Syrian Civil War

The ongoing civil war in Syria which was started on March,2011 can be candidate for one of the most brutal wars in world history. Started as peaceful demonstrations but in following days became a horrible war between Syrian Army and the uprising groups. The opposition was composed of civilians and also escaped officers from the army who did not want to involce in these violence against civilians.

Additionally, Hezbollah also sent troops to fight together with Syrian Army against oppositon. Apart from the Hezbollah, Syrian Ba'ath Government and Army also got support from Iran, Russia and China. As known the last two are the members of the UN security council and have vote to effect the decisions. On the other hand, the opposition is supported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The picture in Syria now seems like a rivalry between Alawite Shabia militias, Syrian Army and Sunni opposition groups.

As a result of this rivalry unfortunately many innocent people lose their lives and it seems if UN or NATO does not intervene many more will die until the end of this war. Russia and China continue to prevent an international intervention whereas Turkey aims to stop this civil war immediately with an international force.

 

What is "shabia"? Is that Amharic?

 

Sticking UN's nose in sectarian conflicts will only make things worse .
Any sane person understands that either Asad wins or it will be chaos .

 

I seem to remember hearing that same line many times in the past. And every time in the long term the people suffered even more.

Germany, Soviet Union, Cambodia, Iraq, China, the list goes on and on. Why do so many have problems with calling a butcher a butcher?

Maybe because he is their butcher.

 

How Assad relates with Khmer Rouge and Stalin ?
Baathists are fascists and there in no question about that but please take a look at the alternative ...

 

Like a largely peaceful nation, without huge amounts of internal civil war and oppression?

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

 

Well the people will have to eventually learn, and they can't do that when they have a butcher stepping on their necks, now can they?

- - - Updated - - -

You really can't use Jordan as an example here. The country is very much unlike Syria.

 

Yes, because they are not led by a butcher who is now in charge trying to keep his failing country together by force. A country that is controlled by a dictatorship set up on the heels of 2 separate coups.

Maybe if it was more like Jordan, things would be a lot more peaceful. But sorry, your claim here is a complete fail.

"You can't use 1937 France as an example here. The country is very much unlike Nazi Germany."

There, now see how silly that is?

"You can't use Burma as an example here. The country is very much unlike Pol Pot's Cambodia".

My example shows that nations in the Middle East do not have to be held down by brute force and terror. But I forget that a lot of people in here seem to like such brutal governments, and will forgive them for anything they do.

 

Except that Jordan is almost completly Sunni, while Syria has of portion of Alawites and other faiths, not to mention all those important Shiite shrines.

Jordan is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to regional affairs, while Syria is considered a very important asset to the resistant axis.

Of course there is more to that.

Religion, ideology, politics...etc. I'm not arguing that Syria does not have to be ruled by a butcher, but that such a situation is verry difficult to envision at the present time, due to the aforementioned factors.

Comparing Syria to Jordan with regards to political authority and peaceful existance would be like arguing why certain European policies could work in America, when they obviously can't due to a whole set of American norms that differ to those found in Europe.

 

So far Jordan has managed to keep extremists at bay , probably their adventures with Palestinian scum help them move on this path.

Inviting (*)(*)(*)(*)ty islamists in shows the quality of the civilians, they totally deserve a butcher .
How many hearts were eaten in Tunisia ?

 

I have absolutely no idea what that means. Of course, as I have said in the past, I largely ignore what most ignorant civilians think, because it means nothing.

And this is exactly why it means nothing. And it is so enlightening, hearing you refer to an entire nationality as "scum". Now I know exactly where to fit you in where it comes to humanity.

Next to what I am going to flush down the toilet shortly.

 

The crazy islamists can be taken care of after the Butcher is done with. And I don't care what they do with his heart.

 

Hey wise one please educate my ignorance : was it "an entire nationality" that tried to assassinate the Jordanian king ?
It seems that you have flushed your brain but again how you could tell the difference?

Yeah like they did in Iraq , enjoy !

 

Like I said, the Arabs will have to learn to live with each other. They won't learn when they have a guy at the top telling them that they can't!

 

Baath parties managed to keep the peace in all countries they were present , i am not in any way support Baath but look what happens when they are dismissed.

 

And we both know what happens when someone has his drugs taken away from him.

 

Yes, very peaceful.





Very peaceful those images are, you can hear how serene everything is.

 

Turkey is doing the same and they are a western type republic , oh and there is no proof that Saddam gassed anyone .

 

Denial, it's not just a river in Egypt.

Just the fact that you are trying to deny that the attack occurred at all puts you at the level of Holocaust Deniers, and looses you all credibility.

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

http://www.publications.steveplatt.net/halabja.htm

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-journalismwar/article_1049.jsp

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

No my friend, there is ample evidence that he used them against the Kurds as well as the Iranians.

Now, can you provide evidence that Turkey is doing the same thing? (Which is doubly ironic since you state clearly that Iraq did nothing, therefore by following your own logic means Turkey is doing nothing).

 

Turkey is not exterminating Kurds at a regular base ? you may have lost some episodes .
Yes Saddam did gassed Iranians under west's blessings if you remember and it was during a battle to retake an occupied city that those Kurds died.
"Collateral losses" are not either Arabic or Greek words but of course it was a nice excuse to invade poor Iraq .
You will never convince me that Baath is bad because they are doing what everyone else did or still does , there is no trail of tears in Kurdish history and they didn't vanished like the Sicels .

 

And once again, reference?

I have referenced my claims, now it is time for you to do the same. Of course, I really do not think you have any, you are simply spewing dialectic and it means nothing.

I find it amazing that every time I challenge you to prove your claims, you duck that issue and simply spew out more nonsense. Now either give us a verifiable and reputable reference, or be gone.

 

It's interesting that you put Germany on the list. After WW1 the US President Wilson insisted that the Kaiser has to be removed and Germany has to get an elected leader. So we got Hitler.
How do you know that people have "suffered even more" every time a dictator wasn't removed? More - compared to what?

 

And here we have another who comes in and answers with sophistry. Notice the refusal to answer the question, simply to throw it back with a question of their own.

And no, I was not talking about Kaiser Bill when I said that earlier.

And no, we did not get Hitler from elections. If you knew anything of history you would realize that he was never elected to anything.

But thank you for the entertaining attempt Mr. Socrates, please try again.

 

The answer is: "No". You are wrong. Better now that you got your answer?

 

How am I wrong?

For one, the President simply stated that Wilhelm II could not be a party of the peace negotiations, not that he abdicate. However, if you could prove otherwise, I would love to see it.

Secondly, the Kaiser abdicated not because of outside influence, but because he lost the war, and his military and populace were actively revolting against him.

For three, the Democratic Process gave them first President Friedrich Ebert, then finally President Paul von Hindenburg. Der Paper Hanger was never elected to anything!

So how you can say with a straight face that elections led to Hitler, I have no idea. Hitler was a forced appointment as part of a compromise government. And as von Hindenburg became more sick and senile, the power of the NAZI party grew. Until it reached the point where they effectively seized control of the government, and declared Hitler as leader with no elections at all.

But please, feel free to give us a reference that says otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_II#Abdication_and_flight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg