Syria - Time for Action

Is this a civil war or a pawn in a game of chess between the West and Russia?

It's a very dangerous game, much more serious than just a civil war.

What they going to do if the West take control of the area and come in heavy? Launch nukes or bomb Western nations? They won't be any Russia left if they did anything silly.

It's astonishing what they are getting away with.

So declare War On Russia , which puts us on the same side as Islamic State

I don't think you have read too much about this war if you are proposing this

My friends enemy is my enemy but my enemy is also my friend.

We supply guns to people so they can use them against us, which make us and them buy more guns!

Messed up world indeed.

It's all just about securing energy corridors.

Qatar propose an oil pipeine to run through Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Syria and Turkey in to Europe giving a secure pipeleine from Western allies in the Middle East which Russia has no influence over. In 2009 Syria refuses and decides that it would prefer to have a pipeline which goes through Iran, Syria and Iraq in to Europe and implies that i doesn't want harm Russian intersts in the region.

Surpise, surprise a couple of years later Syria breaks in to civil war and their is a coalition formed between Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the U.S.A, European nations with the sole purpose of ousting the current regime in Syria regardless of the consequences.

We get air control of the region, we sort out Assad and IS. Russians are just getting in the way and committing war crimes in the process.

Russia want Assad to stay in control and that isn't going to be allowed going to happen so lets sort it now before the death toll hits a million.

Russia want Assad to stay in control and that isn't going to be allowed going to happen so lets sort it now before the death toll hits a million.

Yes we can't have that since the purpose of intervening in the first place was regime change.

I do not want to see WWIII, we must not be drawn into war with Russia.

This whole episode was started by US planes attacking and killing Syrian troops....

I would suggest the West sits down with Putin and try to work out a solution that guarantees Russia's interests in the region

will be protected, and try to bypass Assad.

If we can get that, perhaps some division of Syria can be arranged.

We believe too much in war it is not doing any good.

just my opinion

It is hell on earth in Aleppo now, it has been hell on earth in Syria for a number of years.

Time for action...ok, you get rid of Assad.Then what do you think will happen?Islamists will take over.Christians and Alawites will likely be slaughtered.Syria will become an Islamic Republic.Is that better?

As well as the above (it's all about who controls the oil) Russia are happy to keep on displacing thousands of Syrians as it's causing stress on America's friends in Western Europe, leading to more divisive politics that are de-stabilising established roots of power and leading to extremism becoming more mainstream.
As long as Germany etc are keeping their focus inside their own borders they'll care much less if Russia decides to annex Belarus.

Russia don't have the same problem America does regarding the electorate back home.
They wouldn't have a proper head to head with them because the lengths they'd have to go to would finish their lot as self professed head honcho and world owner.
So instead they subscribe to regime change by proxy, but this one hit a snag because it didn't fold like the others.
What did they do?
Played a few more hands hoping they could still get what they wanted and in turn lengthened the coup attempt.
Now they decide enough is enough, but what are they going to do?
Keep storming out of UN meetings and cat calling?

people relying on the usa to sort this mess out must have skipped recent history.

all they have succeeded in doing is arming rebel groups who then come back to attack the west.

Its a proxy war between Russia and the US. The atrocities on the US side are just as bad.....bombing hospitals etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2GUfBppapA Assad is painted as a raving blood thristy monster by western media.
Yet, look at any of his many interviews.
He comes across as very rational, eloquent and intelligent man.He is no saint thats for sure, but compared to the alternative...

russian war crimes - makes me weep - any idea what the US has been up to and for how long???

Meanwhile Saudi war crimes in Yemen, one of the worlds poorest countries, on the brink of starvation.Go ignored by the media.
Saudis are targeting Schools, hospitals whatever they don't care.Yet, no critisim.
Its so obvious that we are being fed a steady stream of anti Assad propaganda.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows

Saudi are britains biggest purchaser of killing machines

I am all for sorting it out.  Now, which group of extremist Islamists do you want to replace assad.

Assads an was an eye Doctor previously. Clearly a better candidate for leading a middle east country in the current climate than some religious nutcase.

It is absolutely disgusting how people conveniently forget the war crimes commited by Europe and US in the last 15 years and blame Assad and Russia for all the problems! No wonder you get brainwashed so easily. Learn to use your own brains. See the world instead of the news.

The news that is controlled by small editorial groups who have agendas to follow.

Here are some facts of everyday life before we removed the last "brutal" dictator Gaddafi.
Free electricity, free education, free health care, no interést on loans, newlyweds given enough money to buy an apartment, mothers who had given birth to a child given $5,000 to help support them.

