite. Yes, Assad is worse than the other guy, but that no excuse for them using child soldiers, and that on its own nearly (notice the word nearly again) make them as bad.

BTW, I was supportive of the ousting of Ghaddafi, but then you like to go off an silly rants...............

You are talking relative, that's fair enough.

No-one has argued the FSA are perfect no more than those who fought against Gadaffi were perfect.

But they are 1000 times better than Assad.

Assad is a mass murdering thug, that for me is the main point.

FSA soldiers who defected rather than shoot unarmed protesters deserve credit.

wes · 12-06-2012 4:15pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

FSA soldiers who defected rather than shoot unarmed protesters deserve credit.

Yes, of course, but clearly some of them are very dodgy, and imho the world should be careful who they support.

To give the example of Libya, there are some armed groups who never should have been supported, and if people were a bit more careful, some of the problems could have been avoided there.

In case of the FSA, saying to them, if they use child soldiers, then they will lose support. So they will either smarten up, or show themselves to not be worthy of trust.

As I said before, I am not against intervention, just against it, if it makes things worse.

cyberhog · 12-06-2012 4:22pm

gurramok wrote: »

Try and defend this the pro-Assad brigade.http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/us-fears-new-syrian-massacre.html

Syrian troops used children as human shields - UN

Whoa! hold on a minute! why do you construe scepticism of the western media's coverage of the conflict with support for Assad?

Look at the article you linked:

Government forces rounded up dozens of boys aged eight to 13 before an attack on the village of Ayn l'Arouz in Idlib province on 9 March, the report said.
Reports from Syria cannot be independently verified ....

Quoting witnesses, the UN report said Syrian military and intelligence forces, as well as pro-government Shabiha militiamen, surrounded the village for an attack that lasted more than four days.

If what these witnesses say can't be independently verified then why should we believe them? They could rebel sympathisers for all we know. The fact is the western media can print anything it wants, since its barrage of disinformation cannot be independently verified.

The BBC are more cautious about human shields allegation:

our correspondent says that although it is clear that children are being killed, maimed and abused, the report of them being used as human shields on tanks is not one that has surfaced before.

He says activists would have been the first to play this up, and if it had been common practice it would have been reported by those on the ground long ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18409500

I think it's important to remember that there is too much unverified information coming out of Syria for any person to speak with absolute certainty about what is happening.

plasmaguy · 12-06-2012 4:30pm

I'd like to see more detail about the child report story first before I can comment on that specific story.

So far I've seen little evidence of widescale FSA abuses.

On the other side, I see a systematic campaign of terror against the entire Syrian population and in Syria if you step out of line you probably end up dead at the hand of Assad's forces, since there is zero tolerance of opposition, particularly since the start of the Arab Spring.

As for Russia allowing the Syrian people to choose to keep Assad or not, its just the Russians doing what they always do.

Syria is a puppet state of Syria and Assad a puppet of Moscow and I don't honestly think they will ever abandon him no matter how many more people he kills.

The outcome in Syria is fairly predictable, the entire country reduced to rubble and also a long and nasty civil war probably similar to Lebenon, which went on for years and even decades. I don't think that would bother the Russians too much, you need morality and a conscience to be bothered by these things.

gurramok · 12-06-2012 5:01pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Whoa! hold on a minute! why do you construe scepticism of the western media's coverage of the conflict with support for Assad?

Look at the article you linked:

If what these witnesses say can't be independently verified then why should we believe them? They could rebel sympathisers for all we know. The fact is the western media can print anything it wants, since its barrage of disinformation cannot be independently verified.

The BBC are more cautious about human shields allegation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18409500

I think it's important to remember that there is too much unverified information coming out of Syria for any person to speak with absolute certainty about what is happening.

The UN says it so. I take the UN's word over yours.

plasmaguy · 12-06-2012 7:04pm

You always know when Russia says something like they are not supporting Assad and would not oppose his removal if that's what the Syrian people want, they really mean the opposite.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/syria-crisis-clinton-idUSL1E8HC6GM20120612

Russia are just not credible peace negotiators in this conflict, in fact they are stirring the conflict.

What if Assad is telling the truth?

Comments