Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

a. jesus christ

b. The UK and France were forced to declare war when the Germans invaded Poland, they didn't want a war. US wasn't in the war then and Russia had a pact with Germany

c. If you are insinuating what I think you are insinuating, read about "Operation Unthinkable"



Again wow.

Where do I start. The Germans attacked Russia independently - opening up a two front war. The British were fighting for their survival when operation Barbarossa launched. The Russians were then fighting for their survival.




Stalin was in power before, during and after the war. He didn't recognise the threat from Hitler, ignored countless warnings.. but when the war kicked off, Russia only survived because of Stalin's extreme techniques (scorched earth policies, moving 1900 factories from West to East) and of course the Russian winter and endless manpower.

A Cold War developed independently between the two newly emerged superpowers (and their allies) largely because of opposing ideology.

This is secondary school stuff.

You need not try and presume that you can tell me anything at all about the Second World War, boy. I've been studying it for 25 years or more.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The FSA were formed from defected Syrian military personnel. Simply put, they were men who refused to shoot citizens. Their aim is to stop Assad.

Extremists and foreign brigades mostly starting arriving in 2012, 8 months after the conflict started.

You can also do yourself a favor and read up on the factions actually invoved in the Syrian conflict, instead of bleating out nonsense. Not all of the Islamist elements arrived in 2012.

You've already been given a few leads, now go do a bit research.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

You need not try and presume that you can tell me anything at all about the Second World War, boy. I've been studying it for 25 years or more.

I also have a keen interest in WW2, but the facts not the bizarre embellishment I just witnessed.

Feel free to refute the points.

You can also do yourself a favor and read up on the factions actually invoved in the Syrian conflict, instead of bleating out nonsense. Not all of the Islamist elements arrived in 2012.

You've already been given a few leads, now go do a bit research.

I didn't say all Islamist elements arrived in 2012. I explained how and why the FSA formed.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

I also have a keen interest in WW2, but the facts not the bizarre embellishment I just witnessed.

Feel free to refute the points.

What points? You haven't really made any. Nor have you addressed the points I made. You just went off on one.

But let's look at your last post then, shall we.

Jonny7 wrote:

a. jesus christ

I don't think he really had anything to do with it, did he?

Jonny7 wrote:

b. The UK and France were forced to declare war when the Germans invaded Poland, they didn't want a war. US wasn't in the war then and Russia had a pact with Germany

Nobody forced Britain or France to do anything at all. They dragged themselves into the conflict, in the vain hope that the combined threat of both nations would prompt Hitler to withdraw his troops from Poland and get back to the negotiation table, after years of faffing around and some cases support for German grievances.

Hitler called their bluff, spurred on by the lack of any action taken during the Czech episode a year previously.

I am also well aware of when each side threw their hat into the ring, but the point still stands that the western allies were more than happy to let the Russians soak up the lions share of German blood. 80% of Wehrmacht casualties were incured on the Russian front.

Jonny7 wrote:

c. If you are insinuating what I think you are insinuating...

I don't insinuate anything.

Jonny7 wrote:

Again wow.[/qoute]

Jonny7 wrote:

Where do I start. The Germans attacked Russia independently - opening up a two front war. The British were fighting for their survival when operation Barbarossa launched. The Russians were then fighting for their survival.

Hitler was always going to attack the Soviet Union. It was his be all-end all reason for existence, as embodied by the man himself. It was his number one goal. It was his war.

In addition, the "Battle of Britain" had ended before October 1940, even if the Kampfgeschwader were still hitting British targets during the night campaigns, into the new year. However, Hitler had abandoned any notions of a cross Channel enterprise during July. His heart was never really in it anyway, and besides, with the equipment that the Wehrmacht had, they would never have made it too far from the Pas De Callais. Rhine river barges are not suitable craft for crossing the rough waters of the English Channel.

Such a reality was not lost on either the Germans or the British. To quote Churchill himself, "I am not saying they will not come, but they will not come by Sealion."

Either way, none of what you've posted even comes close to addressing the fact that the Western Allies were happy to let the Russians take the heaviest burden in the war in Europe. By the time they got going, the Russians had the Germans on the backfoot and there was only going to be one direction.

