The Syrian Civil War Thread - part 2

[Facupay]

Last Page copied in the new thread.

[Mod note]This was the old thread which had to be closed because it almost has 10K replies and hence was a bulky thread that affects site performance. Since Rome 2 is gonna be released today and we will receive heavy traffic i closed the old thread a little early before it could reach 10K, please continue the discussion here.

I copied the last page here so that member could quote and keep track of it better. Apologies for any temporary inconvenience.[/Mod note]

Literally the first ing paragraph.

I still can't see where they ask for American military intervention.

The Arab League on Sunday urged international action against the Syrian government to deter what it called the “ugly crime” of using chemical weapons. It was a major step toward supporting Western military strikes but short of the explicit endorsement that the United States and some Persian Gulf allies had hoped for.

...But aside from calling for trials of the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks, the resolution — adopted at a meeting in Cairo late Sunday night — did not specify what kind of international measures might be needed or justified.

[Vanoi]

You've got any proof that Syria funded these attacks?

They don't need to fund the attacks. They just need to fund the group who does it which they do.

[PointOfViewGun]

How do you know he will? Source? Proof?

Can't own up your own ups, can't you?

What does he stand to gain by doing that? He is not a terrorist leader with extremist religious views, he is the leader of a state he's trying very hard to retain.

What did anyone who supported terror groups gain from such acts?

[Biggus Splenus]

Raging off topic?

[Carpathian Wolf]

This is not hard to understand. Assad helped arm supply and train insurgents going into Iraq and in Iraq itself. You see, Assad was looking to hurt the US. They did not care which insurgents they armed and sent over to Iraq. Syria and Iran supported insurgents heading into Iraq and then later Shittie groups fighting US forces.

Assad was looking to ensure a Shiite dominated Iraq maybe. You cannot say he just wanted to hurt the United States just cause. In any case, so what?

Some of these insurgents who were funded by Assad are in Syria fighting for the rebels to take advantage of the situation there. Assad turned his back on them, so they had no qualms about fighting Assad. These insurgents can be part of any rebel group in Syria. They could in in Al_Nusra, FSA, Syrian Islamic Front, or any other rebel group in Syria. They don't have to form their own when there us plenty to join already.

And it wasn't a maybe he was supporting Shitte groups, it was a fact. Captured insurgents themselves admitted to being trained and armed by Syria.

Highly improbable. I don't see Shiites joining extremist Sunni groups to fight Assad. That he helped Shiite groups in Iraq, I wouldn't doubt it. That they now fight against him...probably not.

That i agree on, i only brought up Hezbollah when someone said Assad did not sponsor or support terrorism.

Who said that?

I guess Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hamas aren't terrorist groups then.

According to some, no, no they are not.

Well, I asked you a question too: How did you assume that I claimed that he is currently supporting terror groups?

I didn't. I asked what global terrorism he had supported. I never claimed that you stated he was currently supporting terror groups. Further, you claimed that he will support terror groups and I asked you for proof. Reading comprehension is a must if you plan on exchanging ideas on a mature level. Do keep up.

Can't own up your own ups, can't you?

Can't own up to what? I asked you for proof for your claim. You said he will support global terror groups. So where is your proof?

[Vanoi]

Assad was looking to ensure a Shiite dominated Iraq maybe. You cannot say he just wanted to hurt the United States just cause. In any case, so what?

He was looking for both. And so what? i'm explaining how insurgents Syria funded are nowfighting against him.

Highly improbable. I don't see Shiites joining extremist Sunni groups to fight Assad. That he helped Shiite groups in Iraq, I wouldn't doubt it. That they now fight against him...probably not.

There have been Alwaite rebel groups int he conflict. Small ones, no major ones at all. And you must have missed the part where i said Syria funded more than just Shittes.

And the FSA isn't an extremist sunni group. Nor is many of the rebel groups in Syria. They could very much join those.

[PointOfViewGun]

I didn't. I asked what global terrorism he had supported. I never claimed that you stated he was currently supporting terror groups. Further, you claimed that he will support terror groups and I asked you for proof. Reading comprehension is a must if you plan on exchanging ideas on a mature level. Do keep up.

