SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Nodin

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.

...and again, that doesn't prove war is inevitable. For that to be the case, you'd have to show sanctions leading 100% of the time to war and that's not the case.

19543261

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which is..

Coffees and biscuits.

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which is..

It would have to involve cooperation from the International community and specifically the veto countries that have a desire for a stable middle east.

Countries that have invested in energy markets there don't want to see the region erupt into chaos. Who benefits from this crazy policy?

The reason China and Russia can't agree with the US is because Israel are demanding a unilateral military attack on Syria and look what happened in Libya, do we want a repeat of that in Syria?

To avert a military confrontation with Syria and wider regional conflict involving Iran, it would require mutual agreement with veto countries.

Elections in Syria could be held and the people could decide who they want to govern them.

If Israel/US/UK/France are sincere to see a stable Syria, (and I doubt they are) they would work towards a peaceful solution.

Instead, they've been importing, funding Jihadis and training them to destroy the country while at the same time rallying support for a military attack which without boots on the ground, would be a complete failure for Syrians.

With boots on the ground, US would simply become embroiled in a another conflict similar to Iraq or Vietnam.

US would be pushed out of the region and the same arrogant hard liners from Israel/US pushing for military attack would be responsible for the destruction of Israel over the long term.

Israel are dreaming to believe they can survive without US power in such a volatile region of the world.
Even if they nuke Iran, Pakistan would most likely respond with their own nukes.

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

What is the solution?

What would you suggest? I've ran a few scenarios through my head but the unintended consequences that could arise seem too risky for anything other than support and protection of refugees.

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

The reason China and Russia can't agree with the US is because Israel are demanding a unilateral military attack on Syria

Israel aren't in the UN, which resolution are you talking about?

Elections in Syria could be held and the people could decide who they want to govern them.

Assad won't allow free and fair elections. The Russians won't accept any plan that demands Assad leave power.

If Israel/US/UK/France are sincere to see a stable Syria, (and I doubt they are) they would work towards a peaceful solution.

This fixation with Israel, they aren't that involved in the situation, they are pretty much taking a backseat.

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

Israel aren't in the UN, which resolution are you talking about?

Hard line Israelis dictate US foreign policy in the Middle East and while Israel aren't on the security council, they still influence US a great deal.

The invasion of Iraq did not benefit US in any way just as an invasion of Syria or Iran wouldn't either.

Assad won't allow free and fair elections. The Russians won't accept any plan that demands Assad leave power.

If US would stop seeking a military solution, there might be some accommodation between the veto countries.

Israel/US aren't serious about a peaceful solution.
Look at the current peace talks between Palestinians and Israel.

Days before peace talks start, Israel decides to build 1200 homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Does that sound like a country serious about peace to you?

Does a country serious about peace with Palestinians demolish residential and agricultural structures leaving the occupants homeless?

Israel have never complied with International law because they believe they're above the law.

This fixation with Israel, they aren't that involved in the situation, they are pretty much taking a backseat.

Sorry, but plenty of evidence suggests this isn't true.

When you see John McCain and Lindsey Graham pushing for a military attack, you know that's what hard line Israelis want.

John McCain has been an Israeli asset since his election to congress in 1982. He was a co-conspirator in promoting phony intelligence that resulted in the US invading Iraq.

His family have a tradition of helping cover up Israeli crimes against the United States such as the attack on USS Liberty in 1967 which resulted in deaths of 200 navy personnel.

It has never been any secret what hard line Israelis wanted to happen with Iraq when Netanyahu told the USA in 2002

"there is no question whatsoever, that Saddam is seeking and is working, and is advancing towards the development of a nuclear weapon"

Of course, no WMD or Nuclear weapons were found but this doesn't seem to affect the credibility of people like Netanyahu who is proven consistent liar.

A year before this, he was secretly filmed saying the following.

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."

If it weren't absolutely clear how much influence Israelis have over US, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon had this to say in 2001 in response to Shimon Peres.

"every time we do something, you tell me americans will do this and will do that. i want to tell you something very clear: don't worry about american pressure on israel;

we, the jewish people, control america. and the americans know it."

Now, we see the so-called "evidence" of Syrian government using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians came from The Mossad.

Everyone knows Israeli lobbies want Syria to be destroyed, there are countless documents, comments suggesting this.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

What would you suggest? I've ran a few scenarios through my head but the unintended consequences that could arise seem to risky for anything other than support and protection of refugees.

The most idealistic plan would be if neutral countries enforced a ceasefire with their own peacekeepers, a transitional government set up, humanitarian aid allowed to flow freely into the country - there is little or no hope of that ever happening.

Kofi Annan's plan or the Arab league plan had the most potential because of their neutrality

Realistically at the moment, the UN needs consensus, broker a ceasefire, create a peaceful enclave in Syria, expand, make sure people are receiving aid.

Plans shouldn't be bent to serve one man and his family, they should be there for the Syrian people who just want an end to this chaos.

