|
Hezbollah rather kindly just published this picture, of them with Volcano rockets in Yabrod, as detailed in the story I just published on my blog
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
It's terrible that the "revolutionaries" are using child soldiers in that video. If a Syrian gunship happened to pass by, all those children would be legitimate military targets because the rebels think it's a good idea to have them physically involved in battles in one form or another. This isn't new however since the rebels of all factions have been actively recruiting children who are barely even teenagers in refugee camps. They do this by controlling which families get needed necessities that are supposed to be distributed to everyone. Families that have children who "volunteer" are given money, medicine, food, and shelter while families that don't are barely able to live day by day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:It's terrible that the "revolutionaries" are using child soldiers in that video. If a Syrian gunship happened to pass by, all those children would be legitimate military targets because the rebels think it's a good idea to have them physically involved in battles in one form or another. It's funny because actually the entire non-assad aligned population of Syria has been seen as legitimate military targets by the regime. Good joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:It's terrible that the "revolutionaries" are using child soldiers in that video. If a Syrian gunship happened to pass by, all those children would be legitimate military targets because the rebels think it's a good idea to have them physically involved in battles in one form or another. a bunch of kids getting blown up makes for some great international propaganda and seeing a 13 yo with an AK probably serves as domestic propaganda as well- "you are a grown man Ahmed and yet you won't join us even when there are boys who would fight?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Well nevertheless it's good that there isn't wasn't any competent counter-battery fire around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
*a barrel bomb falls out of a helicopter on a bakery. Dozens of women and children are killed or mutilated* "Hmm yes the rebels are quite good at maximizing propaganda potential." It really boils down to whether this fight is an existential struggle for everyone who lives outside of Assad's territory, or if it's a fight over an agenda. Given that not just the children in this video, but drat near any child in Syria has stories of how close they came to being killed by indiscriminate regime bombings, snipers have fired at anything that moved since before anyone protesting raised a gun, and the regimes idea of humanitarian relief is dropping artillery on convoys out of besieged areas that they've agreed to let women and children escape through (usually after the siege has lasted so long that people are starting to starve to death), I would argue that it is. Children fighting isn't so much a reprehensible tactic as it is a harsh reality of a war when an entire civilian populace is targeted with full scale military operations. They can either fight for something or wait to be killed for nothing. That's a moral position no child should ever have to be put in, but the regime has done so with impunity since day 1. But I suppose SANA would portray it a little differently if you're a gullible dumbass who thinks this whole war is orchestrated by the NWO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:*a barrel bomb falls out of a helicopter on a bakery. Dozens of women and children are killed or mutilated* "Hmm yes the rebels are quite good at maximizing propaganda potential." The rebels can literally do no wrong, and if they did, it's because the regime in Damascus forced them to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:It's terrible that the "revolutionaries" are using child soldiers in that video. If a Syrian gunship happened to pass by, all those children would be legitimate military targets because the rebels think it's a good idea to have them physically involved in battles in one form or another. I also heard the rebels give a rifle to one of five childs and say to the others "if he falls you pick the gun and shoot" and they boil and eat the children who flee from the battlefield. Brown Moses posted:A well-connected journalist has just sent me an article he's written on the Yabrod offensive, that began to, a major offensive near the Lebanese border. His contacts in the government operations center has given him details that include Those are despicable people and i wish every government and Hezbollah soldier dies in the offensive but i can't help but feel a slight interest in studying the development of the Syrian Army from the begining of the conflict, where the sloppy conventional warfare doctrine resulted in massive casualties, to the development of more and more sophisticated or improvised ways of battling the rebels. They seem much more organized and learning from their mistakes, much to the dismay of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