So, what was the point of asking me about his past support for terror groups while I talked about the future?

If you're going try to throw such idiotic accusations at least try to make them relevant. Try to argue in relevance of the topic rather than trying to get back at someone.

Can't own up to what? I asked you for proof for your claim. You said he will support global terror groups. So where is your proof?

It's a hypothetical. It doesn't have nor need any proof. People have been talking about the precedents for a couple of pages though.

[Carpathian Wolf]

He was looking for both. And so what? i'm explaining how insurgents Syria funded are nowfighting against him.


There have been Alwaite rebel groups int he conflict. Small ones, no major ones at all. And you must have missed the part where i said Syria funded more than just Shittes.

And the FSA isn't an extremist sunni group. Nor is many of the rebel groups in Syria. They could very much join those.

If you want to throw darts at the board saying that some Shiite guy here and there happened to end up in some resistance group, by all means. So what? What is your point?

[Carpathian Wolf]

So, what was the point of asking me about his past support for terror groups while I talked about the future?

Simply wanted to know if you knew of any. That's how conversations work. Do I need to instruct you on that as well?

If you're going try to throw such idiotic accusations at least try to make them relevant. Try to argue in relevance of the topic rather than trying to get back at someone.

There was no accusation, simply a question. What terrorist groups did Assad support? If there were none or if you did not know of any, a simple answer would have sufficed rather than this childish tantrum.

It's a hypothetical. It doesn't have nor need any proof. People have been talking about the precedents for a couple of pages though.

Oh OK...so no proof. Hypothetically we can talk all sorts of fantasies. But it did seem like a major motivation for you to get Syria bombed. I am glad we are not making important political decisions based off of your hypothetical ideas.

[PointOfViewGun]

Simply wanted to know if you knew of any. That's how conversations work. Do I need to instruct you on that as well?

A conversation does require relevancy as well. Give yourself a lesson yourself. Most likely you didn't think much when you posted it anyway and now you're just refusing to own a mistake.

There was no accusation, simply a question. What terrorist groups did Assad support? If there were none or if you did not know of any, a simple answer would have sufficed rather than this childish tantrum.

You didn't referred to my "reading comprehension" and then insinuate that I'm not keeping up? I tend to respond to someone in the order of their arguments. Try to match them correctly next time.

Oh OK...so no proof. Hypothetically we can talk all sorts of fantasies. But it did seem like a major motivation for you to get Syria bombed. I am glad we are not making important political decisions based off of your hypothetical ideas.

Of course we can. That's the idea. You got it right. Here is a cookie. *cookie*

If you have a problem with it don't bother trying to take a part in the conversation. I certainly don't have any interest in explaining you the precedent or the logic of this hypothetical case.

Enough now? Will you be able to continue posting without trying to post a useless comeback?

[Slydessertfox]

I still can't see where they ask for American military intervention.

They are asking for international action. What do you think that implies?

[Ak1980]

They are asking for international action. What do you think that implies?

Something like berlin candy drop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Halvorsen

The operation was soon noticed by the press and gained widespread attention. A wave of public support led to donations which enabled Halvorsen and his crew to drop 850 pounds of candy. By the end of the airlift, around 25 plane crews had dropped 23 tons of chocolate, chewing gum, and other candies over various places in Berlin. The Confectioners Association of America donated large amounts to the effort, and American school children cooperated in attaching the candies to parachutes.

[Slydessertfox]

"I'm Barrack Obama, and I support the notion that every man, woman, and child in Syria deserves some candy."

[Ishan]

[Mod note]This was the old thread which had to be closed because it almost has 10K replies and hence was a bulky thread that affects site performance. Since Rome 2 is gonna be released today and we will receive heavy traffic i closed the old thread a little early before it could reach 10K, please continue the discussion here.

I copied the last page here so that member could quote and keep track of it better. Apologies for any temporary inconvenience.[/Mod note]

[Maiar93]

Didn't realize that was such a huge thread. Must've been the culprit behind all that lag.

