BGForums

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19830928

You should tell the world leaders your Mideast Scenario is NOT based on a real life scenario.

I have a few pals on the border and their families are near death catatonic fear now.

The Free Syrian Army, a band of terrorist mercenaries, fed by the retarded West and Turkish leadership, must have staged the shellings. I wont believe Beshar Asad is dumb enough to authorize that.

The Khan wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19830928

You should tell the world leaders your Mideast Scenario is NOT based on a real life scenario.

I have a few pals on the border and their families are near death catatonic fear now.

The Free Syrian Army, a band of terrorist mercenaries, fed by the retarded West and Turkish leadership, must have staged the shellings. I wont believe Beshar Asad is dumb enough to authorize that.

It is provocation of NATO to start full scale war....

My guess would be Irainian involvement, not Assad.

Not connected with the shelling but is with Syria.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... syria&Cr1=

Convoy consisting of some 25 vehicles, transporting Austrian and Croatian members of UNDOF (Golan Hights) scheduled to rotate out of their mission, was attacked on the way to Damascus Airport. 4 Austrian soldiers were injured (2 gunshot wounds, 2 shrapnel wounds) but none are in a life threatening condition. It appears that the convoy was not the direct target of the rebel attack.

Lol.. Syria have much more reason to declare war on Turkey than them. As I know financing terrorist activities is in violation of many international laws.

Niko465 wrote:Lol.. Syria have much more reason to declare war on Turkey than them. As I know financing terrorist activities is in violation of many international laws.

Syria supported Hamas and the PLO, you know what they say, paybacks a ...

Col_Travis wrote:

Niko465 wrote:Lol.. Syria have much more reason to declare war on Turkey than them. As I know financing terrorist activities is in violation of many international laws.

Syria supported Hamas and the PLO, you know what they say, paybacks a ...

These are not terrorist oraganisations. Syrian rebels count hundred of members of the Iraki branch of Al-Caida.

Hamas and PLO are considered by most to be terrorist organizations.

Does anyone remember this, it's an international agreement made into Iternational Law in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference ending WWI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2% ... _Agreement

We know the Dowager Empress of the US dosen't, she can't even name the longest war the US has been in' let alone the rest of the WORLD!!!

Balthagor wrote:Hamas and PLO are considered by most to be terrorist organizations.

Russia, Norway, UK, Brazil, India and China claims they are not.

After searching a bit more, I found out that Syrian, Chechnyan and Lybian rebels are considered as victims by NATO and terrorist by SCO. Reverse for the Hamas and PLO. And discovered that they were all more or less terrorist organisations.

Niko465 wrote:After searching a bit more, I found out that Syrian, Chechnyan and Lybian rebels are considered as victims by NATO and terrorist by SCO. Reverse for the Hamas and PLO. And discovered that they were all more or less terrorist organisations.

One quote from wiki that I think explains a lot:

The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

Or simply put, if you are participating in any armed conflict, you will most likely be considered a terrorist (war criminal, villain, etc.) by the opposing side.
And though it my appear hypocrite, that's quite normal behavior as it is in human nature to believe that we are all fighting on a side of "good" or "for the right cause" against the "evil" enemy. I'm sure there are not many living souls on this planet fighting in an armed conflict thinking "I'm the "bad guy" and my whole purpose here is to "fight for the wrong cause"(not taking in account psychopaths that would be psychopaths even without armed conflict present).

EDIT: and that is why propaganda was and still is very important in all armed conflicts. The sooner you convince your enemy soldiers that they are figting on a "wrong side" or "for a bad cause", the sooner you may expect them to loose zeal and to stop fighting for their current "ruler". I'm not even going to start here about world oppinion and support that can be gained or lost by propaganda...

number47 wrote:

Niko465 wrote:After searching a bit more, I found out that Syrian, Chechnyan and Lybian rebels are considered as victims by NATO and terrorist by SCO. Reverse for the Hamas and PLO. And discovered that they were all more or less terrorist organisations.

One quote from wiki that I think explains a lot:

The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

Or simply put, if you are participating in any armed conflict, you will most likely be considered a terrorist (war criminal, villain, etc.) by the opposing side.
And though it my appear hypocrite, that's quite normal behavior as it is in human nature to believe that we are all fighting on a side of "good" or "for the right cause" against the "evil" enemy. I'm sure there are not many living souls on this planet fighting in an armed conflict thinking "I'm the "bad guy" and my whole purpose here is to "fight for the wrong cause"(not taking in account psychopaths that would be psychopaths even without armed conflict present).

EDIT: and that is why propaganda was and still is very important in all armed conflicts. The sooner you convince your enemy soldiers that they are figting on a "wrong side" or "for a bad cause", the sooner you may expect them to loose zeal and to stop fighting for their current "ruler". I'm not even going to start here about world oppinion and support that can be gained or lost by propaganda...

Exactly. I expected to look like a crazy paranoiac terrorist to claim that USA can make propaganda, so I stoped at ''They're all +/- terrorists''.

But the facts are here. Al-Caida is recognised as terrorist by everyone, and Al-Caida is fighting along side with Syrian rebels. Assad is not a despotic dictator. Actually he is the only chance for Syrian civillians to keep a internet connection without being watched by a nationalist-islamist governement.

Niko465 wrote:...so I stoped at ''They're all +/- terrorists''.

Niko465 wrote:... Assad is not a despotic dictator.

You contradict yourself. You also give your opinion without any supporting evidence, a very weak case.

Hi Balthagor,

I have to disagree with your statement of no support evidence. He might have not included it, but the fact is that all religions lived peacefully in Syria Christians, Jews, Muslims albeit under a dictator.

However Assad being a dictator does not justify replacing him with extremist Islamic terrorists that execute anyone other than their religion, just because Assad supports Iran.

We saw how well this has worked in any case for Libya. And in Egypt where they toppled Mumbarack same problems as well, as the radicals are gaining ground.

You're getting closer to what I'm asking for but I'd say that you need to find a document/article somewhere written by someone with good credentials that is offering an opinion matching yours. That is what I would consider "supporting evidence". Think citation.