It probably helps the Syrian army that the battles have become more recognizably conventional in many ways. There's front lines (even if there's no single front), areas that the rebels are defending and attempting to control instead of melting away from, etc. The fighting now is different from the fighting of 2012.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The rebels can literally do no wrong, and if they did, it's because the regime in Damascus forced them to. Considering how much of what the rebels have been accused of, including the transition from a peaceful protest movement to an insurgency, can be linked to escalatory steps taken by the regime, you're not really that far off the mark here even if you intended to be contrarian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Mans posted:Those are despicable people and i wish every government and Hezbollah soldier dies in the offensive but i can't help but feel a slight interest in studying the development of the Syrian Army from the begining of the conflict, where the sloppy conventional warfare doctrine resulted in massive casualties, to the development of more and more sophisticated or improvised ways of battling the rebels. They seem much more organized and learning from their mistakes, much to the dismay of humanity. Eh. The Regime's tactics haven't really evolved as much as the conflict has. Most insurgencies never mature enough to cross the divide from asymmetric to conventional warfare, but Syria has, and consequently the the rebels are now modeled somewhat similarly to the kind of army that the Regime's is designed to fight. The only real change in the way Damascus has been prosecuting the war is an even more marked increase in brutality as the situation has deteriorated. suboptimal posted:Considering how much of what the rebels have been accused of, including the transition from a peaceful protest movement to an insurgency, can be linked to escalatory steps taken by the regime, you're not really that far off the mark here even if you intended to be contrarian. I'm sure the child soldiers appreciate that sentiment. For clarity: It's not cool to do war crimes even if you really think you're justified in doing them. illrepute fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
illrepute posted:I'm sure the child soldiers appreciate that sentiment. While I certainly wish that wasn't happening, it's not like a lot of these kids had a choice. If you're a child (well, anyone) living in a rebel held neighborhood in Homs or Halab you're a combatant in the eyes of the SAA anyhow. Artillery barrages, barrel bombs and siege warfare don't discriminate. If I were a kid, I'd probably pick up a gun or run mortar rounds because really, I'm more than likely to die no matter what. As far as your other point about insurgencies go, the insurgency hasn't evolved into the SAA's doctrine and tactics so much as they've been forced to evolve into the insurgency's. It wasn't until Hizballah, which is second to none at unconventional warfare, committed to the fight that the government started making some real gains- Qusayr, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:While I certainly wish that wasn't happening, it's not like a lot of these kids had a choice. Please don't launch into a defense of child soldiers. I'm not prepared for that kind of posting. Anyway, I'm not certain about the point about Hezbollah. They were great in 2006 because they stuck to doing what they knew, which is firing a lot of rockets and confounding the gently caress out of the IDF. I don't think in 2011 anyone in Hezbollah would've predicted fighting against a muslim insurgency in neighboring Syria, and it shows; compared to their successes against Israel, they've been giving a pretty lackluster showing in Syria. illrepute fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Believe me, I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out that the reality of existential warfare precludes the niceties of the Geneva Conventions, as hosed up as it may be. I don't like this anymore than you do. Edit: I disagree with your point about Hizballah. Recall that they spent the first 18 years of their existence acting as an insurgency, so it's not like they don't know how the other half lives. Additionally, I think you can trace the growth of the Syrian National Defense Force to Hizballah's involvement in the war- they trained an auxiliary force in Southern Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal to act as a first line of defense in the event of a secondary incursion, so they clearly have experience in training forces apart from their own combatant corps. It wasn't until the NDF entered the scene that you saw the SAA able to make any real gains, namely because the militias were able to take care of the more mundane duties that the SAA had been tasked with at the expense of frontline combat operations. pantslesswithwolves fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