What a monster Gaddafi was, right?

BTW all from pro war CNN no less.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508

Now, the previously most prosperous country in Africa is in ruins.Two governments and a country spilt in three parts.

Gaddafi was brought in from the cold by blair (remember the photoshoots in the tents with the sopwith camels?) so they could bill him for £95billion for supporting the IRA when he refused Britain cancelled his christmas cards.
America got p1ssed with him because he wanted to change the currency that oil was to be traded in from dollars.

I imagine there is a lot of regret In Libya.Even from the ex rebels it appears... http://www.sundaymail.co.zw/libyans-regret-miss-life-under-gaddafi/

USA BOMBING WORKS you know it makes sense.

will hilary continue taking christianity to the unwashed.
It does wonders for your arms industry shares.

I fear for Syria if she wins.She is still convinced Libya went just fine.

I suppose from her and her cronies perspective it did work as Planned.Thats the scary part

I agree with the last few posts

I think the West and particularly America has done great harm to the Middle East.
The never ending killing is still going on in Syria, we have completely destabilised the whole region.

Why? They were no threat to us. The Arabs are not like us, they were happy as they were.
I know why it was done and it was evil.

America has to learn respect for other countries, not everybody wants to be like them.

Because Europe unwisely backed America in this, we are paying a price, terrorism and the risk of terrorism,
and a breakdown of relations with Muslims in our own societies, we had no trouble with them before.

Have the conspitacy theorists on this thread ever sought professional help?

Another problem Europe is suffering from, is an influx of Muslim refugees from the Middle East, because of the war in Syria.

I would say this is not popular...another reason why we should left the Middle East alone.

Much better if Muslims stayed in the Middle East. They can as Muslim as they want there.

Was it America who destabilised the area? Here's me thinking it was the Arab Spring....I must watch more 9/11 conspiracy videos to brush up on my knowledge.

Who was behind Arab Spring????

The Arab people, they don't want oppressive regimes like Assad.

The Arab people, they don't want oppressive regimes like Assad.

Weird how the the Arabs in Saudia Arabia, U.A.E, Qatar and Bahrain seem happy with oppressive regimes or when they don't seem to be happy they don't get CIA backing and arms support and instead foreign troops go in to crush any uprising without any a peep from the Western countries.

The Shias don't mind Assad's oppressive regime

It is the Sunnis who object.

The problem with Syria is that it was always slightly unbalanced, because it is ruled by a minority of Shias.

I don't like Assad myself, I think he is brutal, and he over reacted during Arab Spring. The Sunnis then used this to decide on civil war,
thinking the West would back them, which we may have done. But they overlooked one thing, Putin said he would support Assad because
it is in Russia's interest.

There is a need for caution here because the West and Russia must not be drawn into fighting each other. Because of Nuclear weapons.

At the moment Syria has the worst of all worlds, Assad cannot lose because the Russians hold him up, The rebels cannot lose because
the West holds them up, and we also have ISIS involved?

I don't think we can negotiate with ISIS, but I think the rebels and Assad need to negotiate somehow?
I don't have the answer. I am not paid to have the answer.

Just my own opinion.

personally think we are entering a period of call my bluff between usa and Russia that could last a lifetime, decade at the least. another cold war?

Agree.

Think we are likely to see more and more tension in the South China Sea between China and USA in the near future as well which will no doubt turn in to similar proxy wars/regime change/humanitarian interventions as they compete for influence in the area.

The americans and the europeans have milked the middle east as much as they wanted. They now have to intervene against China at some point and the South China Sea is as good an excuse as it can get. The americans lifted the weapons ban on Vietnam a few months ago and anyone could see why. Soon the neighboring countries will want to defend themselves and guess who will be ready to provide the weapons? The americans.

Plus the threat of Pakistan's strength is there. The army has nearly defeated the fighters in the afghan border(sponsored by India), the political party run through a british-pakistani terrorist is nearly finished and you can see the results with the recent threats of war from India. The americans have moved on from the middle east and the next stop for them is South East Asia. We in Europe will clean up their mess in the middle east like the good slaves we have been since half a century. We in Germany have recently sent 600 more soldiers to Syria. I am not aware if the brits have enough dumb people left to send over or the folks have become smarter. Im pretty sure their will always be people willing to defend their country by invading countries thousands of miles away!

