BGForums

1-Russia is clearly supporting syria

2-Reyhanlı bombs are found out. No one in Turkey and the world did not believe of the conspiracy of Assad's forces. It is openly found out the bombs are laid by the government.

3-Erdogan is kissing the arse of the socialist illegal Kenyan usurper Obama for any air strikes. Denied, and that Islamist bastard's attempt to drown his own internal problems via war are now dust.

4-Salafi groups such as Nusra is hated all over the world. Heads cut, eating a human heart, livers, rending Alevi people apart with saws made these horror movie reject

5-USA, (the largest supporter of Syria) favors dialogue with Iran. Looks like the Marines are overstretched. Heh. I wonder if these guys ever wouldn't brown their pants in an actual, equal resource fight.

6-BRICS countries favor Syria

7-Chemical attack allegations are foiled even by the UN.

8-I have my own friends in Syria, and they clearly have informed me that Syrian forces and policemen and army are dominating, the "FSA" reduced to a cannibalistic chaos horde rejects from Warhammer 40000.

The US won't get involved because Obama thinks we've already won the war on terror since he got OBL, pulled out of Iraq, and is withdrawing from Afganistan. It's one of the reasons he doesn't declare anything a terrorist attack, from the Boston bombings, to Bengazi, to the Ft. Hood Shootings. He's also still clingging to a reset with Russia, which is incredibly Naive since their pretty much just using him for their own gain.

I think the US, EU, Saudi and Qatar support for the rebels combined with Russia's unfortunately internationally legal support for the Syrian Regime is only making matters worse. Pouring arms into a country, which part of it's citizens want to kill eachoter is an really bad idea. It's better in my opinion to let them run out of bullets and get stalemated so they become desprate, then apply diplomatic pressure to force a peace. Also Turkey and Israel should stay out of this conflict, if they interfered, they would prove Assads point that the rebels are 'foreign backed terrorists' and tie Turkey or Israel into a long guerilla war, like in Iraq.

Hullu Hevonen wrote:I think the US, EU, Saudi and Qatar support for the rebels combined with Russia's unfortunately internationally legal support for the Syrian Regime is only making matters worse. Pouring arms into a country, which part of it's citizens want to kill eachoter is an really bad idea. It's better in my opinion to let them run out of bullets and get stalemated so they become desprate, then apply diplomatic pressure to force a peace. Also Turkey and Israel should stay out of this conflict, if they interfered, they would prove Assads point that the rebels are 'foreign backed terrorists' and tie Turkey or Israel into a long guerilla war, like in Iraq.

The only peace I can see would be Assad winning. The rebels are nowhere near united and are quite fractured, so given their victory, they would end up fighting each other. Given the way this turned out, I think the US/west bungled it up; their best bet would have been immidiate support to the rebels with indirect assets, I.E Airpower and spec ops so that a swift rebel victory would occur. Now its in our best bets for Assad to win since he would destroy any militant islamic presence in the country that would eventually threaten the US.

I don't want to take sides and I'm ashamed that my gov has taken a 'side'. Because, this is a civil war, both parties have proved them selves to be brutal, If assad wins he will end Al-Nusra et.al and most likely crackdown on the opposition, while if the ba'th party falls or steps down, you will see rebels going on to mass kill loyalists, their families, communities et al. So basically, it's too late for both sides to 'lose', because it will mean that your family might bear the repercussions. Thats why we need a 'non-aligned' led peace precess, with peacekeepers and elections of a new gov, to lead a transition and start rebuilding.

Syria is much better under a autoritarian leader that leave you alone if you follow it's more or less fair rules and keep order than under a Islamist Sharia applicators that will kill you if you don't pray 8 times every days. And if you read a little about Assad, he's FAAAR better than the dictator before him. He don't care about freedom, but he do it's job for Syria. He failed to prevent the Arab League from causing the civil war but.. Was it evitable in the first place without giving up power?

The heart eating FSA snackbar terrorist got headshotted.

The footage is lovely. Like berry jam

Let the Syrians have their war, both sides are just as bad. Bashar al Assad will never actually "win" this war. pockets of rebels will always sprout out everywhere. He only cares about Airports, major cities from Damascus and the Latakia area. Syria will never be the same. America's reluctance to take a side in this conflict early on allowed the islamists on the Rebel side to take over the rebellion. There were moderates and seculars but when things go violent and Obama and his advisors dont and didn't even try to locate the moderate groups in the beginning then its perfect for the Islamists to take over.

The American gov has always supported the Syrian opposition in one way or another, the main reason why they didn't send weapons directly in the first place, was because of the potential international and domestic **** storms they would get. Obama has tried to paint a picture of his administration that he is not like his republican predecessor, creating wars, but rather ending them. So taking a too direct approach in Syria could damage this. Although, it's not ultimately upto the president to decide what action to take in Syria, he needs the approval of Congress.

I would hope that Russia and the Gulf countries stopped delivering arms to their sides they support, let the sides fight it out. Pumping arms into a war is never going to spare lives and ease suffering on the ground of the real victims of this war.

Hullu Hevonen wrote:The American gov has always supported the Syrian opposition in one way or another, the main reason why they didn't send weapons directly in the first place, was because of the potential international and domestic **** storms they would get. Obama has tried to paint a picture of his administration that he is not like his republican predecessor, creating wars, but rather ending them. So taking a too direct approach in Syria could damage this. Although, it's not ultimately upto the president to decide what action to take in Syria, he needs the approval of Congress.

I would hope that Russia and the Gulf countries stopped delivering arms to their sides they support, let the sides fight it out. Pumping arms into a war is never going to spare lives and ease suffering on the ground of the real victims of this war.

Yes, but in this case "One way or another" as you call it wasn't a correct decision. The US didnt have to send weapons but they should have indentified the true rebels not the islamists, and helped organize them so that the revolution in Syria would have been for the good of the people. Now its the Syrian government which is a sponser of terrorism and a criminal regime supported by the Iran, the so called "resistance" hezbollah, and the Russians against an extremist dominated rebel group, supported by The gulf states, saudi arabia, Al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist organizations. yes the actual FSA and seculars are in there but they arent the "main" force anymore. Im not sure what would happen if the world stopped giving arms to both sides but that seems unlikely, actually impossible.

Assad is a voice for the minorities of Syria (and the rest of the Middle East). I hope he wins!

Thumboy wrote:Assad is a voice for the minorities of Syria (and the rest of the Middle East). I hope he wins!

What? Where did you come up with that? Assad isnt a voice for minorities. He belongs to a minority in Syria but thats it. Assad oppresses everyone and everything against him. majority or minority. He is a criminal along with all the officers in his "Great Arab Army"

I agree with lebanese, But I also think the rebels are bad. Think there should be a third party to lead an interm gov until elections where opposition and gov parties can contend(except for assad him self)

Assad is allowing religious freedom for Christians and Druze, something the radical Islamist terrorists will never do.

Thumboy wrote:Assad is allowing religious freedom for Christians and Druze, something the radical Islamist terrorists will never do.

Assad is using them as political pawns for power. Assad doesn't care about Christians or Druze. He cares about power and religious minorities is one way to help him out. I dont want to keep referring to Lebanon since im Lebanese, but just look at what Assad did in Lebanon. Its all about power to him. I agree with you however that the islamist terrorists will never allow freedom of religion and freedom of culture either. Which is why the West is now questioning what it should do in Syria. The FSA wasn't the radical Islamist force we see now in the beginning of the Syrian Civil war.