Jonny7 wrote:

Stalin was in power before, during and after the war. He didn't recognise the threat from Hitler, ignored countless warnings.. but when the war kicked off, Russia only survived because of Stalin's extreme techniques (scorched earth policies, moving 1900 factories from West to East) and of course the Russian winter and endless manpower.

A Cold War developed independently between the two newly emerged superpowers (and their allies) largely because of opposing ideology.

This is neither here nor there as an answer to the facts presented to you.

Jonny7 wrote:

This is secondary school stuff.

I've moved beyond such limitations.

However, I suggest that we are getting way off topic here. This thread is about the current conflict in Syria, not WWII. But, I would be happy tp talk about any facet of that conflict in the appropriate forum.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

Sure, America and Britain supported a disgusting regime during WWII to achieve their own ends and created a media blackout on their atrocities while over-playing the atrocities of their enemy.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

The allies were happy to let the Russians soak up the vast majority of German blood while they took the back seat for 3/4 of the war and were more than willing to turn their eyes away and in some cases actively cover up Russian atrocity.

The US and Britain are somehow to blame for "supporting" a "disgusting regime" in WW2

Germany attacked Russia, which brought Russia into the war against the Axis powers. It was mutual self-preservation in a total war situation.

Russia entered the war because it was attacked by Germany, not because of Western "support".

Secondly, the Western allies didn't have the tactical nor strategic capability to heavily support the Eastern front, as they were tied up in the Western front. You call it "sitting back".

To extrapolate such a bizarre conclusion from World War 2 and relate it to the situation in Syria.. is a pretty tenuous historical analogy.


Moving on from that and back onto the subject, I clearly pointed out why and how the FSA were set up. They were mainly members of the Syrian army, appalled and disillusioned by events and orders - they formed with the goal of stopping and removing Assad.

One rebel leader said the following

We are not fighting Bashar al-Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison. We want to be able to live in Syria as freely; not under a dictator or the constraints of a strict interpretation of Islam,"

Regarding the Farouq Brigades
Freeing journalists captured by Islamic groups
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/29/syria-john-cantlie-jeroen-oerlemans-free-syrian-army_n_1715827.html


“They can wait,” Abu Azzam says. “The man made many mistakes. He raised the al-Qaeda flag and Al-Qaeda is not welcomed by us in the country. … We do not want to raise our weapons against anyone who is also fighting theregime, but when these people forget about fighting the regime and start preparing armed groups with a view to what comes after the regime, this is unacceptable. If these people want to raise their weapons against us, we have the right to defend ourselves.”
http://world.time.com/2012/10/05/syrias-up-and-coming-rebels-who-are-the-farouq-brigades-2/print/

The incident surrounding the Jesuit exodus from Homs
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13804

Tony EH

You're completely missing the point lad.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

I clearly pointed out why and how the FSA were set up. They were mainly members of the Syrian army, appalled and disillusioned by events and orders

So we know why they were set up. Now, do you think the defectors are appalled and disillusioned by the war crimes being committed by the rebels or is it only the crimes being committed by Assad's side they have a problem it?

Also what do you think about the warning form the UN that more weapons could lead to more "Crimes that shock the conscience " being committed by both sides.

Do you think the defectors should reconsider their request for more weapons in light of the UN's warning and make a genuine effort to take part in negotiations?

I ask because no one seems to think the opposition can win militarily so I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish by asking for more weapons from the West?

The UN says "Weapons fuel the parties’ illusion that they can win this war, pulling them farther into battle and away from the negotiating table."

The Syrian people have been saying for some time that they just want the fighting to end even if it means Assad is still there. But it seems the defectors want to carry on fighting regardless of what the people say.

gurramok

The FSA were set up in direct response to the slaughter of thousands of men, women and children by the Syrian army who quelled protests for freedom with such brutality.

The arms supplied by Russia and Iran have indeed been responsible for many of the 93,000 deaths so far.

Jaafa

For those who are interested I maintain a blog here, which manily catalogs the day to day military operations of the SAA and rebels. Political events are mentioned only when directly relevant to the military situation.