Sep 26, 2016 -- 7:18PM, ebulGery wrote:

I agree with the last few postsI think the West and particularly America has done great harm to the Middle East.The never ending killing is still going on in Syria, we have completely destabilised the whole region.Why? They were no threat to us. The Arabs are not like us, they were happy as they were.I know why it was done and it was evil.America has to learn respect for other countries, not everybody wants to be like them.Because Europe unwisely backed America in this, we are paying a price, terrorism and the risk of terrorism,and a breakdown of relations with Muslims in our own societies, we had no trouble with them before.

I have never understood the brainless idiots who whine about the muslims in Europe. If we can send our military to their countries surely they have the right to send unarmed men to ours? America dropped 23000+ bombs on muslim countries last year. Yet a man who kills some americans in america is a terrorist. Have never understood the logic.

exactly.

the west's actions have caused blood on our own doorstep.

no one will be held accountable.

The West has to bear a large chunk of responsibility for Syria,deliberately destabilising Assad to please the Saudis,why should anyone be suprised that Russia has backed Assad ?

I suppose this is the west's fault

A Syrian “refugee” is in court after molesting a woman and attacking a police officer at this year’s Notting Hill Carnival — crimes committed only shortly after arriving in the United Kingdom.
Westminster Magistrate’s court heard how 23-year-old Mohammed Al-Youssfi — a freshly arrived immigrant claiming to be a refugee — committed an alleged sex assault against a reveller at the annual carnival, and headbutted the arresting officer.

The prosecutor told the court a group of three women — including one carrying a baby — were stalked by the Syrian male as they walked away from the carnival. When they stood aside to let him pass them by on the street, he grabbed one of the women.

How dare these women parade around uncovered. They were asking for it.

I am not blaming the 'west' for individual acts of crimes b-b but we have caused a lot of the instability by trying to destabilise Assad and we do have to draw that distinction.

I fully agree Treetop.

If we do not want Syrian refugees here, then we need peace in Syria, somehow?????????

One must realise that these Syrians have never seen a woman in their lives. except she is fully clothed in black.
When they see our women, how they dress, they think they are prostitutes, they are not of course.

It is why it would be so much better if people kept to their own countries, where they know the rules.

It is the West's interference in the Middle East which has caused all this, we should have left people like Saddam, Gadhafi and Assad
in place.

just my own opinion.

I am not justifying what this Syrian did.....he was in the wrong, in our society he must abide by our rules

It is just when people are brought up in different societies with different values it can cause problems.

Our sense of right and wrong, our values, have all been programmed in each of us since birth.

If it is different one sees the problem

There is nothing difficult in this. We do not want to be involved in Syria. Leave it to themselves,
they hate the west in any event.
Would they attack and try to destroy us given the chance..yes imo.

Should anyone from the middle east be allowed into Europe, the answer is obvious, no. there are many muslim countries that can take every refugee as is necessary.

but it is democracy.

we voted them in so they can do what they want....

oh and thats low by right wing nutters comparing a syrian at the notting hill carnival...when you consider how many have been killed in the conflict.

not a surprise though

^ can`t make any sense out of that.

we voted the government in.
its their choice if they want to get involved.

as we voted for them it falls under democracy.

hope this makes sense

i was giving the solution as i saw it, not how our governments see it and not as you see it.
now how many agree or disagree, no idea. Merkel did not ask anyone else when she allowed millions into Europe.
i think that was a mistake, that is what i was saying, just my opinion.
hope that makes sense.

Im starting to wonder if americ'a bombing of the syrian military was intentional.
The rebels are joining forces, that means the more moderate ones that have been armed by the west joining the ones that make the west uncomfortable and have no control over.

The agreement between russia and america was to go after the ones the west dont like, but the CIA probably got wind of what they were intending to do and so broke the ceasefire by attacking syrian forces and then made a big deal about russia retaliating.

I cant see a logical way out of this other than to say anyone....thats anyone irrespective of who they are or what they believe they are fighting for, is wrong to fire on anyone else.
It could be conceivable that all parties are therefore wrong and should be admonished and publicly shamed.

...but thats no good either is it because that will bolster the rebel alliance (like star wars ffs)
Because the rebels wont stop now

Im starting to wonder if americ'a bombing of the syrian military was intentional

May have or have not been, they did stop when Russia told them they were Asssad's soldiers.

But killing soldiers isn't a war crime. Bombing aid trucks and using bunker bombs on civilian targets is, not not mention bringing down passenger planes in Ukraine.

Its not a war crime but it was a supposed ceasefire.
Im just thinking they could have done it to encourage russia to retaliate and bring an end to the ceasefire.
Afterall they were supposedly timing the ceasefire and a successful one was going to mean and agreement in combined attacks.
But if the CIA had wind that the rebels were going to be all one then america couldnt have joined russia in bombing the rebels they support.