Leaked Memo says US Special Forces are in Syria.

HamletOrHecuba

http://www.military.com/news/article/leaked-memo-says-us-sof-in-syria.html

It seems just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not after you!

JustinDee

So not just Iranian Pasdaran, Hizbullah etc but the British, French, US too etc.

Wow. What a surprise.

Cardinal Richelieu

JustinDee wrote: »

So not just Iranian Pasdaran, Hizbullah etc but the British, French, US too etc.

Wow. What a surprise.

Russian too, they are protecting the Russian workers building the new Russian Naval base.

HamletOrHecuba

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Russian too, they are protecting the Russian workers building the new Russian Naval base.

The Russians and Iranians though there are at the invitation of the state and not engaging in terrorism. Bit of a difference there.

tfitzgerald

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Russians and Iranians though there are at the invitation of the state and not engaging in terrorism. Bit of a difference there.

Terrorist or should they be called freedom fighters?

JustinDee

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Russians and Iranians though there are at the invitation of the state and not engaging in terrorism. Bit of a difference there.

No difference whatsoever. They support the regime and everything it does and supports in turn.

BlaasForRafa

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Russians and Iranians though there are at the invitation of the state and not engaging in terrorism. Bit of a difference there.

The Iranians were there to give their expertees on putting down peaceful civil unrest with violence a la the "green revolution" of 2009

RichieC

I bet the Syrians feel all important, all these mega economies being so caring about their freedom...

SamHarris

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Russians and Iranians though there are at the invitation of the state and not engaging in terrorism. Bit of a difference there.

Although I do agree there is a difference when a foreign army is asked in by a governemnt, this is still entirelly predicated on the governments legitimacy. It can easily be argued that the Syrian authorities have lost that through large swathes of their country.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

It can easily be argued that the Syrian authorities have lost that through large swathes of their country.

Go ahead then...

HamletOrHecuba

SamHarris wrote: »

Although I do agree there is a difference when a foreign army is asked in by a governemnt, this is still entirelly predicated on the governments legitimacy. It can easily be argued that the Syrian authorities have lost that through large swathes of their country.

Than why is it that it is the terrorists and not Assad who are running away from having elections in favour of violence we now know backed up by the one of the world's most powerful countries?

geeman

Libyans and Egyptians are enjoying their new found freedom and democracy, thanks to NATO and Al Qaeda intervention.

What could possibly go wrong in Syria? :pac:

PS Iraq and Afghanistan are now utopias...eh

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Go ahead then...

The slaughter of hundreds of protestors would necesitate an election anywhere. If there is another method of establishing legitimacy, knock yourself out and tell us.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

Libyans and Egyptians are enjoying their new found freedom and democracy, thanks to NATO and Al Qaeda intervention.

What could possibly go wrong in Syria? :pac:

PS Iraq and Afghanistan are now utopias...eh

Yes Libya would have been much more better off if Benghazi had just been allowed to face the might of a moderen army, whos leader repeatedly and explicitly threatened to kill them all. The fact that the politics there is now "messy" leaves many residents there wishing they had just been killed, or so I hear :rolleyes:

Afghanistan had little to do with making peoples lives better there, though the fact that it almost certainly WOULD (and did according to many statistics and in many regions) for many millions (namely women) cannot be so easily disregarded.

I never agreed with the invasion of Iraq, but yes it is now in many ways a better place to live than it was ten years ago. Sometimes I half get the feeling the anti-US crowd are almost dissapointed it wasnt a complete unmitigated disaste...

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes Libya would have been much more better off if Benghazi had just been allowed to face the might of a moderen army, whos leader repeatedly and explicitly threatened to kill them all. The fact that the politics there is now "messy" leaves many residents there wishing they had just been killed, or so I hear :rolleyes:

I'm not a defender of Gadaffi but I read the entire translated speech. I suspect you did not by your response and took the media propaganda at face value. .Actually he threatened to kill terrorists, armed terrorists, enemies of the state, you know the kind that flew their Al Qaeda flag over the Benghazi courthouse?

SamHarris wrote: »

Afghanistan had little to do with making peoples lives better there, though the fact that it almost certainly WOULD (and did according to many statistics and in many regions) for many millions (namely women) cannot be so easily disregarded.

Like the Afghan women who have just been raped, slaughtered and burned by US forces?

Afghanistan is the most food insecure nation on Earth btw, so you can add that to your statistics.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

The slaughter of hundreds of protestors would necesitate an election anywhere. If there is another method of establishing legitimacy, knock yourself out and tell us.

Peace, diplomacy and democratisation. EDIT: which can't simply and effectively happen overnight as you seem to seem to suggest.