[thelionheart]

I was wondering why has twc been so slow lately. I was planning to offer them money to migrate to a better server


Now about Syria,

The terms Sunni and Shiite is not that useful. What that basically describe is your historical view on who should have succeeded Mohammad. Instead I like to use mainstream Islam vs other cults such as wahabis, alawites and the "followers of the wali faqih". Why so? well because today most Muslims would be considered as infidels worthy of being killed according to both sects. It's because Nadim Koteich, a Lebanese Shiite is the most outspoken defender of the Syrian revolution, and because Ahmad Ghareeb, a Sunni clergyman (despite the fact that Sunnis don't have clergy) placed two cars at the doors of two mosques during the friday mass in tripoly killing 70 people and wounding over 600 (one in every thousand inhabitant of Tripoli his own city!). He was a supporter of the wali al faqigh in Iran. It literally is a war between the good and the bad. The Wahhabis and "Faqihies" do hate one another, but that doesn't mean that we will allow them to define our world. If the united states support us, sooner or later democracy and human rights will find their way there, in that sad region on earth. The borders of the new and true middle eastern states are almost ready. The Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, the Shiite Arabs, the christian Arabs and the Jews all have undeclared states now. If these states are recognized internationally war would end in the middle east.

[Carpathian Wolf]

A conversation does require relevancy as well.

Asking a question concerning Assad's role with terrorism is relevant if one's thinking can be a bit less narrow and a bit more developed.

Give yourself a lesson yourself.

Most likely you didn't think much when you posted it anyway and now you're just refusing to own a mistake.

There is no mistake. I asked if you knew if Assad had supported any terrorists. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

You didn't referred to my "reading comprehension" and then insinuate that I'm not keeping up? I tend to respond to someone in the order of their arguments. Try to match them correctly next time.

I said reading comprehension helps, obviously. And you did not seem to be keeping up with the question. Try to, please.

Of course we can. That's the idea. You got it right. Here is a cookie. *cookie*

If you have a problem with it don't bother trying to take a part in the conversation. I certainly don't have any interest in explaining you the precedent or the logic of this hypothetical case.

Enough now? Will you be able to continue posting without trying to post a useless comeback?

You are the one that claimed Assad would support global terrorism if he is allowed to rule, and when you got asked for proof you back peddled saying it was hypothetical. Maybe you shouldn't make such thoughtless claims. Other wise maybe I say that if Assad wins the war, rainbows will shoot out of his butt and create world peace and everyone else can say some non sense like you did and then claim "oh it was hypothetical." Nice try.

[YukonTrooper]

[PointOfViewGun]

Asking a question concerning Assad's role with terrorism is relevant if one's thinking can be a bit less narrow and a bit more developed.

There is no mistake. I asked if you knew if Assad had supported any terrorists. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.
I said reading comprehension helps, obviously. And you did not seem to be keeping up with the question. Try to, please.
You are the one that claimed Assad would support global terrorism if he is allowed to rule, and when you got asked for proof you back peddled saying it was hypothetical. Maybe you shouldn't make such thoughtless claims. Other wise maybe I say that if Assad wins the war, rainbows will shoot out of his butt and create world peace and everyone else can say some non sense like you did and then claim "oh it was hypothetical." Nice try.

Oh well, let me know when you're interested in discussing the real issue instead of retarded comebacks and misleading arguments.

[magpie]

Shame the old thread was binned.
Still one can understand the motive.

I see the French executive are doing their best to drum up support for a Syrian attack.
Of course they stated they will not attack Syria without support.
I.E.. U.S. money and military. When it comes to spending a centime the French are very careful.
President Assad has warned the French that there will be reprisals if they attack his country and citizens.
The German Secret Service are backing their U.S. allies with similar chemical attack accusations.
Although Merkel's party are playing down getting involved in the Syrian adventure. She wants a very quite humdrum election.
People are continuing to leave Syria in droves from all parts the majority are women and children?
Numbers leaving have increased with the threat of western airstrikes.
Congress seems to be fairly split over the Syrian issue. The main augment for attacking seems to be maintaing the executive,s credibility and prestige.