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

The invasion of Iraq did not benefit US in any way just as an invasion of Syria or Iran wouldn't either.

No plans to "invade" Syria.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

If it weren't absolutely clear how much influence Israelis have over US, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon had this to say in 2001 in response to Shimon Peres.

"every time we do something, you tell me americans will do this and will do that. i want to tell you something very clear: don't worry about american pressure on israel;

we, the jewish people, control america. and the americans know it."
.

Debunked years ago, he never said it.

seanie_c wrote: »

Now, we see the so-called "evidence" of Syrian government using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians came from The Mossad..

You're beginning to walk and quack like a very specific sort of duck.

returnNull

Nodin wrote: »

You're beginning to walk and quack like a very specific sort of duck.

http://bfolder.ru/_ph/67/114956865.png

donegal__road

very interesting interview with Robert Fisk and his opinion of what is happening with Syria. (8 minutes long)

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

You're beginning to walk and quack like a very specific sort of duck.

This is the part where you start calling me names because you can't find anything factually wrong with what I said.

You make it too easy for me.

seanie_c

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had long avoided openly calling for the Syrian president's fall. Some Israeli officials now worry that radical Sunni Islamist insurgents fighting Assad will eventually turn their guns on the Jewish state.


But with Assad under U.S.-led condemnation for his forces' alleged chemical attack on a rebel district of Damascus on August 21, Oren said Israel's message was that he must go.


"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran," Oren said in the interview, excerpted on Tuesday before its full publication on Friday.

In public shift, Israel calls for Assad's fall

I just made this up in my head Nodin because it's full of nonsense.
You and returnNull are far too intellectual for me on Middle East issues.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

This is the part where you start calling me names because you can't find anything factually wrong with what I said.

.

Thus far I've found (1)your claims re MSF to be nonsensical (2) your claim that sanctions always lead to war false (3) your quote of Ariel Sharon to be false. Nos 1 & 3 point in a certain direction. While we aren't there yet, we're well on the way.

As for you....well, you don't even have the gumption to clarify what you mean when challenged on it.

seanie_c

Nodin wrote: »

Thus far I've found (1)your claims re MSF to be nonsensical

No, you haven't.
You provided your own opinion which doesn't invalidate my own.
I think you said it was nonsense (your favorite word)...and that was it, hardly a rebuttal worth talking about.
Maybe in Nodin's world, you're always right but the real world isn't so simplistic.

(2) your claim that sanctions always lead to war false

I realize you're easily distracted but In the context of Iran which is what we're supposed to be discussing, the sanctions are a prelude to war which you yourself even admitted might happen.

So what are you arguing about, the interpretation of sanctions?

(3) your quote of Ariel Sharon to be false.

Show me how it's false? Where's your evidence it was debunked?
Unsurprisingly you skipped over Netanyahu's comments.

Nos 1 & 3 point in a certain direction. While we aren't there yet, we're well on the way.

Tell me what Israel want to do about Syria then, Nodin?
Please do. Since I'm just a Jew Hater and everything I've said is utter nonsense, you must have all the answers.

Karl Stein

Nodin wrote: »

Debunked years ago, he never said it.

And even if we did pretend he said it it would just be another hubris afflicted politician who has gotten himself into a position where people listen - whether it would be worth debating for validity, or not, would be a whole new question.

seanie_c

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Controlled Opposition – From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond

---

The author of the article is Jewish but even a Jew critical of Israeli policies is just a self-hating Jew in Nodin's world of fantasy.

MonaPizza

Can we have that evidence that the Assad government used Sarin on Syrians....PLEASE!!!

Can we have that.....PLEASE!

Can we?

PLEASE.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

No, you haven't.
You provided your own opinion which doesn't invalidate my own.
I think you said it was nonsense (your favorite word)...and that was it, hardly a rebuttal worth talking about.
Maybe in Nodin's world, you're always right but the real world isn't so simplistic..

Your notion is that because a co-founder of MSF is a jew, its a pro-Israeli NGO. If you want to keep up with that one, feel free. You also claimed he supported the Iraq war, which he didn't.

seanie_c wrote:

I realize you're easily distracted but In the context of Iran which is what
we're supposed to be discussing, the sanctions are a prelude to war which
you yourself even admitted might happen.

Being a bit dishonest there - this is what you said

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.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86628814&postcount=872

...trying to narrow things back to Iran now you've been caught out is a bit much, tbh.

seanie c wrote:

Show me how it's false? Where's your evidence it was debunked?
.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=766&x_context=2


Still haven't had the nadgers to explain your early remark I see...?

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Can we have that evidence that the Assad government used Sarin on Syrians....PLEASE!!!

It's already been presented.

The problem with it, is that it's not 100% - which is difficult under the circumstances

Jonny7

seanie_c wrote: »

---

The author of the article is Jewish but even a Jew critical of Israeli policies is just a self-hating Jew in Nodin's world of fantasy.