Only one side is interested in peace and diplomacy though.

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

The slaughter of hundreds of protestors would necesitate an election anywhere. If there is another method of establishing legitimacy, knock yourself out and tell us.

So what's your BS explanation for Bahrain? or Yemen? ...wait...don't bother, I'll only get frustrated by your ignorance.

I don't even know why anyone would bother responding to your comments... they are amazingly stupid.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not a defender of Gadaffi but I read the entire translated speech. I suspect you did not by your response and took the media propaganda at face value. .Actually he threatened to kill terrorists, armed terrorists, enemies of the state, you know the kind that flew their Al Qaeda flag over the Benghazi courthouse?

Evidence please.

Regardless, his abuses throughout his dictatorial reign are well documented. He managed to do the near impossible and unite the international community into thinking something had to be done.

That he was an enemy of the West and that they were therefore more willing to assist the rebel forces matters not at all.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like the Afghan women who have just been raped, slaughtered and burned by US forces?

Evidence of this routinely happening please.

Hardly the point either is it? the increase in literacy and amount going to school is staggering, the improvments to infrastructure etc are all extremly well documented.

Its GDP has increased 3 fold.

If you wish to make a point use evidence and statistics, not some vague reference.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Afghanistan is the most food insecure nation on Earth btw, so you can add that to your statistics.

Yes, its still a dump and has been for pretty much centuries. Again, the idea that it suddenly would become an "eden" is laughable, and Again, was never anywhere near the goal. The goal was clear and, it can be easily argued, was a resounding success cosidering the amount and loaation of attacks by al Qaeda before and after the invasion. That people think the goal was or should be an Orange County in South West Asia is just a demonstration of their ignorance, nothing more

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

So what's your BS explanation for Bahrain? or Yemen? ...wait...don't bother, I'll only get frustrated by your ignorance.

I don't even know why anyone would bother responding to your comments... they are amazingly stupid.

Yes Im sure I could hardly keep up with you :rolleyes:

Let me guess, a CT forum regular? All cut from the same intellectually dazzling cloth...

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Peace, diplomacy and democratisation. EDIT: which can't simply and effectively happen overnight as you seem to seem to suggest.

Only one side is interested in peace and diplomacy though.

Why do you think I believe it is simple or easy or quick? I merely pointed out what would be needed.

And which side do you believe that would be?

geeman

I see you skipped over my questions about Bahrain and Yemen.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

I see you skipped over my questions about Bahrain and Yemen.

I see you skipped over your own "...wait ...don't bother" way to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over my "amazing stupidity".

I like to just let people like you shoot themselves in their own foot, rather than addressing their insults right away. Didnt take you too long, did it ?

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

I see you skipped over your own "...wait ...don't bother" way to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over the my "amazing stupidity".

I like to just let people like you shoot themselves in their own foot, rather than addressing their insults right away. Didnt take you too long, did it ?

Again, you skipped over the questions about Bahrain and Yemen, very suspect SamHarris...are you British by any chance? It would make sense then since the British and Americans are friends of the Saudi and Yemen regimes.

Who cares if the Saudis kill thousands of protesters as long as they keep shipping us cheap oil, right? They're only brown people anyway.

So what should we do with Syria? send in NATO aircraft to bomb it into the stone age and let Al Qaeda rule it like in Libya?

What's your solution?

K-9

Mod

Could we please actually have a discussion on the OP and not a series of one liners unrelated to it, that are full of generalisations and repitition, and unhelpful for a "discussion".

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

Again, you skipped over the questions about Bahrain and Yemen, very suspect SamHarris...are you British by any chance? It would make sense then since the British and Americans are friends of the Saudi and Yemen regimes.

Who cares if the Saudis kill thousands of protesters as long as they keep shipping us cheap oil, right? They're only brown people anyway.

So what should we do with Syria? send in NATO aircraft to bomb it into the stone age and let Al Qaeda rule it like in Libya?

What's your solution?

Again I skipped them becuase you told me to, you proceeded to not address what I said and merely called them "stupid" as though that was an excellent, incisive point to make. Please, knock yourself out. SHOW me how it is "stupid". This should be good.

Yes Im a British agent, here to protect my governments policy in the middle East! You and richie are on to me! :rolleyes:

What are you even talking about? Please take a breath and address what was actually said...

geeman

I'd just love SamHarris to enlighten me on his 'intellectual' solution to Syria which doesn't involve state sponsered terrorism and bombing Syria with it's people into the stone age ....because so far that seems to be his position.

SamHarris doesn't believe Bahrain or Yemen protesters are worth discussing because ...???

