SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

They aren't nessecarily, no.

Sanctions are a prelude to future armed conflict.

As an example, the Blockade of Germany between 1914-1919 led to approx. 750k Germans dying of starvation.

Do you think the Nazi party exploited this among the youth in their rise to power?

The sanctions against Iran foment hatred for US and Israel among young Iranians, inevitably leading to an armed conflict.

I've no doubt those who want sanctions upon Iran are well aware of the consequences.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

Sanctions are a prelude to future armed conflict.

As (.............).

Not necessarily eg Apartheid South Africa.

You stated

Nearly 30k posts over 5 years on these forums only indicates one thing to me

.....what would that be?

biko

Tunisian jihad girls are welcome to in Syria, Tunisians not so happy.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/20/Tunisia-says-sexual-jihadist-girls-returned-home-from-Syria-pregnant.html

The Tunisian girls “are (sexually) swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and standing idle,” the non-partisan minister said during an address to the National Constituent Assembly.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Tunisian jihad girls are welcome to in Syria, Tunisians not so happy.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/20/Tunisia-says-sexual-jihadist-girls-returned-home-from-Syria-pregnant.html

.....given the debunked story about some imam approving rape, and the other one about a sunni imam approving temporary marriages, I'll take the above with a large dose of salt.

old_aussie

biko wrote: »

Tunisian jihad girls are welcome to in Syria, Tunisians not so happy.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/20/Tunisia-says-sexual-jihadist-girls-returned-home-from-Syria-pregnant.html

So they're scoring the virgins before the meet up with allah, have your cake and eat it.

biko

Nodin wrote: »

.....given the debunked story about some imam approving rape, and the other one about a sunni imam approving temporary marriages, I'll take the above with a large dose of salt.

When not even a source in an Arabic paper, from a Tunisian interior minister, is enough to convince you I just don't know any more.

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

So they're scoring the virgins before the meet up with allah, have your cake and eat it.

...presuming its true, are we?

What did you mean by this?

No surprises here, predictable, I guess it's in their nature

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

Not necessarily eg Apartheid South Africa

Then the blockade of Gaza by Israel is not an act of war either.

Incidentally, US senator Carl Levin had this to say about a blockade against Iran.

"That's, I think, one option that needs to be considered" to boost pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program in line with UN Security Council resolutions, Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in an interview taped for C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program.

Naturally, Levin has nothing to do with Israel either, except being an Israeli citizen working as a senator in the US.

Implying he would have a conflict of interest is just absolutely nonsense.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

When not even a source in an Arabic paper, from a Tunisian interior minister, is enough to convince you I just don't know any more.

I had no idea that Arabic newspapers were the touchstone of truth.

Considering there was a debunked story that the Egyptian parliament was to allow men have sex with their wives up to some period of time after their death, I'm not sure what veracity mentioning the interior minister is supposed to supply....

There have been a number of false reports on the Syrian conflict with regards to matters sexual. It's therefore only logical to take this latest with some scepticism until it's been verified.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

Then the blockade of Gaza by Israel is not an act of war either.

.........

We were speaking of international sanctions. I gave the example of Apartheid South Africa, where they did not lead to war. Burma/Myanamar is another one. Therefore your sweeping assertion that "Sanctions are a prelude to future armed conflict" is not true.

You seem to have missed this, for some reason

Nearly 30k posts over 5 years on these forums only indicates one thing to
me

......what does it indicate?

Jonny7

biko wrote: »

When not even a source in an Arabic paper, from a Tunisian interior minister, is enough to convince you I just don't know any more.

There are reports of rape on all sides in the conflict. Women and children are the biggest victims. In Aleppo government snipers specifically aim for children, the local doctors treat up to 10 a day. Children have been made to witness their family members being tortured, and massacres by groups like the Shabiha are grotesque affairs, people being killed with cement blocks and heavy machinery.

Also after the 2003 invasion, thousands of young girls and widowed women have been trafficked from Iraq to many neighbouring countries (including Syria) to be forced into prostitution. The scale is staggering.

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

We were speaking of international sanctions. I gave the example of Apartheid South Africa, where they did not lead to war. Burma/Myanmar is another one. Therefore your sweeping assertion that "Sanctions are a prelude to future armed conflict" is not true.

You seem to have missed this, for some reason

UN resolution 661 implemented international sanctions on Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Even after the withdrawal of Iraqi troops, the sanctions remained in place until 2003 when the US invaded and helped demolish it properly.

When Madeline Albright was asked in 1996 to respond to reports that up to 500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions, she stated.

"I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think the price is worth it"

But maybe you're right, economic sanctions such as those against Iraq in the past and Iran at present are not an act of war even when it results in immeasurable suffering of the citizens in those countries.

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are reports of rape on all sides in the conflict. Women and children are the biggest victims. In Aleppo government snipers specifically aim for children, the local doctors treat up to 10 a day. Children have been made to witness their family members being tortured, and massacres by groups like the Shabiha are grotesque affairs, people being killed with cement blocks and heavy machinery.

