Syria Again

stefanovich

gitzy16v wrote:

So are you...

Jesus lads, riveting discussion.

I think that all we can be sure of is that we don't know for sure what really happened and may never know.

Certain things have been staged in Syria before for propaganda reasons so I wouldn't be too quick to discount that as an alternative explanation.

slovakchick

stefanovich wrote: »

gitzy16v wrote:

So are you...

Jesus lads, riveting discussion.

I think that all we can be sure of is that we don't know for sure what really happened and may never know.

Certain things have been staged in Syria before for propaganda reasons so I wouldn't be too quick to discount that as an alternative explanation.

By Assad maybe

CoolHandBandit

Assad seems like a right nutjob but im more worried as to why the US and it's allies are supporting the Jihadis in the region. A lot of these middle eastern countries seem to function so much better (not perfectly) with a strongman at the helm.

slovakchick

Compared to when they didnt have a strongman? When was that again?

First Up

slovakchick wrote:

Compared to when they didnt have a strongman? When was that again?

Mostly before they were countries created for the convenience of colonial powers and oil companies.

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

slovakchick wrote:

Compared to when they didnt have a strongman? When was that again?

Mostly before they were countries created for the convenience of colonial powers and oil companies.

When exactly? Dates?

First Up

slovakchick wrote:

When exactly? Dates?

For each country?

uck51js9zml2yt

slovakchick wrote: »

When exactly? Dates?

A perfect example is sadam Hussein. All was reasonably well in the country until.the Americans went in and destroyed the country.
Libya is another one.

archer22

So let me get this straight...the Tramp regime launched a massive missile attack on Shayrat airbase because they claimed Syria had chemical weapons there.
Now the airbase is surrounded by villages, so if you honestly believed it contained Sarin gas then you would also realise the missile strike would likely release this gas.

So if Tramp is being honest in his belief that there was gas there, then you have to conclude he didn't give a flying fock that his actions could lead to civilians ending up being gassed as a result of his actions.

Anyhow as the missile strikes proved there was no gas there.....surprise surprise :rolleyes:.

slovakchick

Ryan Skinny Rugby wrote: »

slovakchick wrote: »

When exactly? Dates?

A perfect example is sadam Hussein. All was reasonably well in the country until.the Americans went in and destroyed the country.
Libya is another one.

Saddam who gassed his own people the kurds and also invaded kuwait and Iran and gassed some more in Iran? Gadafi who sponsored the lockerbie bombers and the IRA?

First Up

Ryan Skinny Rugby wrote:

A perfect example is sadam Hussein. All was reasonably well in the country until.the Americans went in and destroyed the country. Libya is another one.

Thats an example of something else.

The Ottoman empire covered much of the region and the British were there too. The carve up into the countries we have today happened mostly after WW1 when those colonial powers withdrew.

archer22

slovakchick wrote: »

Saddam who gassed his own people the kurds and also invaded kuwait and Iran and gassed some more in Iran? Gadafi who sponsored the lockerbie bombers and the IRA?

And the British 'hero' Winston Churchill also gassed the Kurds

slovakchick

archer22 wrote: »

slovakchick wrote: »

Saddam who gassed his own people the kurds and also invaded kuwait and Iran and gassed some more in Iran? Gadafi who sponsored the lockerbie bombers and the IRA?

And the British 'hero' Winston Churchill also gassed the Kurds

Urban legends

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

Ryan Skinny Rugby wrote:

A perfect example is sadam Hussein. All was reasonably well in the country until.the Americans went in and destroyed the country. Libya is another one.

Thats an example of something else.

The Ottoman empire covered much of the region and the British were there too. The carve up into the countries we have today happened mostly after WW1 when those colonial powers withdrew.

So the ottoman and british empires were not lead by strong men / women?

archer22

slovakchick wrote: »

Urban legends

And your lot Phosphorous bombed the Palestinians.

First Up

slovakchick wrote: »

So the ottoman and british empires were not lead by strong men / women?

Depends what you mean by strong. Those territories were not administered by brutal dictators if that's the analogy you are looking for.

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

slovakchick wrote: »

So the ottoman and british empires were not lead by strong men / women?

Depends what you mean by strong. Those territories were not administered by brutal dictators if that's the analogy you are looking for.

What about the Three Pashas (also called the " Three Dictators")

First Up

slovakchick wrote:

What about the Three Pashas (also called the " Three Dictators")

What about them?

They were part of the cause of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, not responsible for its administration.