Thousands were killed however Yemen nor Saudi Arabia face any sanctions or threats of intervention from the US/EU ....gee, I wonder why...

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

Again I skipped them becuase you told me to, you proceeded to not address what I said and merely called them "stupid" as though that was an excellent, incisive point to make. Please, knock yourself out. SHOW me how it is "stupid". This should be good.

Yes Im a British agent, here to protect my governments policy in the middle East! You and richie are on to me! :rolleyes:

What are you even talking about? Please take a breath and address what was actually said...

No, you're skipping Yemen and Bahrain because it exposes hypocrisy of US/UK specifically and other countries pointing the finger at Syria and demanding military intervention....

or is that "humanitarian" intervention, my mistake.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

I'd just love SamHarris to enlighten me on his 'intellectual' solution to Syria which doesn't involve state sponsered terrorism and bombing Syria with it's people into the stone age ....because so far that seems to be his position.

SamHarris doesn't believe Bahrain or Yemen protesters are worth discussing because ...???

Thousands were killed however Yemen nor Saudi Arabia face any sanctions or threats of intervention from the US/EU ....gee, I wonder why...

One more time, try and read back carefully over what was said.


Finished? Now. What was "stupid" about it, and where did I say anything about Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

One more time you said not to bother with Bahrain or Yemen... You really should read back over everything, your embarrassing yourself.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

No, you're skipping Yemen and Bahrain because it exposes hypocrisy of US/UK specifically and other countries pointing the finger at Syria and demanding military intervention....

or is that "humanitarian" intervention, my mistake.

Yes thats exactly what happened. Im going to ignore you now. Please do me a favour and do the same.

You really are to clever for me.

The more I engage with CTers, the clearer it becomes why their reality and everyone elses has so little in common. You basically just had an argument with yourself for gods sake...

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes thats exactly what happened, you really are too clever. Im going to ignore you now.

So you're going to ignore the questions also?

That's exactly my point.

You want to argue that Syria requires state sponsored terrorism and NATO airstrikes to protect Syrian people yet don't think Yemen or Bahrain protesters are worthy of the same protection?

why is that? Do you think maybe it's because the Saudi and Yemen regimes are good friends with the US/UK ??

I think so..

Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an authoritarian regime for 40+ years which you well know and is big buyer of US debt, not to mention supplier of cheap oil.

So..turn a blind eye to the Saudis killing peaceful protesters, but when the same thing happens in Syria, send in mercenaries, ask the UN to support a no fly zone, then bomb the country to smithereens and walk away saying "mission accomplished" leaving a bunch of terrorists in charge...Libya 2.0 ?

Is that the plan?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

geeman and SamHarris, cut it out - you are destroying what little is left of an already shaky thread.

SamHarris

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Than why is it that it is the terrorists and not Assad who are running away from having elections in favour of violence we now know backed up by the one of the world's most powerful countries?

Its clear enough - because the government holds all the cards, if the rebels stop fighting and give areas back over to the government (required for an election to take place) there is nothing to stop the government renaging or merely not allowing monitors and fixing etc. The Rebels would then completly be on the back foot.

Its already been pointed out, also, how disjointed the rebels leadership is. Who or what has the authority to agree to this deal with the government?

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

So you're going to ignore the questions also?

That's exactly my point.

You want to argue that Syria requires state sponsored terrorism and NATO airstrikes to protect Syrian people yet don't think Yemen or Bahrain protesters are worthy of the same protection?

why is that? Do you think maybe it's because the Saudi and Yemen regimes are good friends with the US/UK ??

I think so..

Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an authoritarian regime for 40+ years which you well know and is big buyer of US debt, not to mention supplier of cheap oil.

So..turn a blind eye to the Saudis killing peaceful protesters, but when the same thing happens in Syria, send in mercenaries, ask the UN to support a no fly zone, then bomb the country to smithereens and walk away saying "mission accomplished" leaving a bunch of terrorists in charge...Libya 2.0 ?

Is that the plan?

Please show me where I said any of these things.

geeman

@southsiderosie

Sorry, you can feel free to delete all my posts, seriously.
I've just wasted my time.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Frankly, I think everyone's time has been wasted on this thread.

OP, next time, give up more to work with, rather than just throwing up a link and a one-liner with no context of explanation. Per the charter:

If your OP consists of nothing more than a two-line thought that just popped into your head, don't start a thread. Again, that will be treated as trolling - the thread will be deleted, and you'll be banned or infracted, depending on how egregious the example is.

To everyone else, if you have a problem with other posters, spare yourself the infraction and report it, rather than engaging with it.

Thread closed.