Where do you read this garbage?

Also after the 2003 invasion, thousands of young girls and widowed women have been trafficked from Iraq to many neighbouring countries (including Syria) to be forced into prostitution. The scale is staggering.

I'm sure the Iraqis are grateful to finally have a taste of freedom.
US have done a fantastic job there.

Jonny7

old_aussie wrote: »

No surprises here, predictable, I guess it's in their nature.

Now they FSA and al-qaeda turn on each other.

This has been happening for awhile, they may be fighting a common enemy, but they really are quite different.

The FSA are largely secularist Syrians fighting primarily to rid the country of Assad.

At the other end of the spectrum there are the foreign radicals flooding in from all over the world, from Stolkholm to Riyadh, for a myriad of reasons, some wet behind the ears, others veterans of the insurgency in Iraq.

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

This has been happening for awhile, they may be fighting a common enemy, but they really are quite different.

Yeah, I heard some get paid $150 per month while more experienced fighters get $100 per day. Not bad way to make money if you can stomach killing Syrians for your paymasters abroad.

The FSA are largely secularist Syrians fighting primarily to rid the country of Assad.

*sniggers*

So that it can end up like Libya?
Do you think Assad should have a Bayonet stuck in his anus when he dies?
Would that symbolize a new beginning of hope for Syrians?

At the other end of the spectrum there are the foreign radicals flooding in from all over the world, from Stolkholm to Riyadh, for a myriad of reasons, some wet behind the ears, others veterans of the insurgency in Iraq.

Those are the majority of "rebel" fighters against Syria/Hezbollah/Iran

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

Where do you read this garbage?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23696829
The pavement he sits on is dotted with dark brown blood stains.
"On average I treat about 10 people a day, every single day, but Fridays are always the worst," he says. "Yesterday about 30 people were shot here."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-syria-crisis-children-idUSBRE92C03N20130313
A boy of 12 sees his best friend shot through the heart. Another of 15 is held in a cell with 150 other people, and taken out every day to be put in a giant wheel and burnt with cigarettes.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/04/19/U-N-says-children-tortured-raped-in-Syrian-catastrophe.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/children-zaatari-camp-syria-war

The "Shabiha" are probably one of the more brutal groups
http://world.time.com/2012/06/11/the-wrath-of-the-shabiha-the-assad-regimes-brutal-enforcers/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9295268/Massacred-Syrian-children-were-bound-before-being-shot.html

I'm in work so I'll just use links from another thread I posted, these are views (AMAs) from inside the country from independent reporters

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/141ze4/im_robert_king_veteran_conflict_photojournalist/

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bqlcz/i_am_tracey_shelton_an_awardwinning_multimedia/

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bzppj/i_just_spent_five_weeks_on_both_sides_of_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bnm9h/i_am_zeina_khodr_an_al_jazeera_english/

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

Yeah, I heard some get paid $150 per month while more experienced fighters get $100 per day. Not bad way to make money if you can stomach killing Syrians for your paymasters abroad.

Yup Saudi and Qatar have spent an estimated 3 billion so far, a lot of that on weapons, training and paying fighters. They've even sent prisoners and paid them.

So that it can end up like Libya?

Libya is a damn sight better than Syria is at the moment, my friend was there last month.

Those are the majority of "rebel" fighters against Syria/Hezbollah/Iran

If you want to hold onto your views that's fine, if you want to know more about the conflict and how it started and who the players are then wiki is a good place to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup Saudi and Qatar have spent an estimated 3 billion so far, a lot of that on weapons, training and paying fighters. They've even sent prisoners and paid them.

What do the Saudis and Qatar gain from toppling Assad in your opinion?

Libya is a damn sight better than Syria is at the moment, my friend was there last month.

Oil production has dropped 90% since Gaddafi was removed.
Various tribal groups armed to the teeth are a law unto themselves.
Libyans at times don't even have running water.

What was your friend doing there? Providing security for some company stealing resources?

If you want to hold onto your views that's fine, if you want to know more about the conflict and how it started and who the players are then wiki is a good place to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Sorry, I already know who the main players are but I can't understand why you think they have best intentions for Syrian people.

The idea that the US/Israel/House of Saud would spend billions of dollars to ensure Syrians have a better way of life is absurd to me.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

But maybe you're right, economic sanctions such as those against Iraq in the past and Iran at present are not an act of war even when it results in immeasurable suffering of the citizens in those countries.

No, I am right. I have given examples that show this.

Seanie_c wrote:

Nearly 30k posts over 5 years on these forums only indicates one thing to
me

Please explain the above remark.

donegal__road

Noam Chomsky: Instead of Syria Attack, U.S. Should Back Chemical Weapons Ban in All Nations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUgVQY_u3J4

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

No, I am right. I have given examples that show this.

You are right sanctions aren't an act of war even when people are dying from them?

I think Iranians unable to access life saving medicine might disagree with you. Most foreign policy analysts would disagree this isn't a prelude to war like it was with Iraq.