Zebra3

srsly78 wrote: »

And how effective was it? Not as effective as dropping normal bombs - which is why it hardly ever gets used. Ok you found an exceptional case, but look at any major war. Why did neither side bother using in ww2?

The only situations it might be effective in is enclosed spaces or underground, subways etc.

That'll be of great consolation to the thousands who were slaughtered by US-backed Iraq.

Zebra3

slovakchick wrote: »

Gadafi who sponsored the lockerbie bombers and the IRA?

Gadaffi had nothing to do with Lockerbie.

Shurimgreat

Zebra3 wrote: »

That'll be of great consolation to the thousands who were slaughtered by US-backed Iraq.

But I thought Saddam was a lovely secular dictator whose only crime was to say No to America and who should have been left in power?

He did fight Iran and the religious fanatics there.

Its interesting to see how on the one hand Saddam was lauded as a secular bulwark in the middle east and on the other criticised as a tool of America.

Some people thought the US shouldn't have had anything to do with Saddam, but when they went to depose him there was outrage.

Shurimgreat

Zebra3 wrote: »

Gadaffi had nothing to do with Lockerbie.

Opinion masquerading as "fact".

Shurimgreat

Let's be honest, most of the lefties around here care little about the Syrian people.

They care much more about using every stick available to beat America which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

Such people contribute little to the debate aside from faux outrage.

First Up

Shurimgreat wrote:

They care much more about using every stick available to beat America which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

I am no lefty but I recognise hypocricy wherever I see it. The US has its own long history of siding with unsavoury dictators.

Zebra3

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But I thought Saddam was a lovely secular dictator whose only crime was to say No to America and who should have been left in power?

He did fight Iran and the religious fanatics there.

Its interesting to see how on the one hand Saddam was lauded as a secular bulwark in the middle east and on the other criticised as a tool of America.

Some people thought the US shouldn't have had anything to do with Saddam, but when they went to depose him there was outrage.

I'm not sure who claimed Saddam was lovely.

Saddam was an evil, sadistic piece of dirt.

The US trained his secret police (ie his state terrorists) in absolute horrific forms of torture. The US fully supported Saddam during his war on Iran, even defending him from any possible war crimes and crimes against humanity charges at the UN. And it was why he was executed so swiftly after his capture. The US did not want his last being dug for everyone to analyse.

Any outrage against the removal of Saddam would be to do with the hypocrisy of the West. One day they support evil dictators, the next they want to invade their countries and lie about why they do so.

The western media also must take a large portion of the blame. We say that we have a free media in the west, and we do. A media that is free to lie to the people and cover up the truth.

What Trump did by bombing Syria was a commit a crime under international law. I don't think even any western media outlets have made any mention of this. Even CNN who previously had despised Trump had one of their gimps on tv describing the firing of those barbaric rockets as "beautiful" on three separate occasions within about thirty seconds.

Yourself isit

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Let's be honest, most of the lefties around here care little about the Syrian people.

They care much more about using every stick available to beat America which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

Such people contribute little to the debate aside from faux outrage.

You've basically engaged in a generalised ad homimen against a strawman phalanx of "leftwingers" who have "false beliefs" which indicates you have lost the argument. 3 logical fallacies.

And there are plenty of right wing posters who oppose America these days, or what is often called "liberal interventionism".

Zebra3

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Let's be honest, most of the lefties around here care little about the Syrian people.

They care much more about using every stick available to beat America which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

Such people contribute little to the debate aside from faux outrage.

Let's be honest, most of the right-wing nutjobs around here care little about the Syrian people.

They care much more about using every stick available to promote American state terrorism which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

Such people contribute little to the debate aside from faux outrage.

Shurimgreat

First Up wrote: »

I am no lefty but I recognise hypocricy wherever I see it. The US has its own long history of siding with unsavoury dictators.

And a long history of opposing unsavoury dictators too.

As for hypocrisy, its a pity some people wouldn't apply the same criticisms to other countries as they do to America. America gets criticised while other nations are let off. This is an invitation to those other countries to do as they please.

Shurimgreat

Zebra3 wrote: »

Let's be honest, most of the right-wing nutjobs around here care little about the Syrian people.

They care much more about using every stick available to promote American state terrorism which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

Such people contribute little to the debate aside from faux outrage.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

slovakchick wrote:

What about the Three Pashas (also called the " Three Dictators")

What about them?

They were part of the cause of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, not responsible for its administration.

Link proof