Suff

' If you want to go to heaven, you had better get busy overthrowing Syria — Paul Craig Roberts '


Good read for any one interested...

Full story

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

I also have a keen interest in WW2, but the facts not the bizarre embellishment I just witnessed.

Feel free to refute the points.




I didn't say all Islamist elements arrived in 2012. I explained how and why the FSA formed.

Syria was suffering Islamic attacks, car bombs, assasinations since 1976.
This war between Secularists and Islamists in Syria has been ongoing for decades. Some say since 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood_of_Syria#1976.E2.80.9382_Islamic_insurgency
It's peaking now because the U.S changed it's foreign policy after the 2006 Lebanese conflict and to weaken Iran's allies.
Syrians have been resisisting attempts to pull the Country back to the 1400s and Sharia Law long before 2012.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

Syria was suffering Islamic attacks, car bombs, assasinations since 1976.
This war between Secularists and Islamists in Syria has been ongoing for decades. Some say since 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood_of_Syria#1976.E2.80.9382_Islamic_insurgency
It's peaking now because the U.S changed it's foreign policy after the 2006 Lebanese conflict and to weaken Iran's allies.
Syrians have been resisisting attempts to pull the Country back to the 1400s and Sharia Law long before 2012.

No, it's peaking now because foreign Islamists are going to Syria specifically to fight Assad, in a conflict they see as Sunni vs Shia. Some are also there because they see an opportunity to set up an Islamic state.

They are the third element essentially.

Tony EH

Seeing as this article got deleted the last time I'll post it again, this time as a link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/as-the-us-wants-to-arm-nice-syrian-rebels-we-must-remind-ourselves-that-weapons-are-not-just-guns-they-are-about-money-8659784.html

Suff

Last night, clashes erupted in Sidon in south Lebanon between armed militants and the Lebanese Army, the clashes continued until early this morning - something similar to the events occurring in Syria, only in Syria its on a much larger scale.

full story

cyberhog

A rebel stronghold has switched allegiance to the government.

the town of Tal Kalakh on the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon changed sides at the week-end and is now controlled by the Syrian army.

...The exact terms of the deal are mysterious, but there is no doubt that the regular Syrian army now holds all parts of Tal Kalakh, which had a pre-war population of 55,000 and is an important smuggling route for arms and ammunition from Lebanon...

A local FSA commander, who said his name was Khalid al-Eid, explained that he had gone over to the government side along with 20 men he led because of general disillusionment with the uprising.

Everybody seemed to accept that the Syrian army is back for good. The soldiers in checkpoints were not wearing helmets and often not carrying their weapons, as if they did not expect anybody to attack them. Khalid al-Eid said there had been 300-400 FSA in Tal Kalakh before the army’s return but they must have melted back into the local population under an unofficial amnesty or have gone to Lebanon.

And a Catholic priest in Homs told the Independent:

...there are many other such deals and agreements in the making...He says ceasefires or agreements for rebels to put down their weapons in return for an amnesty are much easier to arrange when all the rebels are Syrians. “When there are foreign Salafi or Jihadi fighters present, as there are in the Old City, an agreement is almost impossible.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tal-kalakh-syrias-rebel-town-that-forged-its-own-peace-deal-8673695.html

It is a positive sign for the government to see local rebels changing sides and it's going to make it much easier for the SAA to eliminate the foreign backed terrorists as more and more local rebels lay down their arms.

Brown Bomber

Nabil Naim is a Salafist who has now renounced violence. He did so while hewas imprisoned for an assassination attempt on Egyptian President Sadat. He is a founding member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a veteran mujahid of the US's Jihad by proxy in Afghanistan, a former leader of Al Qaeda and a former confidante of it's now leader Al-Zawahiri.