What does anyone being Jewish have to do with any of this?

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

And that's when we all secretly presumed there were WMD's... we still had a strong trust in US intelligence despite the heavy cynicism over the war. When the weeks/months/years went by - and that faded - it became clear the extent of the exaggeration/oversight/damned lies that took place.

who is this we? are you using the royal we to excuse yourself from being duped. if you were cynical of US intelligence, as you should have been given their track record of lying to engage in conflicts, this might not have happened. After all, in your personal life you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to someone you knew to be serially economical with the truth.

perhaps if you didn't have an ideological allegiance to the US, you might be more inclined to be be cynical of the evidence they present.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

who is this we? are you using the royal we to excuse yourself from being duped. if you were cynical of US intelligence, as you should have been given their track record of lying to engage in conflicts, this might not have happened. After all, in your personal life you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to someone you knew to be serially economical with the truth.

You are completely misunderstanding.

Saddam used gas in the Anfal campaign and it was used during the Iran-Iraq war - he had ****ing WMD

The thing was, Bush and Powell were presenting it in a certain way..

Anyone who didn't believe the Bush administration (e.g. myself) thought that when the US forces took control, that by scouring, they would find something, anything - and then declare "oh look there were WMD all along"

Privately it's believed that somewhere along the line Saddam either years before, or just before the invasion got rid of, hid, buried, dumped at sea - any stockpiles that may have incriminated him and "justified" the invasion.

Yeah they found a few shells with mustard gas, but never these large enough quantities Powell et al presented as the case for war.

perhaps if you didn't have an ideological allegiance to the US, you might be more inclined to be be cynical of the evidence they present.

I was staunchly against the war, took part in marches, was deeply cynical and critical of the Bush administration. So, yeah, way off.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are completely misunderstanding.

Saddam used gas in the Anfal campaign and it was used during the Iran-Iraq war - he had ****ing WMD
.


.

Your post was deeply misleading.
You should have clarified you were not talking about the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003. The fact you said we all secretly presumed there were WMD implied you were talking about that specific time period. No one denies he had wmd during the iran-iraq war.

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Saddam used gas in the Anfal campaign and it was used during the Iran-Iraq war - he had ****ing WMD

Maybe the west shouldn't have helped him acquire and use them then.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Maybe the west shouldn't have helped him acquire and use them then.

Most likely true yup. In fact the US aided both sides.

It's a drop in the ocean, the "West" helped.. lets see.. the Khmer Rouge, Hitler, Stalin, Gadaffi, Amin, Mobutu, took on scientists from the notorious unit 731, invented concentration camps, used nuclear weapons, firebombed Dresden, destroyed god knows how many civilizations, enslaved, plundered.. how far back do we want to go ..

Any form of modern intervention will carry the stigma of the past.

Some will always be much more hung up on the "hypocrisy" aspect of the past than the humanitarian disaster of the present, hence history revisited will make the same appearance every debate.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some will always be much more hung up on the "hypocrisy" aspect of the past than the humanitarian disaster of the present, hence history revisited will make the same appearance every debate.

This is because some people seem to forget that past actions of a recidivist are usually a good indicator of present behaviour and motives.
The odd thing is you acknowledge this hypocrisy, but act confused as to why people are cynical that this time around the US motive with regard to Syria is purely about helping suffering civilians.

seanie_c

Jonny7 wrote: »

What does anyone being Jewish have to do with any of this?

Nodin and returnNull implied I was just a Jew Hater because of my legitimate criticism of Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Instead of responding with a rebuttal, he resorts to name calling which is pretty childish and only illustrates his lack of knowledge on these issues.

When I provide an article written by Gilad Atzmon, Nodin will say he's just a self-hating Jew.

Don't bother reading the article. Just assume, as with everything, the content is nonsense.

But this is what happens in discussions with people that have very little insight into the real world.

When someone can't win an argument, they resort to name calling, it's pretty sad and I have better things to do.

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some will always be much more hung up on the "hypocrisy" aspect of the past than the humanitarian disaster of the present, hence history revisited will make the same appearance every debate.

These hypocrisies are not a thing of the past.

Nodin

seanie_c wrote: »

Nodin and returnNull implied I was just a Jew Hater because of my legitimate criticism of Israeli policy in the Middle East..

No, you'll find that isn't what happened at all. Why do you think you can lie when your remarks are here on thread?

You described MSF as a "pro-Israeli" NGO purely because the co-founder was Jewish.n You also implied they were involved in organ theft.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86608023&postcount=818

You then started using a false quote from Ariel Sharon, which states that 'Jews run America'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86639897&postcount=907

seanie_c wrote: »

When someone can't win an argument, they resort to name calling, it's pretty sad and I have better things to do.

That's the same "waah, lemme alone" you tried with Fred earlier. Its not that convincing, tbh. Particularily when I haven't yet awarded you a title.

You still haven't explained your remark re my post count etc.