illrepute posted:For clarity: It's not cool to do bad things even if you really think you're justified in doing them. Wow, someone should share this wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The rebels can literally do no wrong, and if they did, it's because the regime in Damascus forced them to. Are you implying that the regime doesn't have any influence on people's lives in rebel territory because the President lives in Damascus? How could Iraqi's in Iraq need to defend themselves against Americans when the White House is in Washington, makes ya think. As to your main point, you're implying that kids are being forced to fight, which is of course objectively wrong if that were the case. I don't think that's accurate tho, because child soldiers outside of JaN and ISIS affiliated groups seem few and far apart, and because unlike kids in regime held territory (and allegedly jihadist controlled territory depending on who you ask), kids in moderate controlled territory have a war being waged against them through a sustained bombing campaign and sniper fire. In their case, the question is whether they defend themselves or not, not whether they should wage an ideological war. Should kids have the right to defend themselves if no one can provide them protection? Things aren't as black and white when you consider something like an offensive operation against a sniper that has been aiming down a row of homes kids live in. And when that's the type of tactics the regime (read: SAA) uses, it begs the question if fighting against the regime, especially in major cities with constant bombardment and massive death tolls, is in itself self defense. If a 15 year old wants to contribute to that, are you supposed to tell them no? It's not that easy. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Using child soldiers is obviously a Totally Very Not Cool thing, but would you condemn Hamza al-Khateeb if he'd picked up a rifle and defended himself?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Well uh, it's not the kid who would need condemning in that situation. That's kind of the whole point of child soldiers not being OK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Everyone seems to gloss over how the rebels actively recruit teenagers in refugee camps outside of Syria as well. Here is a report from human rights watch done in 2012: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/29/syria-opposition-using-children-conflict It seems to have only gotten worse with time. With some sources claiming that there are now training camps specifically set up to train/brainwash children into becoming suicide bombers. http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2014/02/12/feature-01 With opposition forces taking control and managing camps, it is extremely easy to see how young children can be forced into rebel ranks when those forces control substantial amounts of "non-military" aid which refugees need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Wow, someone should share this wisdom. It's almost like... it's something that shouldn't have to be said? How about that, McDowell? Volkerball posted:Are you implying that the regime doesn't have any influence on people's lives in rebel territory because the President lives in Damascus? How could Iraqi's in Iraq need to defend themselves against Americans when the White House is in Washington, makes ya think. I hope for the sake of both Syrian civilians and this forum that Assad doesn't miss the final deadline to hand over his remaining chemical stockpiles for destruction. illrepute fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:Everyone seems to gloss over how the rebels actively recruit teenagers in refugee camps outside of Syria as well. Here is a report from human rights watch done in 2012: the links keep referring to al-qaeda, but does this happen in the more secular militias as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Isn't al-Shorfa a CENTCOM propaganda site?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Isn't al-Shorfa a CENTCOM propaganda site? It is, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
It must say something that even the US government admits that the rebels are using child soldiers as suicide bombers. Seeing as how the USA is one of the primary backers of the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:It must say something that even the US government admits that the rebels are using child soldiers as suicide bombers. Seeing as how the USA is one of the primary backers of the rebels. This is the most transparent trolling attempt I've ever seen, and I browse the weed thread. suboptimal posted:Edit: I disagree with your point about Hizballah. Recall that they spent the first 18 years of their existence acting as an insurgency, so it's not like they don't know how the other half lives. Additionally, I think you can trace the growth of the Syrian National Defense Force to Hizballah's involvement in the war- they trained an auxiliary force in Southern Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal to act as a first line of defense in the event of a secondary incursion, so they clearly have experience in training forces apart from their own combatant corps. It wasn't until the NDF entered the scene that you saw the SAA able to make any real gains, namely because the militias were able to take care of the more mundane duties that the SAA had been tasked with at the expense of frontline combat operations. It's certainly possible, I suppose. But I'm hesitant that Hezbollah's history as an insurgent group is enough evidence by itself to suggest they know how to lead a counterinsurgency operation. It only took a decade of farting around in the Occupied Territories for the IDF to completely lose its edge (and disappear up its own rear end with effects-based operations) at fighting the kind of war that Hezbollah had been honing to a point in 2006. It is true that Hezbollah's entering the conflict turned things around for the Regime so it's clear there was a tangible impact. illrepute fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Please don't launch into a defense of child soldiers. I'm not prepared for that kind of posting. There's one good thing about Hezbollah joining the fight in my opinion, (besides