He sees history repeating itself once again. The Reagan Doctrine has become The Obama Doctrine. He is convinced that the Al Nusra leadership is in the pocket of the CIA - as he himself once was and that the rank-and-file international brigade of professional jihadi-terrorists being airlifted from around the Muslim world into Turkey to be trained in the art of suicide bombings and decapitations by the CIA are ignorant dupes who will be jailed, imprisoned and tortured as soon as their usefulness has worn out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtIMM5MVk-o

Brown Bomber

Shocking recent footage on youtube showing what is supposedly our valiant freedom fighters in Syria cutting 3 bound men's heads off apparently as they are Assad supporters. Rumours are circulating that it is a Christian Monk. However, the Monk in question died in his monastery in an equally tragic tale of this awful war.

"The second is the most reliable version," Fr Pizzaballa said. "From the photos and the testimony of our religious, the rebels attacked the village in past few weeks, forcing most residents to flee."

The Monastery of St Anthony was the only safe haven, where Fr Franҫois lived along with some Franciscan friars, four nuns and ten lay Christians. But on Sunday, rebels part of a fringe extremist Islamic group, stormed that place too."

According to the Custos of the Holy Land, Islamists broke into the convent,
looted it and destroyed everything. When Fr Franҫois tried to defend the nuns
and other people, the gunmen shot him dead.

"Right now, the village is completely deserted," Fr Pizzaballa said. "Rebels
have moved there with their families and occupied the houses still
standing."

"Let us pray that this absurd and shameful war ends soon and that the people
of Syria can get back to a normal life soon," he said.


http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Custos-of-the-Holy-Land:-Fr-Franҫois-Mourad-killed-by-Islamist-insurgents-in-al-Ghassaniyah-28294.html

EDIT: Assuming the above is true this surely constitutes ethnic cleansing. Can anyone tell why Obama is so keen to put bigger guns into the hands of ethnic cleansers?

HansHolzel

This is Israel, the US and the EU v Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Obama is an asshole, just not as bad as Bush. That is why so many millions of Americans vote Democrat. To keep the outright fascists out.

Norwesterner

HansHolzel wrote: »

This is Israel, the US and the EU v Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Obama is an asshole, just not as bad as Bush. That is why so many millions of Americans vote Democrat. To keep the outright fascists out.

I think the jury is still out on whether he's not as bad as Bush.
He just pushes the same policies, but in a slicker style.

HansHolzel

He's not as keen on invasions, at least

Norwesterner

HansHolzel wrote: »

He's not as keen on invasions, at least

New tactic.
Get Al Qaeda to fight for you to bring about regime change.
Americans are obsessed with keeping U.S troop deaths down. They have to think of new ways to further their interests.

Brown Bomber

HansHolzel wrote: »

This is Israel, the US and the EU v Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Obama is an asshole, just not as bad as Bush. That is why so many millions of Americans vote Democrat. To keep the outright fascists out.

Obama is arguably more dangerous though due to the reduced resistance he gets from the media and the public to his assaults on human rights and civil liberties as well as his warmongering.

For example, how many hypocrites criticised Bush's wars but support Obama dropping bombs on Libya?

These same "progressives" would've been foaming if Bush was killing women and children in countries the US isn't even at war with with drones. The would have been marching in the streets if Bush drew up his own personal kill-lists and had targeted and killed US citizens in extra-judicial assasinations. They would have been burning effigies of Bush and Cheney if they had given themselves the power to have US citizens indefinitely detained without trial. YET these very same people defend these policies if they are sanctioned by the Messiah.

Norwesterner

I think the difference between Obama and Bush is the same as Mandela and Mugabe.
Both have similar histories and used similar tactics and methods.
But one is good at handling the media and the other doesn't.

cyberhog

Dozens of Australians that have joined the ranks of al-Nusra could be classed as terrorists when they return home.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/syria-war-veterans-face-label-of-terror/story-fn59niix-1226671656684

Tip: If you want to read the whole article copy the title in google,click search and then click on the link that comes up.

ThreeBlindMice

Norwesterner wrote: »

I think the jury is still out on whether he's not as bad as Bush.
He just pushes the same policies, but in a slicker style.

The difference between Bush and Obama is the amount of lies that come out with the latter.

cyberhog

Rebels execute Catholic priest in northern Syria

A Syrian Catholic priest has been publicly executed by rebels at a monastery in the northern Syria, the Vatican says.