Given the fact, political prostitutes like US senator Mark Kirk want to prevent sanctions against Iran being lifted unless there's regime change, what kind of diplomatic solution do you envision going forward?

During the Gaza war, he famously told a pro-Gaza war pep rally in Washingtom that "it's time to take the trash out" in Gaza. That was at a time when 1,400 Palestinians, most of them civilians (and 320 children) were being killed by the Israeli army.

What a nice man he is, taking money and doing dirty work for AIPAC.
There is only 1 outcome from these sanctions and it is an attack on Iran.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

You are right sanctions aren't an act of war even when people are dying from them?.

Again, ignoring cases that disprove you. You seem to like cherry picking examples that back up your argument while ignoring those that show your general thesis is incorrect.

seanie_c wrote: »

Given the fact, political prostitutes like US senator Mark Kirk ?.

Again, cherry picking.

seanie_c wrote: »

There is only 1 outcome from these sanctions and it is an attack on Iran.

There were sanctions on Burma, and there was no attack. There are sanctions on North Korea and Zimbabwe, but theres been no attack. Sanctions do not neccesarily indicate war.

Seanie_c wrote:

Nearly 30k posts over 5 years on these forums only indicates one thing to

me

Have you summoned the courage to explain the above yet or are you going to keep dodging it?

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

Again, ignoring cases that disprove you. You seem to like cherry picking examples that back up your argument while ignoring those that show your general thesis is incorrect.

I said sanctions were an act of war and you've argued they aren't by selecting examples where sanctions against countries didn't lead to war.

So you're telling me there will be no war against Iran despite it being what hard line right wing Israelis/Americans want?

Again, cherry picking.

You are cherry picking yourself!

There were sanctions on Burma, and there was no attack. There are sanctions on North Korea and Zimbabwe, but theres been no attack. Sanctions do not neccesarily indicate war.

If AIPAC flunky Mark Kirk gets his way, sanctions against Iran won't be lifted and there will almost certainly be a war against Iran.

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

What do the Saudis and Qatar gain from toppling Assad in your opinion?

Politics mainly, Syria has a Sunni majority, whom many in those countries see as being oppressed (ironic) by an upstart from an Allawite sect. Easier diplomacy, potential ally in the region and so on.

Oil production has dropped 90% since Gaddafi was removed.
Various tribal groups armed to the teeth are a law unto themselves.
Libyans at times don't even have running water.

It experienced 6 months of vicious fighting, with 4 decades of leadership ripped out. Most countries aren't in great shape after a war, particularly when they've just shed a very tenacious dictatorship. There's hope though, Gadaffi and his family members squirreled away approx 60 to 100 billion dollars during their reign, it's now be used for the Libyan people rather than mansions in London.

What was your friend doing there? Providing security for some company stealing resources?

It's not quite Iraq. Visiting relatives outside Tripoli and another was there during the elections.

Sorry, I already know who the main players are but I can't understand why you think they have best intentions for Syrian people.

Because Assad is butchering his people to stay in power, what do you suggest other countries do, ignore it? support him?

What is the solution?

(dredging up history and raking over Iraq isn't going to stop people from being killed in Syria)

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

I said sanctions were an act of war and you've argued they aren't by selecting examples where sanctions against countries didn't lead to war.

So you're telling me there will be no war against Iran despite it being what hard line right wing Israelis/Americans want?

How would you describe Russian and Chinese sanctions on Iran, acts of war?

seanie_c

=Jonny7 wrote:

Because Assad is butchering his people to stay in power, what do you suggest other countries do, ignore it? support him?

What is the solution?

My solution would be a diplomatic one, not paying mercenaries to destabilize the country and make a bad situation worse.

Why did the US ignore atrocities being committed against Bahrain citizens if they care so much for human life? Don't be naive.

Jonny7 wrote: »

How would you describe Russian and Chinese sanctions on Iran, acts of war?

You're talking about sanctions that were approved by the UN.
Further sanctions against Iran were taken by EU and US which Russia and China condemned.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

I said sanctions were an act of war and you've argued they aren't by selecting examples where sanctions against countries didn't lead to war..

Yep.

seanie_c wrote: »

So you're telling me there will be no war against Iran despite it being what hard line right wing Israelis/Americans want?
.

There might be some conflict, but using sanctions as a basis to declare it inevitable is a nonsense.

Seanie_c wrote:

Nearly 30k posts over 5 years on these forums only indicates one thing to


me

Still not man enough to explain yourself?

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

My solution would be a diplomatic one

Which is..

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

There might be some conflict, but using sanctions as a basis to declare it inevitable is a nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense.

Unilateral sanctions by EU, US and some other countries on Iran are now International sanctions apparently, even when there was no mandate from the UN.

clairefontaine

seanie_c wrote: »

Of course it's nonsense.

Unilateral sanctions by EU, US and some other countries on Iran are now International sanctions apparently, even when there was no mandate from the UN.

I agree. When you destroy a country's currency, yes it is an act of war. But precedes the militarised manifestation of that war.