the fact that a lot of them have died), and its that it's bloodied their reputation with the rest of the Muslim world. Instead of being seen as a bunch of anti-Israeli heroes, they're now nothing but common murderers and lapdogs to a dictator who's calling in every favor he has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well uh, it's not the kid who would need condemning in that situation. That's kind of the whole point of child soldiers not being OK. Not really. What if his brother wanted to fight to prevent any other children from suffering the same fate, and offered a real benefit to accomplishing that? Let's take a look at 3 scenarios. A. A little girl is shot by a sniper and lays wounded in the street. Her older brother and a man are the only ones nearby. Her older brother stands by to stay safe, and the man takes a low percentage chance to retrieve her body alone, or he does nothing. B. Same scenario, but her older brother provides suppressive fire while the man retrieves the girl, or vice versa, and they stand a better chance of getting her to a hospital before she bleeds out. C. The girl never gets shot and her brother isn't there because there are no children near this front. The entire purpose of condemning child soldiers is to prevent scenarios A and B from existing. Scenario C should always be the case. In Aleppo, scenario C doesn't exist. In that situation, the question is what offends your sensibilities more, children dying, or children fighting. So by condemning those who accepted scenario B, you're actually demanding scenario A, which was the only one that nearly ensured a child would die in the street. What if a child soldier saves more children's lives than his one? This analogy also carries over to peaceful protest, when protestors were condemned for getting violent, when nonviolence was not on the table, and the only other choice was to put themselves in the line of fire without defending themselves to appease it's western audience (who would still find ways to condemn them anyways). This stuff is really easy to condemn from behind our computer screens without taking in all the context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Vernii posted:There's one good thing about Hezbollah joining the fight in my opinion, (besides the fact that a lot of them have died), and its that it's bloodied their reputation with the rest of the Muslim world. Instead of being seen as a bunch of anti-Israeli heroes, they're now nothing but common murderers and lapdogs to a dictator who's calling in every favor he has. Right. The problem with that though is that right now by monopolizing force, Hezbollah's ruling coalition maintains a powerful (believe it or not) stabilizing force in Lebanon and is one of the few forces that actually seems capable of deterring Israeli adventurism. I'm super not a fan of them killing civilians in with a foreign internecine conflict (especially on Assad's side), but I can also see that a weakened Hezbollah could actually make things even worse for the average Lebanese.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Not really. What if his brother wanted to fight to prevent any other children from suffering the same fate, and offered a real benefit to accomplishing that? Let's take a look at 3 scenarios. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me, I could have saved you all that exposition. I meant that we don't condemn the child soldiers, we condemn the concept of child soldiers, get it? Of course the kids themselves are making the calls they have to in the situation. The people we would condemn in this case are Assad for killing his own people and the rebels for letting the kids fight. It's not tidy, but how about we not throw all our standards out the window?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:It must say something that even the US government admits that the rebels are using child soldiers as suicide bombers. Seeing as how the USA is one of the primary backers of the rebels. Can you please elaborate on how the US is the "primary backer" of the Syrian rebels? This is a line of thinking that I could never really understand but it seems to be very common with conspiracy theorists that think the US and/or NATO are funding, arming, and rebels in Syria, yet the same people making this claim also say all the rebels are part of Al Quaeda. So in effect, they are saying that the US is funding, arming, and training Al Quaeda. So can you please explain or provide evidence that the US is arming the same kinds of folks that knocked down the twin towers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This stuff is really easy to condemn from behind our computer screens without taking in all the context. Actually we should still condemn those who use child soldiers for the same reason we still go after adults in consensual cases of statutory rape. Children aren't mentally or emotionally developed enough to consider all the ramifications of their actions and can't give consent to a ton of poo poo, from signing contracts to being in a physical relationship. Why should agreeing to actively risk death while trying to kill other people be any different? And on top of that, the lack of mental development and the increased power imbalance with their adult commanding officers makes it very easy to get them to commit war crimes, which is often an explicit reason for why people try to recruit younger, more pliable soldiers. Of course we can't blame the