Father Francois Murad, 49, was beheaded on 23 June when militants attacked the convent where he was staying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23138679


As usual, no "red lines" for the rebels no matter what atrocities they commit. You won't even hear Obama and his cohorts condemn this heinous and cowardly attack on an innocent Catholic priest.

We should be under no illusion that the rebels include thousands of those head hacking psychopaths and it is extremely naive to think they won't get their hands on any weapons that arrive in Syria from the West. Obama's desire to keep arming the rebels is not going help protect civilians from the fanatical jihadists. It will just lead to more more acts of brutality, torture, rape and murder.

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

Rebels execute Catholic priest in northern Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23138679

As usual, no "red lines" for the rebels no matter what atrocities they commit. You won't even hear Obama and his cohorts condemn this heinous and cowardly attack on an innocent Catholic priest.

We should be under no illusion that the rebels include thousands of those head hacking psychopaths and it is extremely naive to think they won't get their hands on any weapons that arrive in Syria from the West. Obama's desire to keep arming the rebels is not going help protect civilians from the fanatical jihadists. It will just lead to more more acts of brutality, torture, rape and murder.

You left out the last bit in the article

The Custody of the Holy Land, a Franciscan order which is the official custodian of religious sites in the Middle East, had also issued a statement two days after Fr Murad's death saying Islamists shot him.

"Islamists attacked the monastery, ransacking it and destroying everything," it said. "When Father Francois tried to resist, defending the nuns, rebels shot him.

That's Islamist rebels not the FSA. They have killed Muslim clerics too. The Indo claimed the priest was killed because he was an ally of the regime rather than being killed because he was a priest. As ever, information is hard to find the truth as Assad bans outside journo's from reporting the truth in Syria.http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/vatican-confirms-horror-beheading-of-catholic-priest-by-syrian-rebels-29387571.html

Oh, i'd say Obama is disgusted by this act just like the aerial bombardment of women and kids by Assad's planes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23142382

Also on Monday, Gulf Arab states called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to prevent what they said was the threat of a massacre in the city of Homs.

They said they were particularly worried about reports of members from the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah, once again fighting alongside government forces, who launched a major new offensive on rebels in Homs on Saturday.

Sierra Oscar

The BBC have another revelation about rebel forces, mainly focusing on the spread of Sharia law in rebel held areas. This once relatively secular state is now seemingly heading backwards.

The boy killed for an off-hand remark about God - Sharia spreads in Syria

The murder of a boy accused of blasphemy has come to symbolise concerns about the power of Islamist radicals in Syria's armed uprising. Paul Wood reports from Aleppo on how Sharia is spreading in rebel-held areas.

Public opinion is rapidly turning against these rebel loons.

ThreeBlindMice

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The BBC have another revelation about rebel forces, mainly focusing on the spread of Sharia law in rebel held areas. This once relatively secular state is now seemingly heading backwards.

The boy killed for an off-hand remark about God - Sharia spreads in Syria



Public opinion is rapidly turning against these rebel loons.

Speaking of, they are also imposing strict Sharia dress code Fatwa's on women that would normally be used to being liberal.

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-fatwa-women-523/

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

That's Islamist rebels not the FSA.

There is so little distance between the two that I would call that a meaningless distinction. There is no evidence of a unified opposition in Syria. The FSA is nothing more than a label that was created to try and give the anti-government fighters some legitimacy in the eyes of the West. The so-called "moderate" rebels have said on numerous occassions that they fight side by side with Al Nusra and see nothing wrong with their methods. The "moderate" rebels even criticised the US for designating Al Nusra a terrorist organisation.

Of course Obama and his cohorts are so obsessed with regime change that they have turned a blind eye to the cosy relationship between the "moderates" and the terrorists. And even though most of the EU and the rest of the world do not support arming the rebels, it seems nothing is going to deter Obama from taking the worst possible course of action.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Oh, i'd say Obama is disgusted by this act just like the aerial bombardment of women and kids by Assad's planes.

Considering the amount of women and children that US planes have killed over the years, he might think twice about mentioning it.