kids for wanting to take up arms, but we can take issue with people who knowingly allow them to take part in combat and especially those who try to recruit them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Can you please elaborate on how the US is the "primary backer" of the Syrian rebels? This is a line of thinking that I could never really understand but it seems to be very common with conspiracy theorists that think the US and/or NATO are funding, arming, and rebels in Syria, yet the same people making this claim also say all the rebels are part of Al Quaeda. So in effect, they are saying that the US is funding, arming, and training Al Quaeda. So can you please explain or provide evidence that the US is arming the same kinds of folks that knocked down the twin towers? "Afghan Mujahideen, checkmate imperialistards  "There, I just summed up all the "evidence" for the "OBAMA WEST IMPERIAL PIGDOGS FUNDING AL-QAEDA  " in 20 seconds flat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
cafel posted:Of course we can't blame the kids for wanting to take up arms, but we can take issue with people who knowingly allow them to take part in combat and especially those who try to recruit them. It really depends. I don't mean that in the way that I condone of it under certain circumstances, but there's certainly a lot of "if X, then I have no loving clue what I would do in that situation," and I have a hard time condemning things that fall within that range. Something like what you brought up, which is basically indoctrination like something you'd see from an African rebel group or ISIS, makes it easily wrong. But I don't think it's always that black and white. I know I'm off to the races with hypotheticals, but look at autonomous Kurdistan in Syria. They fight primarily a defensive war against jihadists who's brutality is unrivaled. If Rojava were to fall, there's a fair chance given Kurd/al-qaeda relations that the result would look like Srebrenica. If there was only one kid left alive in that whole region, it'd probably be in his best interest to have a weapon and refuse to be taken alive. So with that in mind, would it be morally preferable to allow the city to fall before sending out the red flag and getting even children to help hold them back? Which result is worse off for the children in the area as a whole? And if that's acceptable, where do you draw the line when it no longer isn't? When I see a picture of a kid aiming through a hole in a wall with a rifle in Syria, the first thing it brings to mind is that even the most basic of social constructs has collapsed. Each one has a massive, tragic story based around the failure of humanity. The idea that children shouldn't be exposed or subject to extreme violence, that they should be given schooling and an opportunity to learn and grow into a functioning adult. These are things we take for granted, but they are nothing more than a pipe dream for the future in Syria. The regime has taken all that from them, and they are forced to adapt to what's left. I think the fallback when all of that has collapsed is to figure out the course of action which results in the least net death and suffering possible for them. That sounds like a very hard situation to be in, and I couldn't possibly figure how I would face that dilemma in any way as I am neither a father, nor do I live in a place where a human life is worth next to nothing. I would imagine as a father, a somewhat selfish part of me would say that I wasn't about to lost my Xth child to this war no matter what sort of benefit he could provide to the safety of other younger children, and I would be completely against it. But another part would say what if he's killed in 3 months in a bombing at home? Then he's died for nothing, and his impact in favor of those he wanted to protect is nonexistent, because you forced him to die cheap. As a soldier, how could you react to a situation where you can either accept a teenagers help, or further jeopardize your odds at protecting innocent people who have no other defense? As a 15 year old kid, I know I wouldn't take no for an answer when I felt I was morally in the right. It's just really hosed up to think about how far down and marginalized these people are, and it's important to remember that it's because there's a boot on their head. It seems a far cry from being comparable to the regimes crimes, and hard to blanket condemn without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to each child picking up a gun. One thing I would note is that a 15 year old in Syria is probably more of a man based on their life experiences than most people could ever hope to be. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:"Afghan Mujahideen, checkmate imperialistards I don't understand, why is that kind of posting tolerated here.  What does that accomplish, exactly? I thought it was very obvious and not even contested point that USA have chosen their side to be Not-Assad? That does not mean that they are in love with islamic terrorism. VVVV WTF? Troll? I...guess I don't understand anything then because I unironically thought that USA IS the main backer of the groups trying to topple Assad? I don't honestly understand why the point made by babychoom is particularly controversial either... Maksamakkara fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Maksamakkara posted:I don't understand, why is that kind of posting tolerated here. He is replying to a troll post by babychoom that claim the US is the primary backer of the rebels, as usual no references were given, not even the foxnews or RT quality of sources he usually cites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Maksamakkara posted:I don't understand, why is that kind of posting tolerated here. The USA is pro-not-Assad forces (because they're kinda moderate-democratic-ish but mostly because gently caress Iran, ) but kinda spent the last ~10 years shooting at and getting shot by ISIS, who mainly rocketed to power over other opposition groups because they were being bankrolled and armed by groups with less reservations about the whole thing than the US. So... yeah. Mostly the US contribution to events has been hand wringing and a tremendous amount of humanitarian aid, with some tepid attempts to steer, e.g. Croatian arms towards more palatable groups. Soooo... poo poo's loving complicated mad, but the US is much more leaning towards the 'anything but ISIS' camp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
This piece argues that the U.S. strategy at the moment is to bolster the southern rebels -- not enough to tip the balance of power in favor of one or another, but simply to put pressure on Assad during the Geneva talks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Maksamakkara posted:VVVV WTF? Troll? I...guess I don't understand anything then because I unironically thought that USA IS the main backer of the groups trying to topple Assad? I don't honestly understand why the point made by babychoom is particularly controversial either... It is a troll because he most likely knows the rebels are not a monolithic single faction and that the rebel factions that perform the vast majority of suicide attacks are not the ones being supported by the US. It seems pretty obvious that he continues to post vague assertions without reliable sources just to watch people post for two pages about why the claim he made is faulty. Its nice that more viewpoints are introduced to the thread but not when they all take the form of shitposts with no or little evidence to back them up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Also, calling the US "one of the primary backers of the rebels" is patently false, seeing as how they (and the West in general) aren't doing poo poo to aid the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
the JJ posted:Soooo... poo poo's loving complicated mad, but the US is much more leaning towards the 'anything but ISIS' camp. Add anything but Assad to that list, if Kerry has any influence. He's been saying a lot of poo poo for as long as he's been secretary of state that would end up making the US look quite foolish if they doubled back on it. When Syrian media started reporting that the US and Syria could start looking into fighting terrorism together, Kerry brought it up immediately in his first speech at Geneva and said they knew for a fact that Assad was bolstering jihadist forces in an effort to manufacture an enemy while bombing his own people, and reiterated that there would be no agreement that didn't involve him stepping down. End of story. I don't think they'll be accepting into any "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap this go around, not that they'll be doing anything substantial to influence their desired outcome. Maksamakkara posted:I thought it was very obvious and not even contested point that USA have chosen their side to be Not-Assad? That does not mean that they are in love with islamic terrorism. Choom is a bad person to try and get the opposite side of the story, because he's either just trying to portray talking points that he hasn't even fully memorized as truth, or he's trolling. What loyalists will tell you is that the initial revolution was a coup initiated by the West and Saudi Arabia in an attempt to overthrow Assad for geopolitical reasons. They assert that the protests were secondary to a foreign campaign of violent insurrection, and the people at them either were Saudi operatives, or traitors who want Assad and the government destroyed for anything other than his brutal repression, and will attempt to destroy Syria (Assad's controlled area) if they are met with anything less extreme than total war. The statement of 1,000, and the work of guys like Ahmad al-Khatib, and to a lesser extent, the SNC, are glossed over as unrepresentative of what the opposition wants, mainly by decrying all of these as a mouthpiece for a Saudi agenda (which does contain quite a bit of truth in the SNC's case). The opposition themselves are decried as bloodthirsty lung-licking savages who just want to watch the world burn, and al-Qaeda is al-Qaeda. While Assad was busy fighting off this coup, jihadists were able to sweep in and take root in the country, because the military was overtasked. So it's not consistent with the loyalists talking points to say that the US supports jihadists in Syria, who Choom has incessantly conflated with the moderate opposition. But they do imply that because of the (totally uneffective) US support for the moderate rebels, Assad can't defeat the jihadists, so indirectly, it's the West's fault that they are such a presence today. That's why his post isn't going over well, because nobody but him and the infowars watchingest loyalists imply that the US is directly funding al-Qaeda rather than conceding that there are two separate, very different military movements that counter Assad. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 13:06
|
|